Talk:Holodomor/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Suggested Introduction

The Soviet Union was notorious for commiting repressions against people, based on their ethnicity: Chechens, Ingushians, Kalmucks, Crimean Tatars, and some others were forcefully deported en masse from their homelands - with almost half of these ethnic groups' members having been perished in the process. According to Joseph Stalin's close confidant, collaborator, and assistant N. Khrushchev, Stalin had also singled out Ukrainians as victims of such ethnic cleansings. Thus, in his famous XX party speach, Khrushchev said the following:

"Thus, already at the end of 1943, when there occurred a permanent breakthrough at the fronts of the Great Patriotic War benefiting the Soviet Union, a decision was taken and executed concerning the deportation of all the Karachai from the lands on which they lived.

In the same period, at the end of December 1943, the same lot befell the whole population of the Autonomous Kalmyk Republic. In March 1944, all the Chechen and Ingush peoples were deported and the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Republic was liquidated. In April 1944, all Balkars were deported to faraway places from the territory of the Kabardino-Balkar Autonomous Republic and the Republic itself was renamed the Autonomous Kabardian Republic.

The Ukrainians avoided meeting this fate only because there were too many of them and there was no place to which to deport them. Otherwise, he would have deported them also".

Having so targeted the Ukrainians and realizing the technical impossibility of deporting them en masse (even though the deportations continued from the 1920s to 1950s at full pace), the Soviet leadership took a decision to accelerate the process of de-Ukrainization of Ukraine by organizing a mass starvation of Ukrainian population and bringing millions of ethnic Russians and other Russian-speaking groups in their place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vox Veritatae (talk • contribs) 20:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"The total number of casualties is incorrectly stated. This article’s two sources #6 and #7 indicate that 2.6 million people died. The other article “Joseph Stalin” cites the same two sources (this time they are #52 and #53 in the Notes/Work Cited section). However, in the second case, the total number of casualties is 2.2 million people. Did the same author write these two articles? Analyzing their style, I find these works remarkably similar. Assuming it is true, then the author (s) is misleading his/her readers. Moreover, following the links, I was unable to find any data to support these specific statistics used in claims of both articles (I read both English and French). Is this misrepresentation intentional? Using Wikipedia, it is very important to check your sources!"

Please don't shout, it's rude (I edited the original comment with too large font and strange layout) And where's your signature? --Sorent (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This sounds good, but it needs references. Bandurist (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

There are numerous publications of the famous Khrushchev's speech - all of them include this passage. Ethic cleansings perpetrated in Soviet Union are also well established facts - references can be easily found. (Unfortunately, I do not have time for this myself).

Khrushchev is describing deportations undertaken in the context of WWII. That has no relevance for deciding what occurred in 1932-3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.43 (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course Khrushchev did not mention the Holodomor among the list of Stalin's crimes, as he, Khrushchev was deeply implicated himself. The Khrushchev's speech is absolutely necessary and directly relevant to the topic, as it is a valuable testimony to the fact that various people of the USSR were indeed targeted just because of their ethnicity and not just because of their class origin, as is often alleged. Thus, even if some ethnic cleansings against other groups happened 9 years later, they still are a valid testimony of ethnicity-based phobias of Soviet leadership.

What kind of math is this???

"The total population shortfall from the expected value between 1926 and 1939 estimated by Vallin amounted to 4.566 million. Of this number, 1.057 million is attributed to birth deficit, 930,000 to forced out-migration, and 2.582 million to excess mortality and voluntary out-migration. With the latter assumed to be negligible this estimate gives the number of deaths as the result of the 1933 famine about 2.2 million."

If they are taking into account the "out-migration" they should take into account the "in-migration" too! Millions of ethnic Russians have replaced the dead and deported, thus making the total population loss look smaller! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vox Veritatae (talk • contribs) 20:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't mean to say that soviet authorities - and statistics - are suspect ???Horlo (talk) 08:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh - Wait Horlo (talk) 08:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The broad trend in the Soviet economy during these years was for people to move from rural to urban locations as industry was established. The cases of some Russians moving into Urainia are not such as to counteract this as a general demographic trend.

Please read attentively - I am not challenging the figures provided by Vallin. I am saying that he cites population out-migration, which can explain some of the general population decreases, but does not mention the great numbers of people arriving from other parts of the USSR. This influx of people makes the total population decrease to appear smaller. This innacuracy on Vallin's part makes the number of people who died from hunger look much smaller. And I do not get what is your point in mentioning urbanization. Yes, Russians moved mostly to cities (as well as some of those rural Ukrainians, who managed to flee their starving villages for cities - very often that was done illegally, as they had no internal passports and "propiska" (registration)). Maybe, the point of your comment is that the resettlement of Russians into Ukraine was not done to change the ethnic compositions, but just as a "natural process of urbanization"? This is counterintuitive - why starve people locally and at the same time bring them from thousands of kilometers away? But even if there was some economic rationale for this (rare specialists, fluent speakers of the dominant language etc), it does NOT exclude other goals behind this. History is full of examples when one action was driven by several objectives. Otherwise, you can also tell that removal of Jews from Warsaw after the Warsaw Ghetto Rising was "not such as to counteract this as a general demographic trend", when people are leaving impoverished cities for safer life in the countryside. Or that German colonisation attempts in Ukraine during World war two were also "not such as to counteract this as a general demographic trend", when people emigrate from "Old Europe" in search of better life abroad. (After all Germans historically always emigrated to various countries - America, Russia etc, so Hitler's idea to settle them in Ukraine was "in general trend" and, thus, not imperialistic???)

Elimination of Ukrainian cultural leaders section

This major section deletion cannot be justified in an edit summary-use talk Bobanni (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll pipe in. In my opinion this info needs to be in the article, as it is used by some historians as evidence that the Holodomor was an anti-Ukrainian act. However, it seems to me that the info should be included in the "Was the Holodomor genocide?" section rather than in its own section.Faustian (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree Bandurist (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree too. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Robert Service in the Lead

His figure of 14 million people killed, taken from a media report, is so far beyond all the other figures that it doesn't seem to belong in the article's lead, does it?Faustian (talk) 05:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the list of Robert Service's publications [1], his speciality is the Soviet leadership, not demography or famines. Therefore, the most probably, he didn't do his own research to obtain this number, but took it from some article written by Rosenfelde, Conquest, Maksudov etc. Therefore, the statement in the lead should be modified like that: "According to Russian Agency Novosti, British professor Robert Service mentioned that about 14 million... etc". To verify if that is correct, one has to look through all Service's books (that, obviously, is unacceptable). I think this sentence should be removed.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

How can we be so sure that he is wrong. Looks like OR on the part of Wikipedia editors. Robert Service is respected historian. To remove this it must demostrated that Russian Agency Novosti is not a reliable source then all references (including this one)must be deleted. Bobanni (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this sentence per an email from Service to WP:OTRS, in which he claims he never made such a statement and that confirms the above - that he is not an expert on this subject. Unless there are other reliable sources that verify that this is really his opinion, it should not be reinstated. Mr.Z-man 21:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I've added this sentence per an email from Service to OSS, in which he claims he made such a statement. There are many historians who show - not "have claimed"!! - that at least 10 million people were starved to death. If Dr. Service is not a specialist then there are many who are - by the way, is Valin a specialist on Ukrainian demographics?Horlo (talk) 08:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

If OTRS has an Email from Service that he was misunderstood then we cannot use his words as as a reliable source suitable for the lead. Moreover his words are cited by the Russian prograsm Novosti that is known not to be 100% reliable and can somehow abuse the citation. If Service thinks that using his name in this context harms his reputation then the cite should be removed per WP:BLP Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

To my opinion, if Horlo can provide a reference to the Service's scholarly article or book where this statement has been made, this number can be introduced along with others. I agree with Alex Bakharev that the present reference is not acceptable. In addition, I do not understand why a special emphasis has been done on the alleged Servise's data in contrast to the numbers provided by other scholars.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The two mentions of Edmonton appear to be bragging

I do not feel that that is appropriate for a piece of this gravity. 160.39.37.159 (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Traditional view and recent view

The suggestion that there is a traditional view and a more recent view could be a perception stemming from soviet denial and censorship. The both views were advanced In the 30s. Bobanni (talk) 03:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Robert Service (redux, apparently)

I've reinserted the reference in the lead with more general wording, as there are more reliable references for higher estimates which can be added. As for Service, that Novosti, the Russian state press service, reported the story is obvious and incontrovertible evidence that the Russian government takes such discussions of far higher estimates seriously. No editor here is a censor stating "NO" to reputably sourced information whether we personally like it or not or personally believe it or not.
   Unfortunately, editors had even deleted mention of the Encyclopedia Britannica number in the lead (earlier) because they didn't like it, so I am extremely skeptical of editors arguing against any mention of existence of higher numbers in the lead. PetersV       TALK 13:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think RIA-Novosti deserves mentioning (although formally it fits WP reliable sourse criteria), for three reasons: (i) There is no evidence that the article reflects the Russian official point of view; (ii) if scholars' and journalists' (Western or Russian, no matter) point of view contradict each other I prefer to trust to scholars; (iii) some facts suggest that Servise is not a specialist in famines and he didn't do the statement about the numbers of Holodomor victims. I oppose EB or Service numbers not because I don't like them (it is impossible to like any number of victims), but because the sources look questionable. You can find my rationale above. Once again, if the alleged Service's numbers are really present in some of his books and they are the result of his own research it is possible to provide the direct reference on the corresponding book or article. If he took it somewhere else (that seems to be the most probable version), then the reference also must be present in his books. I will have absolutely no objections to include this number if someone find that reference. As regards to EB, I have demonstrated that the article contains at least three factual errors (one of them is the wrong number). Therefore, it is highly probable that the statement on the number of victims (that can be understood it two ways, BTW) is also incorrect. However, since the article contains no references, it is impossible to check it.
As regards to you scepticism, let me remind you that sources on Holodomor victims can be subdivided otno two categories: scholars' articles give the numbers of few millions and journalist's articles provide much higher numbers. Therefore I am very sceptical about the enthusiasm of some editors who are ready to include every conditionally verifiable source provided that it gives high number of Holodomor victims. If you are convinced that Holodomor victim's numbers are high, give a reference on scholarly article or at least try to refute my arguments. Otherwise, such a "work with sources" is just a potboiler.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

PS. I've read the RIAN article again (according to the reference provided by you [2]) and I found no mentioning of 14 million victims or Robert Service. I remember I saw such a statemets there before. Probably, it has been removed post factum (possibly per the letter from Robert Service himself).
I think it may serve as an additional argument for not trusting news web sites (in contrast to scholarly articles).
I think we should remove this reference from the article.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

PPS. I googled the phrase "British historian Robert Service has suggested that some 14 million people lost their lives" and I found another RIAN article [3] (cashed). However, this statement appeared to be removed from this article too. UNIAN article [4] still contains that statements. All three articles are very similar, however, the paragraph of interest looks as follows:

• "The famine was caused by forced collectivization. Estimates as to the amount of victims in Ukraine vary greatly, with some 2 million being the lower end of the scale." (First ref)
• "The famine was caused by forced collectivization. Estimates as to the amount of victims in Ukraine vary greatly, with some 2 million being the lower end of the scale." (Second ref)
• "The famine was caused by forced collectivization. Estimates as to the amount of victims in Ukraine vary greatly, with some 2 million being the lower end of the scale. British historian Robert Service has suggested that some 14 million people lost their lives. " (Third fer)
  My hypothesis is that the last sentence has been removed from the first two articles post factum.
  You have to agree that it is very, very questionable source.
  --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Left a message about this at User talk:Mr.Z-man, since he is the Wikipedia:OTRS contact person on this case. Novickas (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Before screaming censorship, please read WP:NOTCENSORED - this is not even close to what's prohibited. In this case we have an actual email from Service versus a newswire article that doesn't cite where Service actually said this (was it an interview? a paper or book of his?) Unless there is a source actually written by Service that says this, it doesn't belong in the article. Compared to the other sources for number of deaths, the article being cited isn't nearly as reliable. If there are more reliable sources, by all means, use those. Mr.Z-man 18:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

One more comment. Looking through the article's history I noticed that I was not a first person who pointed out that the RIAN article contains no mentioning of Service. The user Alaexis did that before me (see his comments). Therefore, instead of screaming censorship one would have to check the reference he was going to re-insert.
Moreover, it seems to be a campaign to play numbers up: no matter how reliable sources are, they (according to some authors) do deserve to be introduced into the article provided that the number of death toll is high.
Neither politicians nor journalists can obtain the numbers of victims by themselves, they only can use the data obtained by one or the another scholar. Therefore, all disputes of that type can be resolved easily: if you think that the number of 14 million is reasonable but the validity of the source rises someone's concern, do the search, find a scholarly article or a book this number came from and feel free to insert this reference into the article.
By the way, since my university has an access to many journals, I can provide some help (for instance, to tell whether one or another number is really present in the article that is not available online for free). And I promise to do that independently on how large or how small these numbers are.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

from 2.2 million [5][6] to 4 to 5 million,[7][8][1]?

To continue a discussion on a campaign to play numbers up or down, I would like to discuss the ref 8 (Stephen G. Wheatcroft). In the article, this reference is being used to support the number of 4 to 5 million within Soviet Ukraine. However, in the work cited Wheatcroft gives different numbers: 3 to 3.5 million within Ukraine and 6 to 7 million in the USSR totally during the period of 1931-1933. By the way, this is consistent with the data from other Wheatcroft's works.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

4 to 5 million is the EB number in the intro, middle number of 3.0 to 3.5 is part of the range. I don't have the Davies and Wheatcroft at hand at the moment. One caution, though, is that Wheatcroft's numbers reflect what is conservative supported, so they are not necessarily the most likely number. The intro is not the place to list all the purported numbers, just reputably referenced bottom and top and note that there are significant outliers. PetersV       TALK 20:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

In actuality, the Wheatcroft's (not Davies and Wheatcroft's) work that falls exactly into the middle of the range is used to support the higher margin. Therefore, the way the reader will interpret the lead is the following: Vallin give 2.2 million, Wheatcroft and the others gives 4 to 5 millions. This is misleading. The correct way seems to be "from 2.2 million to 4 to 5 million [1][5][6][7][8]", where the references 1 and 5 to 8 are given to support the range, not margins.
Going back to ref 1 (EB), I am still waiting for your explanations why do you consider it to be reputable (because I already explained why I consider it questionable).
Regarding the likelihood of the Wheatcroft's numbers, although he always provides the numbers that are lower that the numbers of his major opponent, R. Conquest, he always gives very detailed explanations for them. Nevertheless, I have no objections to use the former as a lower estimate and the latter (more precisely, late works of the latter, because Conquest has a tendency to give smaller number in his later articles) as the higher estimate.
What concrete Davies and Wheatcroft work do you mean, by the way? I can try to obtain the numbers for you if you want, and we can think how to introduce it into the article.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

To add my 2 cents into the discussion. I absolutely agree that per the discussion Service's alleged 14 million figure doesn't belong in the article. On the other hand, with respect to EB, the figures belong as EB is a reliable source. Findings by wikipedia editors about possible mistakes in an EB article seem to be original research and thus not a basis for rejecting that source. Only published criticism of an EB article by a reliable source can serve this purpose. Not individual user debunking.Faustian (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The EB article that rised my criticism contained not possible but real mistake (for instance the wrong date). Of course, EB is reliable enough to be included into the article, however, my criticism was sufficient to exclude it from the lead. However, I've just read the reference again and found that now it refers to another text that contains no errors I criticezed. Therefore, now I have no objections to include the EB into the lead.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

PS. As a rule, a WP article cannot include all relevant sources, otherwise it would be an absolute mess. Therefore the editor always has to decide which sources can be included and which should be omitted. In other words, writing a WP article is a kind of original research too.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Those are numbers from the book Robert Conquest published by Oxford University Press (page 306):

• Peasant dead 1930-1937 - 11 million
• Arrested in this period dying in camps later 3.5 million
• Total: 14.5 million

Of these:

• Dead as a result of dekulakization: 6.5 million
• Dead in Kazakh catastrophe 1 million
• Dead in 1932-1933 famine: 7 million (5 million in the Ukraine; 1 million in the North Caucasus, and 1 million elsewhere)

Biophys (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That agrees with what I read in the Conquest's papers. In other words, we set the range: from 3-3.5 (Wheatcroft) to 5 million (Conquest). Absolutely agree.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

part of the Soviet famine

Hi, please provide a quote from the source which says Holodomor is "part of the Soviet famine" --windyhead (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The title of the ref 1 is: "the tragedy of the Soviet village". The section written by Wheatcroft is named "On demographic evidence of the tragedy of the Soviet village in 1931-1933". Therefore, even the title itself implies that the authors' intentions were to discuss the Soviet famine as whole. As far as I understand, this document contains no statements about Holodomor as a "part of the Soviet famine". In contrast, no attempts has been done in this work to separate Holodomor from the famine in other Soviet republics.
Moreover, the term "Holodomor" (capital H) has not been used in this work. Instead of that, "holodomor" was used few times. By the way, this word has also been used to describe the famine in Kazakhstan, for instance. In the introduction you may find such a fragment:"В Казахстане, как уже отмечалось, основные предпосылки для этого сложились после постановления ЦК ВКП(б) и СНК СССР «О развертывании социалистического животноводства». Всего в республике, по данным на февраль 1932 г., голодомор охватил более 6 районов, было зарегистрировано 1,2 тыс. голодных смертей и 4,3 тыс. опуханий от голода." This piece of text deals with Kazakhstan ("Казахстан"). The second sentence states:"In the republic (Kazakhstan - P.S.) by February 1932 holodomor (голодомор) affected more than 6 districts", etc.
Since the word Holodomor (capital H) has been invented in Ukraine, it is illogical to expect Russian or old Western sources to contain explicit statement about Holodomor as a part of the Soviet famine, because these sources use the word "Soviet famine" for the famine in the USSR, or "famine in Soviet Ukraine" for Holodomor.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

PS. In the previous section I already provided a quote from Wheatcroft (ref 1) about the numbers: "3 to 3.5 million within Ukraine and 6 to 7 million in the USSR totally during the period of 1931-1933." Sapienti sat.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the quote you provided is not authored by Wheatcroft. It is authored by И. Е. Зеленин. So the source talks about Soviet famine. This is the article about Holodomor. There is another article which talks about Soviet famine of 1932-1933. What are reasons the source which is not about Holodomor is used to support the definition of Holodomor? --windyhead (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The quote is from the same book. Wheatcroft doesn't use the word "holodomor" at all. He uses the "Soviet famine" instead. And, in the part written by him he provides the numbers cited above. Both these numbers and the overall article's tone suggest that he does not separate Holodomor and the famine in other Soviet republics. If the article doesn't consider Holodomor separately it doesn't mean it has no relation to that. Using only those sources that use the word "Holodomor" is a good way to write a perfectly biased article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Many reputable scholars live the quiestion on the Holodomor as a part of the Soviet famine beyond the scope, because the answer is obvious for them. Any article that discuss Soviet famine and presents numbers on Ukraine, Russia and other Soviet republic implicitly states that the Ukrainian famine (called by someone "Holodomor") was the part of the Soviet famine. However, the it is ridiculous to expect the statement:"Holodomor was a part of the Soviet famine" to be present in this type articles, simply because they do not use the word "Holodomor" (although discuss the famine itself).

Let me remind you that I have already reproduced the Wteatcroft's words twice (the excessive mortality amounted "3 to 3.5 million within Ukraine and 6 to 7 million in the USSR totally during the period of 1931-1933."). That is quite sufficient to state that the statement is in the source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, while your arguments may be right, they also may be wrong. I. e., your arguments are disputable. What is not disputable is that the source has no statement that says that Holodomor was part of a wide famine. Please don't use the source which doesn't talk about Holodomor, does not contain that Holodomor was "part of Soviet wide famine", and has no mention about Holodomor at all, to support that Holodomor was "part of Soviet wide famine". --windyhead (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Your rationale in inherently flawed. The scholars dealing with Soviet famine can be subdivided onto two major categories: the first category scholars believe Holodomor was a part of the Soviet famine, and the others consider Holodomor as a quite separate phenomonon. The problem is that many high reputable followers of the first concept do not use the word "Holodomor". Therefore, your proposal to use only those sources that mention Holodomor explicitly will lead to the very strong bias in the source selection.
Therefore it is absolutely unacceptable.
The sources that contains no word "Holodomor", e.g. the Wheatcroft's article, may be highly relevant to the Holodomor if they deal with "the famine in Soviet Ukraine".
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, we are not discussing here if it is correct to use sources that do not mention Holodomor and how much they are relevant. We discuss here that it is incorrect to use such sources to produce Holodomor definition. Because there is no such definition in such source, and the definition is completely your own interpretation of such a source.

Going forward: if you agree there are scholars who consider Holodomor as separate from wide famine, why is that you insist on definition which says the opposite? --windyhead (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, to your opinion, what definition would be appropriate? Please, note, that such a definition must take into account that simultaneously with the Ukrainian famine there was a severe famine in other regions of the USSR. I think, two eternal opponents, Conquest and Wheatcroft, set the margins we should adhere to (from 7 million in the USSR totally (and 5 million in Ukraine) to 6 million totally (and 2.5-3.5 million in Ukraine)). The fact that other regions of the USSR were also affected is something no one can question.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I do not argue about numbers here. For the definition, we can chose one from the past to start from (before the disputable change). There was ".. a famine that occured in Ukraine. At the same time, famines were occurring on other territories of USSR... " or something like that. --windyhead (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, do I understand you correct that your major point is a little bit different wording? If yes, I have no objections. However, the past version is somewhat awkward. Like: "Ukrainians are humans. Besides Ukrainians, inhabitants of other parts of the Earth are humans too". Therefore, I see no problem to elaborate more correct definition that will satisfy both of us, using the above definition as a starting point.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have read in may library books in the U.K. that say the Bashkortostan had lost about 5-10% its population during a similar famine in their A.S.S.R. at the same time.--86.29.253.200 (talk) 11:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Holodomor

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Holodomor's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Black":

• From Denial of the Holodomor: Nicolas Werth, Karel Bartošek, Jean-Louis Panné, Jean-Louis Margolin, Andrzej Paczkowski, Stéphane Courtois, The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, Harvard University Press, 1999, ISBN 0-674-07608-7, pages 159-160
• From Dekulakization: Nicolas Werth, Karel Bartošek, Jean-Louis Panné, Jean-Louis Margolin, Andrzej Paczkowski, Stéphane Courtois, The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, Harvard University Press, 1999, hardcover, 858 pages, ISBN 0-674-07608-7
• From Propaganda in the Soviet Union: Nicolas Werth, Karel Bartošek, Jean-Louis Panné, Jean-Louis Margolin, Andrzej Paczkowski, Stéphane Courtois, The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, Harvard University Press, 1999, ISBN 0-674-07608-7

Reference named "reflections":

• From Propaganda in the Soviet Union: Robert Conquest Reflections on a Ravaged Century (2000) ISBN 0-393-04818-7, page 101-111
• From Denial of the Holodomor: Robert Conquest Reflections on a Ravaged Century (2000) ISBN 0-393-04818-7, p. 96

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead Sentence

Hello,

Soviet agricultural, political, and other practices lead people to die all across their empire all the time - however, that has no place in this article, especially in the lead. This article is about the Holodomor, a time when millions of people were starving to death across Ukraine. That people were dying across the USSR is tragic, must be studied, remembered, noteworthy, and will hopefully not be repeated, but that has no place in the lead.

This article is about the Holodomor, the greatest artificially created terror in history. There is no reason to connect the Holodomor with the fact that people were dying in the early '30s in the ussr. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is self-contradictory: "people were dying across the USSR", but the "the greatest artificially created terror in history" was Holodomor, not the famine in the whole USSR.
Such a position is a brilliant example of extreme nationalism.
By the way, do you imply that the Holocaust, for instance, or killing of million Chinese during WWII were natural terror?
Regards,--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
PS. If people were dying across the USSR, it must be noted in the lead.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
PPS. Moreover, your edits contradicts to the general WP style. For instance, although the article Allied advance from Paris to the Rhine tells about the local WWII battle, there is an explicit statement in the lead that the battle was a part of WWII. You can find similar statements in almost every WWII articles.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Paul, let's stay calm here, please. According to your logic, the Chornobyl catastrophe should also be mentioned in the lead, as people died as a direct result of soviet incompetence.

The Holodomor (capital H) deals with the deaths of 10 million people in Ukraine. Tens of thousands were probably freezing to death in Kamchatka at the same time. Do you suggest that they be mentioned in the lead? People in Kazakhstan were being hunted by soviet fighters - should they also be included in the lead?

Please, let's focus on what this article is trying to describe, the Holodomor (capital H).

Now, would you be so kind as to explain how my separation of the deliberate starvation of a Ukrainian culture by soviet authorities is in any way related to a "natural terror" of the Holocaust? Please, I would love to hear your explanation. How, pray tell, does the Holodomor mean that the killing of millions of Chinese was "natural"?

Please remember - if you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity

Please verify reference - =Shelton,Dinah Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity page 1059(isbn=0028658507) states 10 million.

This is a reliable source - what is to discuss that is not Orginal Research. Bobanni (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

direct quote from Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity

"Left with insufficient food, the peasant population starved. Famine broke out in the winter of 1931 and 1932, and reached a high point that spring. Hundreds of thousands of people died before the new harvest brought some relief. A new phase of food shortages began in the fall of 1932 and peaked the following spring. Foreign eyewitnesses and native survivors, who either escaped or outlived the Soviet regime, have described the horrors of this famine in contemporary accounts. Starving peasants consumed domestic animals, including dogs and cats, together with various food surrogates like tree buds, weeds, and herbs. Some resorted to cannibalism, and dug up human corpses and the carcasses of dead animals. A nearby forest or river saved many an amateur hunter or fisherman. People died by the hundreds and thousands. Just how many died from starvation in Ukraine will never be known. Deaths due to malnutrition were not recorded. Deductions made from the official censuses of 1926 and 1939, and the suppressed census of 1937, have given rise to various interpretations and conclusions. Estimates for Ukraine vary from four to ten million. Six million was the figure a Kharkiv official gave an American newspaper editor in 1933—it still seems the most plausible."

Bobanni (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding to some encyclopaediae, i.e. to Encyclopaedia Britannica, WP writes the following:"General encyclopedias, like the Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta, sometimes have authoritative signed articles written by specialists and including references. However, unsigned entries are written in batches by freelancers and must be used with caution."
Therefore, the quote belongs to conditionally reliable source. It doesn't mean that it is unreliable. However, verification is needed. You correctly pointed out that it is not an original research. Could you please provide a source where Shelton took this number from?
If the source is a peer reviewed scholarly article or something like that, then, without any doubts, you source is reliable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Paul, do you know what Wikilawyering means? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course. I also know that "In any case an accusation of wikilawyering is never a valid argument per se, unless an explanation is given why particular actions may be described as wikilawyering, and the term "wikilawyering" is used as a mere shortcut to these explanations." Therefore, I am waiting for your further explanations why that my particular action may be described as wikilawyering.
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Paul please see the "further explanation" below regarding the Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, and please read the article from Encydlopedia Britannica and scroll down to the bottom of the page. There, you will find exactly by whom the article was written. If you don't want to follow up on these facts, please don't remove the EB from the lead. Thanks,Horlo (talk) 09:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

References and footnotes are very confusing in this article

I suppose this is beyond repair, however.Mtsmallwood (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources in the Lead

Hello,

Reference 4 and 5 seem to be by the same author. I suggest #5 be removed. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica in the lead.

Going back to the EB reference, and taking into account that WP rules state the following:"General encyclopedias, like the Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta, sometimes have authoritative signed articles written by specialists and including references. However, unsigned entries are written in batches by freelancers and must be used with caution..." I am waiting for explanations, why in this concrete case these cautions are not needed.
In other words, the explanation must be provided why this concrete EB article can be considered a reliable source. The EB brand is not sufficient per se.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Here I provide my explanations why the EB article and the Encyclopedia of Genocide article are not reliable sources.

1. The EB reference sends me to some online resource, and it is impossible to see neither the article's author nor the references. In other words, it doesn't fit criteria for authoritative signed articles, and, therefore, must be used with caution. The caution in that concrete case means that the numbers taken from there cannot be trustworthy.
2. The "Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity" also includes no direct references, therefore it is not easy to see where the numbers were taken from. The word "Holodomor" appear there only three times. The only reference relating to Holodomor is: "Holodomor: The Ukrainian Genocide 1932-1933By Madden, Cheryl. Published by Charles Schacks Jr., 2003 127 pages" I don't know if "Charles Schacks Jr." is a publisher that emulate the university press standards. However, I found no reviews of this book in western peer-reviewed historical journals. Jstor.org search gave no results using keywords "Madden", "Holodomor" or "Ukrainian famine". Google scholar also gave to scholarly articles written by that author.
   Therefore, I conclude, it is highly questionable source.
   --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

PS. I just notices that the ref. http://search.eb.com/eb/article-275913 sends me to the page with good EB article that has been signed and contains detailed bibliography. I have no objections against this EB article. However, the reference should be fixed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Valid references from Encyclopedia Britannica reinstated. They were deleted based on an wikipedia opinion piece that was erroniously represented as wikipedia policy. Both Encyclopedia Britannica and Encyclopedia of Genocide are valid scholarly resources. Bobanni (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the former. However, no explanations has been provided for the latter. If arguments has not been provided soon, I'll delete it. I also reverted your change, because you didn't explain it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Paul, once again I suggest that you simply scroll down to the bottom of the article about Ukraine, look at the history section, see the detailed bibliography, and even find the name of the author. So please, don't delete anything without discussing it here. Thanks,Horlo (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Valid source by GENOCIDE expert

This entry is for Paul Siebert - please do not delete text sourced from "Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity" it author Professor Shelton is an recognized expert on genocide - see quoted biography.

"Biographical Sketch

Professor Shelton joined the Law School faculty in 2004. Before her appointment, she was professor of international law and director of the doctoral program in international human rights law at the University of Notre Dame Law School from 1996-2004. She previously taught at Santa Clara University and was a visiting lecturer at the University of California, Davis, Stanford University, University of California, Berkeley, the University of Paris, and the University of Strasbourg, France.

Professor Shelton is the author or editor of three prize-winning books: Protecting Human Rights in the Americas (winner of the 1982 Inter-American Bar Association Book Prize and co-authored with Thomas Buergenthal); Remedies in International Human Rights Law (awarded the 2000 Certificate of Merit, American Society of International Law); and the three volume Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes against Humanity (awarded a “Best Research” book award by the New York Public Library). She also has authored many articles and books on international law, human rights law, and international environmental law. She is a member of the board of editors of the American Journal of International Law and is a counsellor to the American Society of International Law.

Professor Shelton serves on the boards of many human rights and environmental organizations and was made an “honorary European” to join the European Council on Environmental Law. In 2006, she was awarded the prestigious Elizabeth Haub Prize in Environmental Law. From 1987 to 1989, she was the director of the Office of Staff Attorneys at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. She has served as a legal consultant to the United Nations Environment Programme, UNITAR, World Health Organization, European Union, Council of Europe, and Organization of American States."

Soviet famine of 1932-33??

Hello,

Outside of Wikipedia, are there any reliable English sources that talk about the "Soviet famine of 1932-33?

I will remove this from the lead. Please DON'T re-insert it unless there are reliable, verifiable sources to say that there was a soviet union-wide famine.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

First. The source you removed is a reliable verifiable article written by a reputable western scholar. Please, take a time to restore it. You cannot remove any sources statements without providing a solid ground.
You can also improve the article by additng other sources that tell about "Soviet famine of 1932-33". Some of them are below:

1.The Soviet Famine of 1932-1934 Author(s): Dana G. Dalrymple Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 15, No. 3 (Jan., 1964), pp. 250-284 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/149372
"The famine was most severe, it seems to be generally conceded, in the Ukraine, the North Caucasus (particularly in the Kuban), the middle and lower Volga, and in Kazakhstan"

That is exactly about the Holodomor - where Ukrainians lived Horlo

2. A Note on the Number of 1933 Famine Victims

Author(s): Michael Ellman Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 43, No. 2 (1991), pp. 375-379 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/152114
"In particular, by studying the areas worst affected (Ukraine, North Caucasus, Volga, Kazakhstan) it should be possible to throw more light on the situation"

Again, dealing with areas where Ukrainians lived - ie. the Holodomor Horlo

3. The 1932 Harvest and the Famine of 1933

Author(s): Mark B. Tauger Source: Slavic Review, Vol. 50, No. 1 (Spring, 1991), pp. 70-89 Published by: The American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2500600

4. Stalin, Grain Stocks and the Famine of 1932-1933

Author(s): R. W. Davies, M. B. Tauger, S. G. Wheatcroft Source: Slavic Review, Vol. 54, No. 3 (Autumn, 1995), pp. 642-657 Published by: The American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2501740

What does this say about anything besides the Holodomor? Horlo

5. The Soviet Famine of 1932-1934; Some Further References

Author(s): Dana G. Dalrymple Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 16, No. 4 (Apr., 1965), pp. 471-474 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/149901

Again, what does this say about anything other than the Holodomor? Horlo

6.Excess Collectivization Deaths 1929-1933: New Demographic Evidence

Author(s): Steven Rosefielde Source: Slavic Review, Vol. 43, No. 1 (Spring, 1984), pp. 83-88 Published by: The American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2498736
"Although many Western scholars believe that 5 million Soviet peasants died as a result of forced colectivisation..."

You forgot to add - in Ukraine Horlo

7. Soviet Repression Statistics: Some Comments

Author(s): Michael Ellman Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 54, No. 7 (Nov., 2002), pp. 1151-1172 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/826310
The note is quite interesting:"There is a substantial difference between the demographic reality of Soviet power and the popular image of it. This is mainly because released intellectual victims of repression wrote books, the organs were bureaucratic organisations which produced reports and kept records, and Ukrainians have a large diaspora, whereas Central Asian nomad or Russian peasant victims of disease, starvation or deportation, ... generally interest only a few specialists". In other words, according to this author, the Holodomor issue could be even overemphasized, as compared to other famines.

Please, keep your original research where it belongs. How many "intellectual victims of repression" from Ukraine were contributing to the western media in 1932-33? What does disease in Central Asian nomads have to do with the Holodomor?Horlo

8. The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931–1933. By R.W. Davies and

Stephen G. Wheatcroft (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004; pp. 555. £85).
"In 1932 the Soviet Union experienced another poor harvest. The drive to obtain grain ... led to widespread deaths from famine in Ukraine, the North Caucasus and the Volga regions, following the crisis in Kazakhstan ... The famine reached its climax in the spring and early summer of 1933. Its demographic, political and economic consequences haunted the Soviet system throughout the 1930s—and long after."

Again, dealing with only areas which had large Ukrainian populations - ie. the Holodomor. Are you beginning to see the pattern yet?

9. David Moon The English Historical Review, Vol. 120, No. 487 (Jun., 2005), pp. 798-800 (p. 105)
"The catastrophic famine in the Soviet Union in 1933, in particular in Ukraine, has been the subject of a great deal of literature by scholars in the West"
Taking into account all said above, could you please restore my version?
Thank you in advance,
Sincerely
--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, taking into account that NONE of the sources you gave mention anything about a "soviet famine" other than that where Ukrainians were being starved, I will remove them from the lead because they give a skewed picture of the situation. I don't know how to say this any more clearly: THERE WAS NO SOVIET WIDE FAMINE. Where Ukrainians lived, they were starved. Throughout the existence of the soviet union, people died due to government incompetence and negligence. However, that is not what this is about. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The situation is pretty clear from Britannica's rather good summaries.

The result of Stalin’s policies was the Great Famine (Holodomor) of 1932–33—a man-made demographic catastrophe unprecedented in peacetime. Of the estimated six to eight million people who died in the Soviet Union, about four to five million were Ukrainians. The famine was a direct assault on the Ukrainian peasantry, which had stubbornly continued to resist collectivization; indirectly, it was an attack on the Ukrainian village, which traditionally had been a key element of Ukrainian national culture. [ —“Ukraine: The famine of 1932–33”, E.B. Online]

. . . As a result, over the winter of 1932–33, a major famine swept the grain-growing areas. Some 4 to 5 million died in Ukraine, and another 2 to 3 million in the North Caucasus and the Lower Volga area. Both the dekulakization terror of 1930–32 and the terror-famine of 1932–33 were particularly deadly in Ukraine and the Ukrainian-speaking area of the Kuban. They were accompanied by a series of repressive measures against the Ukrainian cultural, political, and social leaderships, the Ukraine’s defender Skrypnik committing suicide in July 1933. . . . There is no doubt that the Stalin leadership knew exactly what was happening and used famine as a means of terror, and revenge, against the peasantry. [ —“Union of Soviet Socialist Republics: The Party versus the peasants”, E.B. Online]

There was an artificial famine which affected many under Soviet rule: in particular Ukrainian peasants in Ukraine, but also elsewhere in the USSR. Much like the Holocaust, which is a Jewish national tragedy but also targeted other groups, the Holodomor is a Ukrainian national disaster, but it is not owned by Ukrainian Wikipedia editors. It's silly to pretend that starvation outside of the UkrSSR's borders – affecting Ukrainian and others in Kuban for example – was some unrelated event, or to write about Ukrainians and others who may have suffered and died in adjoining farm plots in two separate articles. Please don't be cleansing this article in that way. —Michael Z. 2009-02-01 23:18 z

Hello, please don't take my actions as any type of "cleansing". However, to follow up your example of the Holocaust, you will see that it is clearly defined as "is the term generally used to describe the genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, as part of a program of deliberate extermination planned and executed by the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazi) regime in Germany led by Adolf Hitler." Yes, millions of other nations suffered under the nazis, Ukrainians being third on the list of "undesirables" after jews and gypsies, but the Holocaust (capital H) is about the genocidal acts against the Jews. The Holodomor (capital H) is about the genocidal acts against Ukrainians.

Again, every article/book that has been provided as evidence of a "Soviet famine" mentions those areas which, prior to the famine, were heavily populated by Ukrainians. Hence the Holodomor.

Personally what I don't understand is statements like: "By the way, do you imply that the Holocaust, for instance, or killing of million Chinese during WWII were natural terror?"

What I suggest is an additional sentence to the lead which would explain that at the time people were being starved to death in other areas of the ussr. I will even add such a sentence. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Horlo I believe you don't mind me to put your signature after your comments. Otherwise it is unclear who wrote what.

Second. Your understanding of the word "consensus" is somewhat odd. Michael disagreed with you. I didn't leave my comments. Therefore, I don't think the comment "Adjusted lead as per discussion" to be justified.

Third. Volga and Kazakhstan had never been Ukrainian land. Your interpretation of the sources is pure OR.

Fourth. The change you made contradicts to many highly reputable sources.

1. Ellman (A Note on the Number of 1933 Famine Victims Author(s): Michael Ellman Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 43, No. 2 (1991), pp. 375-379 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/152114) states:
"In particular, by studying the areas worst affected (Ukraine, North Caucasus, Volga, Kazakhstan) it should be possible to throw more light on the situation."

2. Dana G. Dalrymple (The Soviet Famine of 1932-1934 Author(s): Dana G. Dalrymple Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 15, No. 3 (Jan., 1964), pp. 250-284 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/149372") writes:
The famine was most severe, it seems to be generally conceded, in the Ukraine, the North Caucasus (particularly in the Kuban), the middle and lower Volga, and in Kazakhstan. In general the famine was most severe in the grain growing regions. It was there that collectivization was most complete" This is a direct statement about a connection between the famine and collectivization. No statements has been done in the article about any connection between the famine and presecution of certain nation. The famine affected the Soviet Union, not only Ukraine and not only Ukrainians. No appretiable amount of Ukrainians lived in Kazakhstan and Volga region during that time.

3. Alec Nove (How Many Victims in the 1930s?. I Author(s): Alec Nove Surce: Soviet Studies, Vol. 42, No. 2 (Apr., 1990), pp. 369-373 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/152087) writes:
"Special investigations on the spot showed that in the Ukraine, the Azov Black Sea, Saratov and Stalingrad krais and the Kursk and Voronezh oblasts there were significant numbers of unregistered deaths. On the basis of available materials it may be said that in 1933 one million deaths were not recorded. According to the department of population the number of deaths in 1933 came to 5-7 million, and with the addition of those not recorded it was 6-7 million"
"This suggests ... a minimum number of 2-8 million deaths from hunger that were registered. In the archives is a document on population in 1930-34, which points to 'exceptionally high death rates in 1933 in the Ukraine, Lower Volga, North Caucasus and the central black- earth-region-just in the Ukraine the number who died was 2-9 million, i.e. over half of all the deaths in the USSR, though the Ukraine's population was only a fifth of that of the USSR'. These figures are registered deaths. It seems (to me) to follow that, if say three quarters of the estimated million of unregistered deaths were in the Ukraine, then total deaths there in that year were of the order of 3*7 million; subtracting 'normal' deaths this gives a rough total of 3-1-3.2 million famine victims in that grim year 1933 for the Ukraine alone." Once again, the Ukrainian famine was just a part of the Soviet famine.

4. David C. Engerman (Modernization from the Other Shore: American Observers and the Costs of Soviet Economic Development Author(s): David C. Engerman Source: The American Historical Review, Vol. 105, No. 2 (Apr., 2000), pp. 383-416 Published by: American Historical Association. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1571457) writes
"The famine of 1932-1933 looms large in any calculations of the costs of the rapid industrialization in the USSR. Leaving perhaps as many as 8 million dead, the famine devastated the principal breadbaskets of the Soviet Union: Ukraine, the Volga valley, the North Caucasus region, and Kazakhstan. The famine's legacy exceeded even its gruesome death toll. It marked the final victory of central Soviet authorities over the peasantry. Yet, for decades, only Ukrainian emigre groups devoted significant attention to the famine. In official Soviet histories, meanwhile, the famine remained a "blank spot," described blandly as "difficulties on the grain-requisition front." "

5. Terry Martin (The Origins of Soviet Ethnic Cleansing Author(s): Terry Martin Source: The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 70, No. 4 (Dec., 1998), pp. 813-861 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2990684) "These suspicions surfaced dramatically during the grain requisitions crisis of 1932-33. The 1932 Soviet harvest was insufficient to feed the country. Confronted with this situation, Stalin decided to extract as much grain as possible from the peasantry in order to feed the cities. This meant the famine would be concentrated in the Soviet Union's grain-growing regions." Interestingly, although the author payed special attention to persecution of Ukrainians, he never presented the 1932-33 famine as something deliberately directed against Ukrainian nation.

Re: "according to this author, the Holodomor issue could be even overemphasized, as compared to other famines." You correctly got the author's point. Unfortunately, this sentence has been taken from one of the most reliable sources, namely, from the western peer-reviewed highly reputable scientific journal. Your comments are insufficient to refute it.

My conclusion is, Holodomor was a part of the Soviet famine, although, taking in account Kuban', a major part. Nevertheless, one has to have a respect towards other victims. The analogy with the Holocaust seems to be incorrect, because many sources disagree with that.
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

PS. Note, I haven't reverted your changes yet.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Just so my comments are not misunderstood, I don't believe that the starvation of Ukrainians was “just a part of the Soviet famine” either. Stalin didn't attack some abstract growers of grain or kulaks without being aware that they represented the roots of the Ukrainian nation. —Michael Z. 2009-02-04 06:56 z

Dear Michael,
In actualuty, a number of sources directly support your point of view, whereas, a comparable amount of sources directly state the reverse. Moreover, some scholars conclude that Holodomor even wasn't "an unprecedented peacetime catastrophe". Therefore, since the lead should contain no statements the scholars don't agree about, the words "part of the Soviet famine" and "an unprecedented peacetime catastrophe", as well as any statements that it the famine targeted the Urkainian nation predominately, shouldn't be there. In connection to that, I propose the following:
"The Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор translation: death by starvation) refers to a famine in Ukraine (at the time the Ukrainian S.S.R.) during which millions of people were starved to death because of Soviet grain requisitions policy. The Holodomor is considered one of the greatest national catastrophes to affect the Ukrainian nation in modern history where millions of inhabitants of Ukraine died of starvation. Estimates on the total number of casualties within Soviet Ukraine range mostly from from 2.2 million to 10 million. Although other grain growing regions of the USSR were also severely affected by the 1932-33 famine, the word Holodomor refers to the famine affected the Ukrainian nation only."
Frankly, I hate frequent modifications of the main article, I prefer to discuss all changes on the talk page and, after consensus is achieved, introduce the text into the article. Therefore, feel free to modify the proposed text untill it will satisfy all of us.
By the way, it is not a good style to introduce references into the lead. The lead is just a summary of the article, so the refs should be moved there. To my understanding, the numerous refs are the result of past edit wars, therefore, when consensus is achieved, they are not needed any more.
Regards
--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is about a historical event, and not about its name; so the lead sentence should include the verb is, rather than refers to. Perhaps we need a sentence that first describes the Ukrainian Famine of 1932–33, and then explains that it is referred to as the Holodomor in Ukrainian. Of the major general histories, Subtelny calls it the famine of 1932–33, Magocsi the Great Famine of 1933, Wilson the Great Famine or the Famine, Yekelchyk the Famine. I don't really agree with the last line—this is one event, and its Ukrainian name is Holodomor—again, this famine didn't stop at the Ukrainian border, nor did it spare anyone because they only had 49% Ukrainian blood.

Frankly, I think the stub article Soviet famine of 1932–1933 is a WP:POVFORK. I'm sure it was created in good faith, but more as a reaction to this name, rather than any need to write an article about some other famine. In my opinion these two should be merged – but of course that's not the question we're discussing, and it may not be able to find consensus for the idea. —Michael Z. 2009-02-04 22:40 z

Dear Michael, you absolutely correctly pointed out that this is an article about a historical event. In connection to that the question is: what historical event we are talking about? In other words, were the grain requisition directed against the Ukrainians as a nation, or they hammered a peasantry of major grain producing regions? Besides Volga and Kazakhstan, Voronezh and Kursk oblasts, these two categories coincided, therefore, it is hard to separate the formers from the latters. Franlky, to my opinion, both took place. I fully agree that "this famine didn't stop at the Ukrainian border, nor did it spare anyone because they only had 49% Ukrainian blood", I even would say "didn't spare anyone with zero Ukrainian blood". That is why, I have a feeling that together we can elaborate more correct definition of Holodomor. However, I still cannot fully understand your point. Could you please write your version?
I also agree with your opinion on the stub article. However, the main obstacle preventing a merging of these two seems to be the attempts of some editors to make an excessive stress on the nationalistic issues.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, dear Paul, please let me answer some of your questions: the historical event that this article discusses is the Holodomor. Please do not try to "elaborate [a] more correct definition of [the] Holodomor" - this is not the place for anybody to create definitions.. Wikipedia only reports what other reliable sources state. Your opinion of these events, while very important and welcome on this talk page, has no place in the article. Please don't try to create definitions of what the Holodomor was.

The job of Wikipedia editors is to make sure that the information presented here is what the scholarly world is presenting, not only one part of the scholarly world. That is the reason that compromises must be made, because different scholars have different points of view on the same topic - ultimately, why history is an art, rather than a science.

Now, to make your life easier, I will answer your questions about the Holodomor: the grain requisitions were set impossibly high in regions where Ukrainians lived. It was done to destroy Ukrainians. (Why? I don't know - most likely because Stalin was sick in the head) Because of these excessively high quotas, many non-Ukrainians who lived in Ukraine were starved to death also.

Now, did Stalin want Kazakhs to starve to death? I don't know. Did he impose impossibly high quotas on their grain, and surround their country with the red army to prevent anybody from moving into other parts of the soviet union, also? I don't know. That's not the issue here. This discusses the Holodomor, during which millions of people starved to death in Ukraine and other areas with ethnic Ukrainian majorities. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Horlo,
Unfortunately, it is not fully correct. The definition of Holodomor is not so obvious as you think, and there is no consensus among academic sources on that account. Some sources tell about the great famine that affected the major grain growing areas of the USSR (a considerable part of which were populated by the Ukrainians), some scholars consider grain requisitions as a deliberate attempt to suppress Ukrainian nationalism (the word Holodomor is used in these studies predominantly), others consider requisition as an attack of the peasantry (regardless of ethnicity), whereas some others represent it as a combination of all said above.
Therefore, my opinion is not about the event itself, but about the best way to summarise scholars' opinions. The present definition is not satisfactory from that point of view.
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

PS. Re: "It was done to destroy Ukrainians.". Not all scholars agree with that. For instance, Ellman (source #7, see above) writes:"For a charge of (mass) murder or a crime against humanity (as opposed to manslaughter or criminal negligence) the question of intent is very important. While there is plenty of evidence to justify a charge of manslaughter or criminal negligence, there seems to the present author to be little evidence for murder. Conquest thinks that Stalin wanted large numbers of Ukrainians to die in 1933. This seems to the present author possible but unproven and no explanation of the deaths of Kazakhs and Russians. Of course, the general attitude of Marx and Engels and of Russian Marxists to the Ukrainian cause was unsympathetic and during the Civil War many Bolsheviks considered Ukrainian a 'counter-revolutionary' language. In addition, it is well known that in 1932-33 Stalin thought he was engaged in a war against wreckers, saboteurs and sit-down strikers. In a war one strives to bend to one's will, and if necessary kill, one's enemies. Many people were deliberately shot or deported. Nevertheless, evidence that Stalin consciously decided to kill millions of people is lacking. It seems to the present author more likely that Stalin simply did not care about mass deaths and was more interested in the balance of payments (which required grain exports) and the industrialisation programme. Just as the British government in 1943 was more interested in the war effort than in saving the life of Bengalis, so the Soviet government in 1931-33 was more interested in industrialisation than in saving the life of peasants or nomads." Note, Ellman is not a pro-Soviet writer, he generally is very critical to Stalin.
Since I know at least several other sources that support Ellman's ideas, I don't think the statement that Holodomor was a deliberate measure to kill Urkainians (or other statements that are based on this idea) can be placed in the lead. (Although, of course, this point of view can and has to be discussed in the article itself.)--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

[outdent]

I think intentions can not be precisely described. Stalin didn't leave a detailed memoir of his motivations and didn't talk about them to his colleagues, and one cannot ascribe a monolithic motive to an organization as large and diverse as the Soviet power structure, from its dictator down to every apparatchik. These are matters to discuss in the article, and perhaps mention in the intro.

But the introduction needs to describe the boundaries of the concrete manifestations of this famine, so readers know what the article's topic is. If some notable scholars have stated that the Holodomor only refers to a subset of this famine, then that can be mentioned, with references, in the appropriate article section.

I may not have time to take a crack at rewriting the intro myself. —Michael Z. 2009-02-05 20:37 z

I'm not getting this ,why does the "Holodomor question" get raised again and again? There is no confusion what Holodomor means exactly. Just that in case anybody wants so badly to add more Soviet apologist scholarly sources to this article, please do not forget to add the scholars who define Holodomor as Famine-Genocide in Ukraine, currently I'm getting 107 books that define Holodomor so. And please do not remind me again about the "legal definition of genocide" and how Holodomor doesn't fit under it. Because we were talking about how different scholars define it, right. So the bottom line, once anybody wants to rewrite things and add more Soviet apologist scholarly opinions to this article, please do not forget to include the scholars who frankly call Holodomor as the "Famine-Genocide in Ukraine". An alternative name for Holodomor used by some scholars is also the Terror-Famine in Ukraine. Yet another alternative, Holodomor has been also defined as the Ukrainian Terror Starvation by Donald G. Dutton, (Professor of Psychology at the University of British Columbia) in his book The Psychology of Genocide, Massacres, and Extreme Violence ISBN 0275990001. --Termer (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Termer, glad to hear you again. First of all, I don't think that accusation in Soviet apology is a good argument. I propose to leave such a tool, reminiscent to Soviet propaganda, in the grim Soviet past. In addition, it is simply incorrect. How can Ellman be a Soviet apologist, if one of his articles starts with the words: "IN A RECENT paper in this journal1 Wheatcroft estimated the number of victims of the 1932-33 famine at 4 to 5 million. The purpose of this note is to draw attention to new data which imply that the number was actually substantially larger."?
Second, the reference to books.google.com is hardly relevant: the truth cannot be established by voting. In addition, peer-reviewed scholarly publications in western historical journals are the most reliable sources, according to WP.
Third. I never insisted that the point of view of Ellman (as well as of some other scholars) is the ultimate truth. I just pointed your attention at the obvious fact that only unquestionable statements can be presented in the lead (or the controversial nature of this subject must be stated explicitly). In that sence, the second para of the introduction is good and balanced.
Which statements seems unquestionable?
1. Holodomor took place in Ukraine.
2. People starved to death because of food requisition.
Which statements are questionable?
1. Holodomor and the famine in other regions of the USSR were two different things and had quite different nature.
2. Holodomor was directed against Ukrainians as a nation.

Of course, taking into account all said above, formally, it is possible to leave the question about other famine victims beyond the scope, however, frankly, it wouldn't be honest. In addition, it would be self-contradictory: the last para states that "The joint declaration at the United Nations in 2003 has defined the famine as the result of cruel actions and policies of the totalitarian regime that caused the deaths of millions of Ukrainians, Russians, Kazakhs and other nationalities in the USSR." How could "Russians, Kazakhs and other nationalities in the USSR" die if Holodomor affected only "Ukraine (at the time the Ukrainian S.S.R.) and Ukrainian speaking areas of the Kuban'?"
--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

PS. In addition, could you please explain me quite simple thing: if one to three million of non-Ukrainians (Russians, Kazakhs, Volga Germans etc.) died from starvation outside of the Ukrainian populated territory, simultaneously with the Ukrainians, and, probably, for the same reason (food requisition), why cannot we simply tell about that? It is equivalent to disappearance of whole Estonian nation, btw.
I recall, Israel refused to recognise Armenian genocide, because, according to them "there was only one genocide during XX century, and its name was the Holocaust". I am Jew myself, however, my positive attitude towards Israel was shaken after that.
PPS. As far as I know, the Russians call the Eastern front theatre Great Patriotic War. However, they do recognise that it was a part of a bigger event, namely of World War II.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Israel's failure to recognize the Armenian genocide is not due to the claim that "there was only one genocide during XX century" etc. But as a result of Turkey pressure. Since Israel doesn't has much allies in the region, and Turkey is a strong one - Israel chose to surrender to this pressure. Shame? I agree, as an Israeli myself. (talk)

Whoa, whoa, whoa - Paul, let's not bring your attitude towards Israel into this discussion. Also, what Russians call World War II is a great topic for debate on the Russian wikipedia, which is not here. The topic here is the Holodomor. What you seem to not understand about my argument is that the Holodomor was an act against Ukrainians. Now - just wait a second, and let me finish - does this mean that there were no acts against Kazakhs? NO! Does this mean that Stalin wanted to kill ONLY Ukrainians? NO! Doe it mean that food was used as a weapon only against Ukrainians? NO! Does this mean that the Holodomor was the only bad thing that happened at the time in the ussr? NOOOO! It means that the Holodomor was an attempt by Stalin to destroy Ukraine as a nation. PERIOD. Just the same way that mentioning the Chornobyl explosion, the massacre at Baby Yar, the expulsion of the Tatars, Stalin's pact of cooperation with Hitler, or any other crimes committed by the soviet regime would make the article confusing, would the mention of any other simultaneous crimes being committed in the name of "the people" anywhere in the ussr. Hope that helps, Horlo (talk) 07:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Horlo, but it seems to me that it was you who didn't understand my arguments. Not all western reputable scholars agree that Holodomor was an act against Ukrainians. Of course, that point of view does deserve attention (btw, according to my understanding, that, of course, is not relevant to that concrete case, it that POV is partially correct), however, it cannot be in the lead, because there is no consensus on that account. Period.
As regards to Russian WP, the latter is not interesting to me. We speak about English WP, and English WP states that Great Patriotic War was a part of WWII. BTW, the situation is similar to Holodomor: more that a half of all military losses (both Axis and Allied) and about a half of civilian losses were sustained in Eastern front, however, the corresponding article states (in the intro) that Eastern front was a part of WWII.--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
PS Sorry for telling absolutely obvious things, but Baby Yar was a Nazi death camp...--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Paul for commenting on you but yet again I get a feeling that you come to Wikipedia talk pages in order to get yourself educated in the subjects. Just that as a rule you get carried away with your posts ending up talking about completely irrelevant things like, what has for example your "positive attitude towards Israel was shaken" to do with anything here?

So please keep it straight to the point! In case this is about that Holodomor occurred during the Soviet famine of 1932-1933 [5], the fact that was still there last time I checked and is gone now for reasons unknown. Then yes, this should be simply restored. However, this article is about Holodomor, and there never has been any questions what does it mean exactly. The politically correct version is defined by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and they say that Holodomor is the "great famine in Ukraine of 1932-33". So your claim above that "The definition of Holodomor is not so obvious as you think" doesn't have much bases to it. And again, in case you think that the summary of scholars' opinions need adjustments in the article, please do not miss out the guys who define Holodomor as the "Terror-Famine" or "Famine-Genocide" in Ukraine.--Termer (talk) 07:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Good proposal. To come back to the point, let me explain that the mentioning of Holodomor as a part of the Soviet famine of 1932-1933 has been removed by Horlo. When I restored it, Horlo asked if any sources support this statement. I provided the sources, and that gave a start to this nice discussion. BTW, the discussion is really nice (as compared to anoter one I had recently on another talk page, so I really enjoy to talk with persons prone to logical arguments)...--Paul Siebert (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

RE:Paul it cannot be in the lead, because there is no consensus on that account. Period. Sorry to point out that you're wrong about that one! please read WP:LEAD The lead... should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist.--Termer (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. As I already pointed out, I think that the second para (that includes a notable controversy, explaining it clearly) is good and balanced. Therefore, I didn't understand your last argument.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

PS By contrast, the statement that Holodomor was "a famine in Ukraine (at the time the Ukrainian S.S.R.) and Ukrainian speaking areas of the Kuban" represent this tragedy as a action directed against the Ukrainians as a nation, in other words, gives more veight to one of POVs presented in the second paragraph. In addition, it contradicts to the third paragraph, that states that during 1932-33 the totalitarian regime of the USSR "caused the deaths of millions of Ukrainians, Russians, Kazakhs and other nationalities in the USSR." By artificially restricting the definition of the famine with ukrainian speaking regions of the USSR the lead presents other (non-Ukrainian) nations as untermensch'es.
In other words, the Ukrainians call their own tragedy of 1932-33 Holodomor, and I have nothing against that. However there is a big difference between these two statements:

1. "Holodomor was the famine in Ukraine and Ukrainian speaking regions of the USSR", and

2. "Holodomor was the famine affected Ukraine and Ukrainian speaking regions of the USSR during the Soviet famine of 1932-33".--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

perhaps things in the article have ended up being a bit confusing indeed. So lets spell it out: First thing first, the reason Holodomor or a bit broader 'Soviet famine of 1932-33' in general has never been classified as genocide is due to Soviet Union voted against the inclusion of social groups into the criteria. So we'd need to be clear about it that none of the artificial famines including Holodomor in Ukraine were directed against someones ethnicity but the target was wealthier farmers who had rejected the idea of joining collective farms.. There is a citation available by a defected Soviet official: It took a famine to show them who is master here. It has cost millions of lives, but the collective farm system is here to stay. We have won the war.

Now, it's hard to blame Ukrainians seeing this as an attack against their nation if the large part of the population belonged to the social group of wealthier farmers who rejected the idea of collective farms. But at the same time, I'm sure nobody in the Soviet government forcing those people into collective farms cared much if their victims spoke Ukrainian or lets say German in Volga region etc. Also it would be important to keep in mind that the areas of Soviet Union at the time where there was no need to force people into collective farms were not touched by the famine at all beause the food was not forcibly confiscated at places like that. So those points above are important, telling what the controversy is all about, and in case it's not clear enough in the article, it should be spelled out. --Termer (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Just two comments. First. The Soviet Union's opinion hardly played important role. The decision about genocide or non-genocide nature of Holodomor can be made by scholars, not by politicians. I am sure that most governments who recognized Holodomor as an act of genocide did that due on their sympathy to Ukraine and, more important, antipathy to Soviet Union/Russia. I think they neither had more detailed infrmation about Holodomor, nor they invited the best historians to do additional studies on that subject.
Second. Based on the sources I read I came to conclusion that "the Soviet government forcing those people into collective farms did care if their victims spoke Ukrainian". I think that it was partially true. One of the aims of food requisition was to punish counter-revolutionary nations. In that sence, Holodomor partially had a national nature. The problem is that I have a strong feeling that it was not the major reason for food requisitions.
Going back to the topic, what, to your opinion, should be the first paragraph of the lead?
--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

RE:The decision about genocide or non-genocide nature of Holodomor can be made by scholars, not by politicians, Sorry but you're wrong on that one. Although scholars often refer to Holodomor as 'genocide-famine', Genocide still is a crime that's defined by the international law adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948. Since USSR had the Veto vote in the UN, social groups were excluded from the criteria. Therefore, an alternative term Democide has been suggested and coined by Rudolph J. Rummel. Now all governments who have recognized Holodomor as an act of genocide have done it so because such countries recognize Holodomor as an attack against Ukrainians as a nation, not simply as an attack against the social group -farmers

Second. Sorry but your or my or anybody else's conclusions are irrelevant pr. WP:SYNT. The only thing that matters here would be citing WP:RS. In case you have a source that says :did care if their victims spoke Ukrainian, plese do not hesitate to cite it.

The lead section? Since someone mentioned that it would be impossible to say what did motivate Stalin, I would probably add the citation by the Soviet state official that speaks for itself: It took a famine to show them who is master here. It has cost millions of lives, but the collective farm system is here to stay. We have won the war. Regarding Ukrainians than all relevant sources say that the nation sees Holodomor as the Soviet attack against Ukrainian nation. So no harm done pointing it out since WP:YESPOV spells it out clearly: where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. --Termer (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

PS. The bottom line, as long as the article drives towards "according to whom", it gets better. In case it drives towards the "truth" it gets worse. That should be the rule of thumb always applied here. --Termer (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Paul, please - stop saying things that begin with "I think ..." or "I have a strong feeling that ... ". Your opinions may be correct - what you think and what you feel may be right - however, this is not the place for either of those. Again, please don't think that you are wrong. Just show the proof. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Termer and Horlo. I see, some explanations are needed. I fully agree that WP is not a good place for OR. I never pretended to present my OR on the WP pages. I do my OR in other places. However, let me remind you that the talk page is not an artilce itself, and I don't have to be absolutely precise here. Of course, when I write "I think ..." or "I have a strong feeling that ... " that is a short form of "As a result of extensive reading, I came to a conclusion that majority authors of scholarly articles published in peer-reviewed western historical journals express an opinion that...".
I always try to avoid doing statements that cannot be supported with the sources, and I am always ready to provide them upon request. And I doubt WP policy prohibits a use of the words "I think ..." or "I have a strong feeling that ... " on WP talk pages.

PS. Going back to the topic, the first para, that is focused on "Ukrainian speaking" citizens of USSR, still needs in some improvement. The the Ukrainian nation's perception of the famine cannot play a decisive role in English WP.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

RRS. Re:"In case you have a source that says :did care if their victims spoke Ukrainian, plese do not hesitate to cite it." I already did that. See, for instance, the quote from Ellman in the present section on that talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Although scholars often refer to Holodomor as 'genocide-famine', Genocide still is a crime that's defined by the international law adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948." Let's not mix two things: what did happened and how it looked like from the point of view of the international law. Although Nuremberg trial made his verdict, it doesn't mean that it clarified everything, and scholar article should be based on its decisions exclusively. If some court makes a decision, then we have to tell about that without any doubts. However, if, like in the Holodomor case, only a half of scholars agree on that, then we cannot write that Holodomor was a genocide.
Therefore the lead should be like this:
First para: "Holodomor is ....... (definition of Holodomor).
.....
Third para: "The parliament of Ukraine and many governments of other countries have recognized the actions of the Soviet government as an act of genocide."
Forth para: "The joint declaration at the United Nations ... blah blah ... recognized the Holodomor as a crime against humanity."
That is close to what we have now, however, the first para should be based on the scholarly sources, not political declarations. And, finally, Holodomor has not been defined as a genocide by any international court yet...--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Paul, perhaps it's just me but yet again I have to admit it's really hard to follow what exactly are you after? As far as I'm concerned, every second statement contradicts another one in your post. Lets keep it simple, in case you'd like to add any opinions or facts into this article pr WP:VERIFY, please just cite the source and make a suggestion according to it.--Termer (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Termer. Sometimes I am really not clear enough. The major dispute was about the following version of the first sentence:

The Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор translation: death by starvation) was the part of the Soviet famine of 1932-1933 that took place in Ukraine (at the time the Ukrainian S.S.R.), when millions of people starved to death because of Soviet policies.

Other editors initially proposed to support this sentence with English sources, and, when I have done that, criticized the sentence anyway, insisting that Holodomor was an action directed primarily against Ukrainians as the nation and (if I understand them correct) was not a part of the Soviet famine. As a result, the famine outside the Ukrainian speaking areas of the USSR is still mentioned in the lead, but in absolutely ridiculous way. It looks like if the Eastern Front (World War II) article started with the words: "Eastern front was a war between Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. During that time some hostilities took place in other parts of the world."
--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, this has been addressed already and I agreed that the fact should be simply restored. here is a source that defines the broader famine in USSR that the Holodomor was a part of: The Soviet famine of 1932-1933 was the result of Joseph Stalin's decision to collectivize agricultural production throughout the Soviet Union, regardless of the cost in human lives.--Termer (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Good. Your last edit seems reasonable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Hello, I disagree. This had been discussed, and is being discussed now again - and again, I ask you to show who talks about a "soviet famine"? And please don't re-quote the sources at the top of this section, because they all talk about the Holodomor. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Horlo. I fully agree that "this had been discussed, and is being discussed now again - and again". During that discussion I presented reputable sources, whereas your arguments were just speculations. The sources I provided call the 1932-33 events "Soviet famine", not "Holodomor". We also know that the Ukrainian name for these events is Holodomor. However, this Ukrainian name refers only to the events in the Ukrainian speaking areas of the USSR (according to your definition). Therefore, both from geographical and ethnic points of view the scope of Soviet famine seems wider.
I proposed the sources, supporting that point of view, Termer proposed definition that seems to be very correct and balanced. If you disagree, you must provide strong arguments supporting your point of view. The burden of evidence rests on you now.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, dear Paul, you presented reputable sources, however these sources do nothing to support your argument. Please refrain from speculating about speculation in my arguments - they are grounded in the fact that there are no sources that connect any of the famines that were happenning at the time.

Perhaps you don't understand the problem, so I will re-state it for you: there was no "soviet famine" Now, what does that mean "there was no soviet famine"? It means that the events that were taking place in the soviet union were not connected. Please show me a source that states that they were in any way connected. This is my point - throughout the existence of the soviet empire, many government actions were aimed at destroying people who disagreed with it; in some cases, attempts were made to destroy entire ethnic groups. One example is the Holodomor - another example is the forced resettlement of the Tatar nation from Crimea to Siberia.

Now, again, Holodomor is the time when millions of Ukrainians were starved to death because of soviet policies. There were countless millions sufferring at the hands of the soviet regime all around the soviet union - but that is not the Holodomor.

Now, if you want to add a statement to the article, the burden of evidence rests on you - if you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, ... Thanks, Horlo (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Horlo,
Unfortunately, the only arguments you presented are just your speculations, whereas the current version of the first sentence rests on the rock-solid ground. I think I bear the burden of evidence successfully so far. Of course, you may edit this sentence mercilessly, however, your changes will be mercilessly reverted unless you provided sufficient support for your version. I do not recommend to replace the current sources with new ones unless you proved that the new sources to be more trustworthy than the present ones.
Best regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Dearest Paul, let's slow this down, because very often this discussion gets off topic. First step, could you please explain what I have said that is "[my] speculation"? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's stop this now OK! First of all the word Holodomor is still relatively speaking a neologism in English. So unless you Horlo insist that all the sources that speak about the 1932-1933 Soviet Famine in fact are about Holodomor, you simply suggesting that the article should be renamed accordingly. It's not too difficult to check it out that for example the way the subject is best known in English "Famine in Ukraine (1932-1933)" gives you 660 returns at google books vs. Holodomor that gets only about an half of it: 325 returns in google books. So please Horlo, if you wish to rename this article pr. WP:NEO and WP:NAME into something like "Famine in Soviet Ukraine (also known as Holodomor)" etc. , please feel free to keep coming with such arguments you've listed above.--Termer (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Is Holodomor a Russian word?

There was a sentence in the Etymology section that claimed that Holodomor was a Russian word taken into Ukrainian.

Please do not restore the sentence without a source.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

why Holodomor and not Golodomor as a primary title? Holodomor means death by freezing (from Holod, or Kholod). - Alsandro · T · w:ka: Th · T 05:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Holodomor is to be pronounced with ukrainian "g" (soft g) close to h. Holodomor is freezing in russian, hunger (h = soft g) in ukrainian. --windyhead (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Alsandro, this is a typical translation problem: in Ukrainian there are two distinct letters, the "г"(in English "h") and "ґ"(in English "g"). This may not exist in all translation alphabets, or in all cyrillic typesets. This should not be confused with "х" ("kh" in English). So there is a difference between "Голодомор" and "Холодомор". Maybe there isn't in Russian, but there is in Ukrainian and English. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent scandal.

Please add a reference to a recent scandalous opening of Holodomor exposition: they included photos of Great Depression there :)

http://forums.ec.europa.eu/debateeurope/viewtopic.php?p=133729&sid=7b3ff8b132cbea308dec484fea09aeb6 (English translation) http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?&q=105418&cid=22&p=10.03.2009 (Russian) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.127.48.140 (talk) 06:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• A few days ago I have created Holodomor_in_modern_politics#Falsification_of_graphical_materials section to a daughter article Holodomor_in_modern_politics. I do not think the topic is notable enough for the main article. It is about a huge human catastrophe of 1930ies not about political games of the modern times Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps "incorrectly attributed"? What I've mostly seen are several pictures of an earlier famine attributed to the Holodomor. These are not "falsified" pictures in the way people were, for example, removed from photos with Stalin. PetersV       TALK 07:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Scope and Duration: Clarification/Revision in 2nd Paragraph

I believe this statement in the second paragraph of the "Scope and Duration" section should be revised as shown.

According to the Central Committee of the CP(b) of Ukraine Decree as of February 8 1933 all hunger cases should not have been remain untreated, all local authorities were directly obliged to submit reports about number of suffered suffering from hunger, reasons of hunger, number of deaths from hunger and about food aid provided from local sources and centrally provided food aid required.

I didn't write this, so I wanted to make sure the intended meaning was preserved.Barjeconiah (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, it's difficult do understand the wishes of the writer - did they want to say "not ... remained" or "not have been"; the adverb "not" can modify either "have been" or "remain". I will re-instate 'not' and if the author disagrees, let's discuss a simpler wording.

You're right, the preposition phrase 'of suffered' should be replaced by the gerund 'suffering', that makes it much clearer.

Thank you for making the change, Horlo (talk) 08:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Lemkin's alleged book

This article cites a purported book by Lemkin via a [Ukrainian popular news website http://unian.net/eng/news/news-277220.html]. But a book by Lemkin titled "History of Genocide" was never written by him. There is not an ISBN number or publisher for that alleged book. Popular news websites should never cited in an academic article. Even if Lemkin had written this book, his opinion would be irrelevant because he was not a specialist in Russian history. Kamop (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That article is written by Roman Serbyn. He is reliable. Ostap 01:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The book was written by Lemkin but was not published during his lifetime link here]. It is either being prepared for publication or (I read somewhere) has only recently been published. Bandurist (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

On the historical context of "Soviet Genocide" by Lemkin, see also Hostage of Politics: Raphael Lemkin on “Soviet Genocide”, ANTON WEISS-WENDT, Journal of Genocide Research (2005). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.176.107 (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Solzhenitsyn's opinion and falsification of pictures

Hi, I think that the topics regarding the modern politicisation of Holodomor and different opinions whether the famine was a genocide belong to Holodomor in modern politics and Holodomor genocide question. The main article should be mostly devoted to the facts about the famine itself Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding the politicization, one point of interest is that it is only in recent years that the topic about Famine in the USSR outside of Ukraine has been investigated, and as I understand, only because of the amount of attention that the Holodomor has garnished, and only in order to diminish the impact of the information regarding the Holodomor. I would be interested in reading the opinion of others regarding this. Bandurist (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ukraine requests classified documents from Russian archives

[6]. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 11:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Scope again

I noticed that any mention of famine outside the UkrSSR have disappeared from the lede again. On that talk page I already provided several reliable sources that demonstrate that the famine affected not only contemporary Urkainian territory. (It is interesting to see how some Ukrainian nationalists are ready to betray their Ukrainian brothers in North Caucasus who also suffered from the 1933 famine. Clearly, that has been done to eliminate any mentioning of the Volga and Kazakhstan famines, that otherwise would have to be mentioned along with North Caucasus).
Usually on WP pages, a lede starts with mentioning of greater event to present the event of interest in a broader context. For instance, the Western Front article's lede contains reference to World War I. The Bengal famine of 1943 article's lede contains the references to other famines.
In connection to that, it is absolutely necessary to re-introduce the statement that the 1933 famine affected other areas of the USSR and that Holodomor was a part of more global famine.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, please understand that this is an article about the Holodomor. The Holodomor was the starvation of many millions of Ukrainians by the Soviet government. Millions and millions of people were killed by the communist government of the ussr between 1921 and 1991. In fact, one of the first things that Lenin did was to set up the KGB (not with that name, of course), with the intent of killing everybody who disagreed with him. Please do not try to confuse the issue. Please take a look at the article Famines in Russia and the Soviet Union. You will see that agriculture and feeding people have always been difficult in Russia-controlled territory. However, this article is about the Holodomor, not a "global famine". Not agricultural mismanagement by imperial or soviet governments.

Also, please avoid statemets like "It is interesting to see how some Ukrainian nationalists are ready to betray their Ukrainian brothers in North Caucasus"

- everybody here is trying to improve the article. AGF baby, AGF. Namecalling hurts everybody. I'm sure that you would not appreciate being called a "Holodomor denier". So please let's stay focussed. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

"The first reports of mass malnutrition and deaths from starvation emerged from 2 urban area of Uman - by the time Vinnytsya and Kiev oblasts dated by beginning of January 1933. " - this reads like something was deleted at the end of it or something. Are the "2 urban area" refer to Vinnytsya and Kiev?radek (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Inflammatory rhetoric and data manipulation

Re: undos by Bobanni Sept. 8 2009.

First paragraph: in which millions of people were starved to death and in which millions of people were starved to death - unnecessary repetition and inflammatory (were starved rather than starved), this is an encyclopedic entry not a white book of soviet terror.

bumper wheat crop in 1932 - highly debatable piece of info, no matter the source. Multiple opposing views say of extremely poor crops two years in a row.

10 million casualties - mathematically impossible, no matter how censuses were falsified (if at all). Take into consideration the progression: Russian censuses - Soviet pre-WWII - Soviet casualties during WWII (27 million) - late Soviet population enumerations. There had to be a spike of births in Ukraine somewhere between 1913 and 1931, which is nonsense considering WWI and early Soviet years, Civil War, etc.

Deleting the map of official recognition of historic event and the term 'holodomor' - not pretty at all :(

'Therefore the Holodomor is also known as the "terror-famine in Ukraine" - another emotional outburst. It is called that way by those who accept that viewpoint.

Falsification: There was no 'joint declaration at the United Nations in 2003' that 'has defined the famine as the result of cruel actions and policies of the totalitarian regime that caused the deaths of millions of Ukrainians, Russians, Kazakhs and other nationalities in the USSR. In fact it was a Joint Statement on the 70th anniversary of Holodomor, written by Ukraine, 'supported' by over 60 delegations - less than one third of UN membership. It was issued as an official document of the General Assembly but never had a official status of a UN Declaration.

Etymology: This is just a flight of fantasy by someone who apparently does not speak Ukranian very well. Only one of the word's possible translations (-Mor) is plague (rather pestilence than plague as infectious disease), the main one is mass death, period.

possibly from the expression moryty holodom, ‘to inflict death by hunger’. The Ukrainian verb "moryty" (морити) means "to poison somebody, drive to exhaustion or to torment somebody".  ??? Possibly?? What is all this? BSDM dictionary? Hire a professional interpreter before editing.

Sometimes the expression is translated into English as "murder by hunger or starvation. Again, in the eye of the beholder, unofficially it can be translated any way you want it.

Scope and duration: Again as before: It is believed that over 12 million Ukrainians died in this small time period. Believed by whom? Why not 22 million or 32 million? We have a book by an English author on the Tanks of WWII, in a footnote entry dedicated to the explanation of a Russian term kulak the book says of 60 million kulaks eliminated by Stalin. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a livejournal discussion board.

Bfmlc1 (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Scope and duration" Correct. The words you quoted are the pure example of WP:WEASEL. Taking into account that they are unsourced and contradict to what many reliable sources say, I deleted them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Falsification. AFAIK, you are right. Feel free to modify the text accordingly.

Re: Ethymology. Generally speaking, the Ukrainian and Russian colloquial word "мор" means "pestilence, wholesale deaths". Plague is one particular kind of "мор". In that sense, the prefix "holodo" just specifies the cause of this "мор". However, these my speculations are just WP:OR similar to what we have in the article: the article's statement seems to be unsupported by sources, therefore it can be removed (per WP:V) by anyone who wants to question that interpretation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Falsification". I have changed "joint declaration" into "joint statement" and provided the reference to the document in the lead. Is it OK now?

"10 million casualties" - from what I have read on the subject I agree that the number is certainly inflated. On the other hand it is somehow referenced and vigorously protected by some editors. I really would prefer not to have another round of edit war here. Any suggestions?

"Etymology" - we sometimes provide English translations from Russian or Ukrainian because we have plenty of native speakers. I believe it is not OR if there is no controversy over the translation, otherwise we have to either remove the translation of find a reliable reference. IMHO current "death by hunger" is not perfect but better than no translation. Maybe we would just say "from Ukrainian holod (голод) - starvation, famine and mor (мор) - death, plague". We could even use some dictionary as a reference. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"death by hunger"? according to Encyclopedia of genocide and crimes against humanity, Volume 3 By Dinah Shelton Holodomor means "extermination by starvation".--Termer (talk) 04:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Etymology is the study of the history of the word, not its meaning.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No kidding? The meaning of the word is not a part of the history of the word?--Termer (talk) 05:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The meaning of the word relates to its present, not past. Previous meaning could be quite different. "Idiot" initially meant those citizens who didn't participate in any public activity, "immune" meant the right not to pay municipal taxes, "symposium" meant feast and "parasites" were those who came to "symposium" without invitation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

One way or the another, the subject is not so important, so the further dispute about etymology does not deserve neither your nor my efforts. Agree?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, unlike you I didn't talk about the etymology in the first place but about the meaning of the word. So I have no idea why did you once again got carried away and posted a grade school lecture on etymology here, on the talk page about Holodomor?--Termer (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

''"extermination by starvation"?'' Encyclopedia of genocide and crimes against humanity is not an authority on linguistics. The 'Encyclopedia' is a politically charged publication. It's like using the documents of the Communist Party of Estonia to explain the meaning of an expression 'Estonian Nazi collaborator' (this example is for TERMER personally), of course the meaning from such a source will be politically charged. Here's the definition of Holodomor from Ukrainian Wikipedia. Голодомо́р 1932—1933 років (англ. Famine Genocide, Ukrainian Genocide) — голод в сільських районах СРСР, зокрема України, викликаний організованими заходами керівників УРСР і СРСР. Він викликав масову загибель сільського населення України і півдня Росії, переважну більшість якого становили українці. Funny thing that despite the presence of politically charged English language 'bumper-stickers' (Famine Genocide, Ukrainian Genocide) the translation goes like this: Holodomor of 1932-1933 is hunger in agricultural regions of the USSR, including Ukraine, caused by organized measures of the leaders of USSR and Ukr.SSR. It caused massive death of agricultural population of Ukraine and South of Russia, the main part of which consisted of Ukrainians.

Bfmlc1 (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The 'Encyclopedia' is a politically charged publication? According to whom?--Termer (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have to waste time on the obvious - 'Encyclopedia' has been published to condemn acts of genocide as seen by its authors and whoever paid for publishing 'Encyclopedia'. It is politically charged because it exists for that purpose, not for the purpose of studying etymology of words. That is not to say they give erroneous definitions, it is just not a linguistic authority, regular vocabularies exist for interpreting words Bfmlc1 (talk) 06:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Refusal of Israel to recognize Holodomor as genocide

Coming shorlty

RESOLUTION ON THE 75TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE GREAT FAMINE 1932-33 IN UKRAINE submitted by Ukraine to the UN General Assembly in September 2008 not accepted for consideration

Coming shortly

Bfmlc1 (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

My only comment is that you seem to misuse bold fonts. On WP talk pages printing texts in bold mean yelling, and, therefore, is acceptable only in very outstanding cases. You are looking more rude than you were intended to be...:)
--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No intention to be rude - the bold font are the headlines of paragraphs I intended to expand. I'll post them shortly.Bfmlc1 (talk) 05:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, perhaps you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia. While being bold is encouraged, equally encouraged is the assumption of good faith. By stating that another editor is "undoing" edits is just rude. Anybody who is interested in the article can find out exactly who has done what to it. Your contributions will be equally visible.

I would suggest that rather than removing references and adding 'tags' to articles you first try to make the article better. If, after improvements, an understanding cannot be reached, you can take the next step and add tags, or even contact an administrator.

If you have nothing constructive to add to this article, please remove the tags. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

While admitting that I am new to Wikipedia and trying to proceed as I learn, I cannot accept this condescending guiding from you. I have scrolled through all your comments and cannot conclude anything but that you are so poisonously biased you are not in a position to even mention good faith. I have tried to make the obvious corrections first, like unnecessary repetitions of emotionally charged statements and it was undone almost immediately without explanation. I have posted my concerns later on the discussion page, my corrections were still being undone immediately and without even an attempt to discuss the matter. The whole entry appears to have been written according to the laws of political expediency - 'we have a position and we can't be wrong and now we will prove it to you' and who cares that the actual prove is shaky, patchy and doesn't really hold water. The admin removed two tags for the moment but I stand by my position that they are totally justified, there are references that do not support the actuals message of the original source, there are inflammatory statements peppered through this entry, and many are either poorly backed up or just sourceless altogether. No offense, Horlo, I was just being blunt. You wanna have a discussion without prejudice, get rid of the prejudice. Bfmlc1 (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Hello, Bfmlc1 (is that Dutch?) well, if you don't mind being blunt, then neither do I. First, you need to get off the pedestal which makes you think that you are the only person who is correct, and every other editor who has contributed to this article is wrong.

How can you assume to work with somebody after a sentence like "you are so poisonously biased you are not in a position to even mention good faith"? The reason you have not been reported as a disruptive influence is the good faith of all the editors here, including me. Learn the difference between opinion and attitude. Fast.

Now, again, a quick lesson in Wikipedia etiquette - if there is a fact with which you disagree, simply add a "citation needed" tag after it. Don't assume that because there is no reference listed that none exists.

Second, if you have an issue with an article like this one, which has the potential for misinterpretation, make sure that you understand what is being said before adding condescending guidance or tags. Tagging without making a substantial improvement to the article is considered rude. If a vast majority of editors seem to disagree with you on a particular topic, there are other methods of dealing with the issues. I'm sure that you will be able to find them just as quickly as you were able to find the page with tags.

Finally, please at least take the time to read your edits before posting them if you want to be taken seriously. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note that published "Encyclopedia..." is a reliable source per WP:RS, but Ukrainian wikipedia is not.Biophys (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source on what? Nobody doubts its authority on genocide related facts, but if it describes the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would it be a reliable source on nuclear physics? Bfmlc1 (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you provided no secondary source claiming such things I presume you're talking about your opinions? Please note that Wikipedia is based on secondary published sources not on opinions on talk pages,--Termer (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Although WP is not a source for itself, the rules that regulate reliability and relevance of certain secondary sources are set by Wikipedians themselves, and not by anybody else. The policy states that "As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable the source is", whereas WP guidelines encourage the editors to use common sence. Consequently, the Bfmlc1's statement has been made in accordance with both WP policy and guidelines: the genocide article, published by some reputable historian, can contain blatant errors in description of the mechanism of atomic explosion. Similarly, the book focused on causes and consequences of Holodomor may be not a reliable source regarding etymology of the word Holodomor. A regular dictionary may be much more preferrable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Communist genocide

The communist genocide has a big section regarding this famine and the history of genocide claims. I am personally responsible for most of the prose (which is based on this article and other articles in Russian and English Wikipedia.) there, and would like editors of holodomor come and see. Feel free to use my ideas there or correct them as you see fit regardless of what you might think of the POV title of that article. Another question is that I could not find anything on history of usage of the term, other than a claim that it was popularized in 1980-90s by Ukrainian independence movement. (Igny (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC))

The site you use as a major source seem not to cite almost any reliable source. In addition, the text seems to be not vetted by scientific community. BTW, since WP cannot be a source for itself, using "other articles in Russian and English Wikipedia" is not the best idea. Did you use reliable sources for your work?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

By other WP articles I meant I copy-pasted referenced statements from there. So most of the statements are indeed referenced. That article was used by me primarily for an outline to put the genocide claims into perspective, and here I just assumed that most of their claims are easily verifiable. (Igny (talk) 04:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC))

By copypasting referenced statements you thereby endorse them. However, I noticed some editors have a tendency to change an already existing text without looking into the source. As a result, the text appeared to be unsupported by the cited source (I can provide several recent examples upon request). You should always check the WP text you use for correctness. I mean, you must look in the cited sources before copypasting the text.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I know what you are talking about, that is why I am asking others to review the section I worked on. To my eye, it looks ok at the moment. I do not have much time right now but I may come back later to review all the sources which I "used". (Igny (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC))

Well, the section you are talking about seems to be well written and balanced. I would say, the present article would benefit if some ideas from this section, as well as the overall tone, were added here. I'll try to look at the sources, probably some sources should be added. One concrete comment. The section mentions Conquest. He is extremely anti-Soviet writer whose opinion should be used just as a higher estimate of the scale of Communist crimes. As a proof for that statement I can refer to the fact that after Soviet archives become available for public he reconsidered his earlier estimations of the number of Stalin's victims (towards much lower values). --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is this thread here? You said you wrote your own entry on 'communist genocide'. Why can't you discuss it there? No offense but it looks like a deliberate trick to dilute discussions on the topic at hand Bfmlc1 (talk) 06:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but your remark looks like GTFO, if you know what I mean. I do not want to know what kind of response you tried to provoke here, but I politely decline your request. (Igny (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC))

Sorry you feel that way, nobody was being rude to you. I don't try to provoke responses, I was merely making a point. Why are you discussing your entry here? You have your own discussion page and I suggested you do it there. You refusal just appears to prove my hypothesis as to why are doing this :) Bfmlc1 (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

My point is that I do not have my own discussion pages. Neither do you. And you are wrong about your not being rude. In fact, your persistence proves that you are in fact being rude on purpose. (Igny (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC))

Sorry again if you feel that way, I have no objection anymore, knock yourself out. I'm done here. Bfmlc1 (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your permission, but I really did not need it. (Igny (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC))

In my opinion, Igny was right when he pointed our attention at this "Communist genocide article"'s section. However, the misunderstanding could be avoided if he made it as a separate section, not as a subsection (just by removing extra '='s)...--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I did put it into a separate section, see here. I moved it out. (Igny (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC))

I already pointed out that you appear to be deliberately provoking confrontation. Why move your new 'section' at the bottom, where chronologically it doesn't belong? I wrote two new sections after your topic was written, yet you masked them by moving your text down without a reason. Bfmlc1 (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

'Bumper crop' false references:

Quote: There were no natural causes for starvation and in fact, Ukraine - unlike other Soviet Republics - enjoyed a bumper wheat crop in 1932.[1][2]

Reference 1 (Britannica):

The Ukrainian grain harvest of 1932 had resulted in below-average yields (in part because of the chaos wreaked by the collectivization campaign), but it was more than sufficient to sustain the population. Nevertheless, Soviet authorities set requisition quotas for Ukraine at an impossibly high level. Brigades of special agents were dispatched to Ukraine to assist in procurement, and homes were routinely searched and foodstuffs confiscated.

Reference 2 (Modernization from the other shore..):

While poor weather may have contributed to the problems of the country-side, the famine was in no way a natural disaster.

Where on earth is the 'Bumper crop'? Bfmlc1 (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

10 million victims

Reference 8 (genocide-encyclopedia):

Just how many died from starvation in Ukraine will never be known. Deaths due to malnutrition were not recorded. Deductions made from the official censuses of 1926 and 1939, and the suppressed census of 1937, have given rise to various interpretations and conclusions. Estimates for Ukraine vary from four to ten million. Six million was the figure a Kharkiv official gave an American newspaper editor in 1933—it still seems the most plausible.

Using this reference as a back up for 10 million claim is incorrect, since it quotes 6 million as the 'most plausible' number. Bfmlc1 (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It tells: (a) the precise number is unknown; (b) the estimates vary from 4 to 10 millions, (c) the most common number is 6 million. It is fine to describe the number of victims this way.Biophys (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So in other words this reference admits the exact number is unknown, gives three different estimates, points out 6 million as the most plausible, and yet it is used specifically to to justify the 10 million claim. Bfmlc1 (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, did you actually read the article? The sentence says "Estimates on the total number of casualties within Soviet Ukraine range mostly from 2.6 million[6][7] to 10 million". Does that absolutely definitively mean that 10 million people were starved to death? No. Does that mean that up to ten million people were starved to death? Yes. Does the reference say that absolutely definitely ten million people were starved to death? No. Does the article say that up to ten million people were starved to death? Yes.

Hope that helps. Horlo (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello yourself. Why does the estimate start with 2.7 then? Other sources quote as few as half a million, why not mention it in the first paragraph too. The reason - people like you push the inflated numbers no matter how ridiculous they look, because you have an agenda. And apparently you didn't read the article yourself. The quote in question isn't even a reference - it is a reference to a reference - so the article itself doesn't exactly back up the 10 million claim.

Other things like 'bumper crop' B.S. quote you just ignore.. Bfmlc1 (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Bfmlc1, perhaps you should just relax a bit, and take a few minutes to remember your manners. Statements like "hello yourself" do not help anything here.

Second, please do not ask me to explain what another editor wrote. You asked questions about 10 million victims, and I answered them.

Now, perhaps you are new to Wikipedia - statements like: "people like you push the inflated numbers no matter how ridiculous they look, because you have an agenda" are considered personal attacks, and will not be tolerated. Please consider yourself warned. Be nice. If you have nothing nice to say, please don't say anything. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Resolution 1314 - US House of Representatives on September 23, 2008 (HRES 1314 EH, 2008)

"in 1932 and 1933, an estimated seven to 10 million Ukrainian people perished at the will of the totalitarian Stalinist government of the former Soviet Union, which perpetrated a premeditated famine in Ukraine in an effort to break the nation's resistance to collectivization and communist occupation;"

• R Serbyn - Ukrainian Quarterly, 2006 "The Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 as Genocide in the Light of the UN Convention of 1948"

"In November 2003, the UN General Assembly commemorated the 70th anniversary of the event with a declaration signed by some 60 countries. The document declared that “the Great Famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine” took seven to 10 million of innocent lives"

--Львівське (talk) 03:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

A resolutions of the American Congress or a declaration signed by some UN members cannot be a reliable sources in that case. They reflect the politicians' opinion on that account, and this opinion may be in a direct contradiction with what the scholars say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

These resolutions should be included in the recognition section, no? --Львівське (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

Hello,

Could somebody please point to specific parts of this article which need to be improved so that the "neutrality" tag can be removed?

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There are some deep nationalist problems with this article. Firstly, the event is commonly known in English as the "Ukrainian famine". If the article is discussing the famine, the common English term (70+ years of use) should be used with preference to draw the distinction between the classification of the famine as the Holodomor, and the famine itself. The article is unclear if Holodomor is used regarding other murderous famines, such as the Irish potato famine, or 19th and 20th century forced famines in India. Similarly the lede contains, "an unprecedented peacetime catastrophe". See Ireland and India. Generally: the prose voice is pov-Ukrainian; and needs to be neutralised. The content doesn't seem generally pov though. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, could you please explain why you say 'the event is commonly known in English as the "Ukrainian famine"'?

Second, you have hit the exact reason why this article is neutral - it presents both opinions: some scholars think that it was just a natural catastrophe, while others think that it was a forced extermination of a nation. That's exactly why this article is neutral.

Now, my question was for specific examples of why you think that this is not neutral, not statements like "generally: the prose voice is pov-Ukrainian". That doesn't help, unfortunately, nor does "needs to be neutralized". Please be more specific, thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody can help you Horlo if you refuse to read the discussion page. There are plenty of neutrality points that need to be addressed. Bfmlc1 (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I have read the talk page, and unfortunately all I seem to find is statements like "it's too POV". Rather than helping, people criticize and/or tag. That's the problem - people seem to think I want their help, rather than my wanting to improve this article.

Once again, having asked a direct question, I am given an obfuscating answer: "there are plenty of neutrality points that need to be addressed". PLEASE ADDRESS THEM! Help the article! Improve it! Don't just tag and criticize!

Once again, please offer concrete advice on how to improve this article. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, if nobody can actually say why this article needs a neutrality tag, I will remove it. If anybody has any suggestions as to how it can be improved, please state them so that the appropriate changes can be made. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that you asked. As the first step, I suggest to move the article to Ukrainian famine (1932-33). My second suggestion would be to write an article Holodomor about usage of the term. Do you have any information about the history of usage of the term Holodomor, in particular when did it enter English language? Once you do that I will follow up with more suggestions. (Igny (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC))

Hello, thank you for your suggestions. However, the word Holodomor in and of itself connotes the fact that it was Ukrainians who suffered. Now, by no means does the term imply that only Ukrainians sufferred at the hands of communists either at that time or at any other time. However, just as Holocaust has a specific meaning, so does Holodomor.

Your suggestion as to the expansion of the etymology section is very astute. I think that it is very useful to increase that section. I will try to develop the section to answer your worries.

However, neither of these suggestions warrant a POV tag. Especially if nobody but I try to improve the article. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

My point was that the title is currently loaded with POV, due to inherent POV meaning of the Ukrainian word, Holodomor. No matter what objections, rebuttals or rebukes you add to the article content, its POV title would guarantee lack of neutrality of coverage. I would withdraw this comment, if you find reliable sources stating that this famine has always been known as holodomor in Western media (using English language) or it became the prevalent name for the famine. Mere statements that the famine is referred by Ukrainians as holodomor are not enough.(Igny (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC))

WP:NAME Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Another problem is that the famine is known also as "Soviet famine". Refusal to recognize that other agricultural regions of the USSR (Volga, Kazakhstan, Caucasus) were also affects, as well as an attempt to present the famine as directed against the Ukrainians as the nation is also a nationalistic POV. In addition, the similarity between the words The Holocaust and Holodomor seems to be used to implicitly present Holodomor as a planned genocide of the Holocaust's scale.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like to shepherd the merge process. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

All those questions have been addressed previously on this talk page, please familiarize yourselves with it. There is no good reason to keep running the discussion in circles.--Termer (talk) 06:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
PS. IN case Paul Siebert you'd like to add such opinions like "...a nationalistic POV" and "the similarity between the words The Holocaust and Holodomor seems to be used..." etc to the article, please find secondary published sources that do say so and simply add the opinion to the article accordingly. At the same time please do not use the talk page for publishing your own opinions about the subject. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Termer,
The previous discussion you referred at lead to nothing, so I see no reasons for not starting it de novo. In addition, if you believe that every talk page post must be based on some reliable secondary source, please, provide a secondary sources that state that :). Again, I don't have to provide a reliable source for my talk page posts. And you should know that I always provide the sources when I edit WP articles.
Cheers,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:TALK should answer all your questions. And any politically charged statements you make at talk pages should better be based on WP:RS, otherwise it might look like you're posting here your own political opinions.--Termer (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

otherwise it might look like you're posting here your own political opinions. Aren't we all? Oh wait, of course not, we are here to improve encyclopedia rather than push our agenda here, right? Well, whatever you choose, you'd be wrong. (Igny (talk) 23:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC))

Please be more specific Igny, based on what sources and how exactly would you like to improve this article? Thanks!--Termer (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

When I came to this article for the first time, I was looking for an answer to how and when the Ukrainian term Holodomor entered English language (I already knew what holodomor was as well as the meaning of the term). However, all I found was lots of political talk over genocide claims etc, but I still could not find the answer to that very basic question. (Igny (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

how and when the Ukrainian term Holodomor entered English language? Well, in Canada the word genocide and the Holodomor have been tied together in the secondary school English language curriculum for quite some time. FFI please see the 1995 English quarterly, Volumes 27-29 By the Canadian Council of Teachers of English: Title: Discourse, Power, Social Abuse and Vigilance: Learning about the "Holodomor" in English Studies Classrooms.; Abstract: Explores some of the possibilities and problems of teaching secondary school students about genocide through the study of language used to describe the event. Focuses on Eastern Europe during the Stalin era when a catastrophe known as the "Holodomor" occurred. [7].--Termer (talk) 04:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering that Canada has sizable Ukrainian minority, that word in Canadian textbooks does not surprise me. But ok, how about earlier, eh? (Igny (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

What about earlier? And what about the Ukrainian minority in Canada? Again, in case you do know any secondary published sources that might help to improve the article please do not hesitate to bring those forward. Sorry but I'm not here to chat about anything else really.--Termer (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The best I got was an unreferenced claim from other wikis that the term was popularized by the Ukrainian independence movement of late 1980s and entered the English language dictionaries/encyclopedias in the middle of 1990s. Is this correct? (Igny (talk) 11:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

I don't know what to say. The only way I know of how to add facts/opinions into any articles on wikipedia is to get it from published sources.--Termer (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

In general, arguments of the Ukrainian POV's proponent are a little bit funny. According to them, Holodomor was the Ukrainian name of the 1932-33 famine in Ukraine, consequently Holodomor was the event completely separate and different from the famines in Volga, North Caucasus and Kazakhstan. Definitely, this "consequently" is a pure example of a logical fallacy. I believe, renaming of the article can help to fix the problem. However, the major problem with the article is that it is almost ignored by non-Ukrainian and non-Eastern European editors, and it would not be easy for the latters to support renaming. I believe, the lack of interest to this article of non-Eastern European editors may serve an indirect proof that the word Holodomor has not become yet an English word: the non-Ukrainian world uses "Soviet famine" instead.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop posting essays on the subject to this talk page Paul. Contrary to your opinions that "Holodomor has not become yet an English word" please take a look at the 1995 English quarterly, Volumes 27-29 By the Canadian Council of Teachers of English posted recently above.--Termer (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

But your own quote says "teaching secondary school students about genocide through the study of language used to describe the event." And when they refer to "language used to describe the event", they mean Ukrainian, right? (Igny (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC))

Did you just suggest that they study Ukrainian language in English class? It is my understanding though that the language that gets studied in English class is English, not Ukrainian.--Termer (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. In Canada, a country with significant Ukrainian minority, as part of curriculum for English class, they studied the Ukrainian famine through the study of [Ukrainian] language used to describe the event. (Igny (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC))

Says who and where?--Termer (talk) 06:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. What language do they refer to when they say "language used to describe event"? Or you are questioning that there is significant Ukrainian minority in Canada? (Igny (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC))

Sorry but a suggestion by you that they study Ukrainian language in English class in Canada cant be taken seriously.--Termer (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not know about the rest of the book as I do not have access to it. But that is what your quote out of it said. They studied language used to describe the even. That was Ukrainian. In anyway, surely you could come up with more references that just one ambiguous quote? But even if not, I could accept that in 1995 Holodomor was already introduced in English language. What's about earlier? What's about countries other than Canada, like Britain and USA? (Igny (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC))

Hi, to summarize this discussion, the single issue raised so far is the naming of the article. There are well known routines existing for this, and not using these routines and just slapping "POV" template instead is counter-productive. Please go forward with move procedure, or do not disrupt this article. --windyhead (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of POV issues here. The title is just the first step. But if you are not willing to discuss compromises, there is no point for me to participate here. Sorry but that means that the tag stays. (Igny (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC))

FYI language that gets studied in English class in English Igny, not Ukrainian. --Termer (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for not pointing all of those "lots of POV issues" again. --windyhead (talk) 09:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The use of TIME Magazine articles as source

Recently I added a reference from this 1937 article from TIME Magazine as a reference, but my edit was been undone.

My question for you: do TIME articles like this above are really doubtful source?--MaGioZal (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted. TIME 1937, "Ultimately, Duranty of the Times indicated a Soviet famine mortality of 1,500,000; Maurice Hindus "at least three million" and the Christian Science Monitor's Willam Henry Chamberlin 4.000,000. The Soviet Government has "stopped the publication of vital statistics for the period in question."" TIME is not a historian capable of evaluating competing claims, nor a demographer of genocide. Secondly, these are Soviet famine statistics, not Ukrainian specific famine statistics, thirdly, its Tertiary, quoting other secondary sources, fourthly, this is a historical subject not a journalistic subject. The appropriate sources are academic. If you dispute this, I'll happily take it to WP:RS/N with a very neutral header and seek uninvolved editor's opinions. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Part of understanding this subject in particular and unraveling claims is to represent the spectrum of what has been reported and stated over time. Removing this information removes from the understanding of the subject. No one has purported TIME is a "historian." That TIME is not a historian is not a basis for deleting it. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 18:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

In private, Duranty was estimating much higher numbers, something like 10 million for the famine in total as I remember, and around 5 million for Ukraine. Not that he reported this. Moreschi (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As long as the text in the article in the context would clearly say "according to Time magazine...", nobody should have any business removing it from the article.--Termer (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Title/Introduction to the topic is very biased

The introduction starts off with a number of refutable statements. Instead of it introducing the topic, it directly goes on to say the causes, which it presents as facts.

There were no natural causes for starvation and in fact, Ukraine - unlike other Soviet Republics - enjoyed a bumper wheat crop in 1932

According to a number of sources, there indeed was. In A History of Ukraine by Mikhail Hrushevsky, a leading Ukrainian historian he writes

Again a year of drought coincided with chaotic agricultural conditions

Also Professor Nicholas Riasnovsky from Harvard wrote

Severe droughts in 1930 and 1931, especially in the Ukraine, aggravated the plight of farming and created near famine conditions

There was also other causes to the famine. However the article tries to impose upon the reader that Stalin himself was a deliberate cause. Kulak opposition to the collectivization made a huge blow to the agriculture.

Fredric Schuman wrote

Their [kulak] opposition took the initial form of slaughtering their cattle and horses in preference to having them collectivized. The result was a grievous blow to Soviet agriculture, for most of the cattle and horses were owned by the kulaks. Between 1928 and 1933 the number of horses in the USSR declined from almost 30,000,000 to less than 15,000,000; of horned cattle from 70,000,000 (including 31,000,0000 cows) to 38,000,000 (including 20,000,000 cows); of sheep and goats from 147,000,000 to 50,000,000; and of hogs from 20,000,000 to 12,000,000. Soviet rural economy had not recovered from this staggering loss by 1941.

`... Some [kulaks] murdered officials, set the torch to the property of the collectives, and even burned their own crops and seed grain. More refused to sow or reap, perhaps on the assumption that the authorities would make concessions and would in any case feed them.

`The aftermath was the ``Ukraine famine of 1932--33 .... Lurid accounts, mostly fictional, appeared in the Nazi press in Germany and in the Hearst press in the United States, often illustrated with photographs that turned out to have been taken along the Volga in 1921 .... The ``famine was not, in its later stages, a result of food shortage, despite the sharp reduction of seed grain and harvests flowing from special requisitions in the spring of 1932 which were apparently occasioned by fear of war in Japan. Most of the victims were kulaks who had refused to sow their fields or had destroyed their crops.'

There had also been a typhoid epidemic at the time. There having been no antibiotics, it was the cause of many deaths.

Dr. Hans Blumenfeld, internationally respected city planner and recipient of the Order of Canada, worked as an architect in Makayevka, Ukraine during the famine. He wrote:

`There is no doubt that the famine claimed many victims. I have no basis on which to estimate their number .... Probably most deaths in 1933 were due to epidemics of typhus, typhoid fever, and dysentery. Waterborne diseases were frequent in Makeyevka; I narrowly survived an attack of typhus fever.'

Speaking of bias, the source you use, Frederick Schuman, who travwlled through Stalin's USSR as a tourist, is not a historian but a political science professor. About him: [8]: "Following the war, Professor Schuman was investigated by the House Committee on Un-American Activities for his alleged communist sympathies. Although he was ultimately acquitted, many vocal critics, including several Williams alumni, objected to the professor's outspoken liberalism and suspected communism and continued to call for Schuman's dismissal throughout the rest of his career at the college. The professor undertook several very public political and social battles at Williams, including his much-publicized refusal to attend ceremonies during a visit from Ladybird Johnson, which he considered a tacit indication of support for President Johnson's foreign policies on the part of the college."Faustian (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well almost all the sources of the famine being a genocide come from anti-communists and fascists. How do we dispute this?

I like how you lump together "anti-communists" and "fascists". So you want a pro-communist source to describe the famine as a genocide? Moreover the issue of genocide is seperate from the issue of whether the communists were innocent of the crime, or the victims themselves were to blame, as you seem to be suggesting with your sources.Faustian (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Also Isaac Mazepa, leader of the Ukrainian Nationalist movement confirmed Fredrick's observations.

`At first there were disturbances in the kolkhosi [collective farms] or else the Communist officials and their agents were killed, but later a system of passive resistance was favored which aimed at the systematic frustation of the Bolsheviks' plans for the sowing and gathering of the harvest .... The catastrophe of 1932 was the hardest blow that Soviet Ukraine had to face since the famine of 1921--1922. The autumn and spring sowing campaigns both failed. Whole tracts were left unsown, in addition when the crop was being gathered ... in many areas, especially in the south, 20, 40 and even 50 per cent was left in the fields, and was either not collected at all or was ruined in the threshing.'

Is Mazepa a historian?Faustian (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Id also like to point out that the title itself is biased. It instantly assumes the famine was a genocide.

Your real source seems to be this website which is explicitly pro-Stalin. From the same website we have this gem here:

"The disastrous turn taken by Khrushchev shows in fact the pertinence of most of Stalin's ideas. Stalin stressed that class struggle continues under socialism, that the old feudal and bourgeois forces never stopped their struggle for restoration and that the opportunists in the Party, the Trotskyists, the Bukharinists and the bourgeois nationalists, helped the anti-Socialist classes regroup their forces. Khrushchev declared that these theses were aberrations and that they led to arbitrary measures. But in 1993, the apparition of Tsar Boris stands out as a monument to the correctness of Stalin's judgment.

Adversaries of the dictatorship of the proletariat never stopped in insisting that Stalin represented not the dictatorship of the workers but his own autocratic dictatorship. The word Gulag means `Stalinist dictatorship'. But those who were in the Gulag during Stalin's era are now part of the bourgeoisie in power. To demolish Stalin was to give socialist democracy a new birth. But once Stalin was buried, Hitler came out of his tomb. And in Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Slovakia, etc., all the fascist heroes are resurrected, ilk such as Vlasov, Bandera, Antonescu, Tiso and other Nazi collaborators. The destruction of the Berlin Wall heralded the rise of neo-Nazism in Germany. Today, when faced with the unleashing of capitalism and fascism in Eastern Europe, it is easier to understand that Stalin did in fact defend worker's power."

I guess this is part of your crusade against capitalism which you admit to here. "While I would love to argue about how awesome the gulags were..."

Faustian (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Whats your point?

Of course its pro-Stalin. Anything that defends Stalin is immediately marked as pro-Stalin and thus a useless source?

How can you listen to any opposition this way?

And the comment on the gulags was a joke. Your going to criticize me of being a anti-capitalist crusader? The right has made a tremendous amount of effort even before the Cold War era to make every possible lie against communism. These lies continue here, even in the supposedly neutral Wikipedia. Any anti-capitalist source is viewed as false purely because of its nature, and any anti-communist source coming from anywhere is agreed with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakooza2 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

A pro-Stalin source is not much different in terms of usefulness than a pro-Hitler one. Do you disagree? The same source you use also claims "The disastrous turn taken by Khrushchev shows in fact the pertinence of most of Stalin's ideas. Stalin stressed that class struggle continues under socialism, that the old feudal and bourgeois forces never stopped their struggle for restoration and that the opportunists in the Party, the Trotskyists, the Bukharinists and the bourgeois nationalists, helped the anti-Socialist classes regroup their forces. Khrushchev declared that these theses were aberrations and that they led to arbitrary measures. But in 1993, the apparition of Tsar Boris stands out as a monument to the correctness of Stalin's judgment." Yes, such stuff shouldn't be the basis of wikipedia articles.Faustian (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You are going to dismiss any statement made by a communist unless if it agrees with your views?

Bravo, and you marked off my comments because of POV? What is wrong with a pro-Stalin source. Do you expect an anti-Stalinist to write about how Stalin wasn't a massive murder? Going by your logic, it would be impossible to defend any view, because I would immediately say that you used a source which used bias. Presenting things in an unbiased way is a good thing, but its impossible to do so when making an argument. By the same logic, I can also dismiss anything anti-communist because they come from anti-communists. The pro-Stalin source I used has its sources, it has its facts, and it has its explanations and reasons. You cannot say the whole book is useless just because its written in favor of Stalin. That is bias right there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakooza2 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The title on the famine is called Holodomor, the criticism of it are termed "Denial" and the section dedicated to the criticism is further attacks on the leftist viewpoint.

And why the hell do you decide the basis of Wikipedia articles? All I did was introduce the leftist view. Whether you believe it was true or ridiculous or not, it doesn't matter. Its purpose was to be neutrul. Even if we leftists believed Stalin was an alien, we'd have the right to put that view of ours in there as long as we did not present it as a fact through the use of words such as "believe". For example, "Leftists believe Stalin was contacted by an alien and told he ignore the famine or they would kill the world".

The article on the Holodomor is anything but neutral. It makes constant attacks and presents them as facts. And the sections dedicated to criticism are controlled by the opposition itself!

Wikipedia isn't the place to argue whose view is true, it is the place to present a neutral view on topics. You are going directly against this.

Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

The article even has this banner flying on the top

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (September 2009)

Why? Because its strongly rightist and dismisses any criticisms. Any attempt I made at making it neutral was turned down by you and other rightists.

As of the quote. It doesn't matter what the author of that book believes. He presented an argument, I posted it in a neutral way. It is not for you to decide if its right or not. That is the readers job.

Also, as a communist I find any anti-communist source useless. Does this give me the right to erase from Wikipedia anything that's anti-communist? No. Does it give me the right to edit them to show a neutral position? Yes. Yakooza2 (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting about yourself that "as a communist I find any anti-communist source useless." Not everbody who describes Stalinist crimes is a "rightist." Being nuetral does not mean that all sources are equal in terms of their reliablity nor notability. The source you quote from is hardly reliable and your use of it is frankly little diffeent from using a neo-Nazi website in a "criticism" section (renamed from denial) on the Holocaust. That aside, we do not even know how much of what your unreliable source claims is quoted out of context from the original (actually, you did not even provide references for all your additions, I found the source myself using google).Faustian (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't admit that any anti-communist source is useless. That was your logic I was criticizing.

Again, it is not for you to decide the reliability of my sources whenever I put them in a neutral way. I never tried to make my sources seem as if there were superior and unquestionable. What if I said "Ludo Martins (The author of :the Another View of Stalin) believes that drought, kulak opposition, and a typhoid fever were the causes of the Ukrainian famine". You cant get any more neutral than that, but you'd still find some BS to take it off.

PS: take the time to fix your spelling mistakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakooza2 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• [9] - "enjoyed a bumper wheat crop in 1932"??? 94.179.174.111 (talk) 10:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

So as it appears the neutrality dispute was created artificially by User:Yakooza2 a sock of User:Jacob Peters. Time to remove the tag then.--Termer (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

A gentle reminder to all editors

"Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article." - WP:NPOV -moritheil^Talk 02:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Estimates range

Hi, please provide a quote from "Million Feared Dead of Hunger in South Russia" confirming "Estimates on the total number of casualties within Soviet Ukraine range mostly from 1 million" it is a source for --windyhead (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The term first appeared in print on July 18, 1988

Hi, please provide a quote from the source confirming "The term first appeared in print on July 18, 1988" [10] --windyhead (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I second the request. I believe that in Czech, similar words hladomor (meaning famine) and hladomorna (dungeon used to torture prisoner with starving) are used for centuries (quick check on czech wikisource confirms that they were surely used in the nineteenth century). The word seems to be a really simple compound of rather basic words in both Czech and Ukrainian. It really surprises me that in Ukrainian, this compound is claimed to be neologism only thirty years old. There may be some shift in the meaning of the word, so it is now used only for this one great famine, the emphasis of the word mor may shift from plague to torment (by people, not by the Nature). But claiming the word is only 30 years old? Please, give (more) sources. --Tchoř (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

OK lets improve the article

few things that pop out for me right away: who exactly considers the Holodomor "one of the greatest calamities to affect the Ukrainian nation in modern history"?

and

"Millions of inhabitants of Ukraine died of starvation in an unprecedented peacetime catastrophe". Is it just me or does "an unprecedented peacetime catastrophe" sound a bit over the top? No disrespect meant but surely calling it "unprecedented" would at least need an explanation why and how it was "unprecedented". The human history has had its dark moments before and after Holodomor, so is this "unprecedented" really appropriate here? Hope you see what I mean.--Termer (talk) 03:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

unprecedented peacetime catastrophe - thats what Britannica says --windyhead (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe, initially the author meant that this catastrophe was "unprecedented" in Ukrainian, not world history. Obviously the statement needs some clarification.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point Paul! I've fixed it. For the next, anybody knows who exactly considered the Holodomor "one of the greatest calamities"? --Termer (talk) 06:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see that sometibes we can be unanimous.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm always intend to be unanimous with whatever the sources say. And currently there is nothing to WP:VERIFY with that the Holodomor was "one of the greatest calamities". So it needs to go.--Termer (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that would be correct. Only disputable statements need to be supported by sources. It is hard to imagine that loss of about 10% of population is not one of the greatest calamity. Note, the text states "one of the greatest calamities", not "the greatest". WP encourages us to use common sense, and to doubt that that was "one of the greatest calamities" is against common sense. In addition, according to WP:LEDE citations are not necessary in a lede. I propose you to restore this statement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No commentary any kind, especially unsourced commentary is necessary on wikipedia articles. The readers can and should make up their own minds based on sourced facts in the article either the famine was "one of the greatest calamities" or "the greatest..." etc. In case anybody is known to have said that about the subject, and it can be verified, there shouldn't be any problems with including such commentaries in the article.--Termer (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

News flash

I am afraid to add it to the article just yet, but here is an interesting report for discussion. (Igny (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC))

Would anyone be interested in adding a section linking this to the killing of Jews during World War II -- as a reprisal for the perception that Jews were to blame for the famine? (as communist agents). I am not arguing for or against this position (I do not know enough to say), but believe this is very germane to understanding the Holodomor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.237.237 (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look like news really. It has been going back and forward since Raphael Lemkin in 1953 coined the famine as "Soviet Genocide in the Ukraine". Just that the UN Genocide convention doesn't include social, religious etc groups in the term unlike Lemkin did. Therefore yes, currently nobody can really consider the Holodomor legally a Genocide according to the convention, and therefore there is nothing new in this newsflash really.--Termer (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

What is strange though that the section Was Holodomor a genocide? starts up with Robert Conquest and his views. at the time when in chronological sense it would be Raphael Lemkin who raised the question originally. So it seems this needs to be fixed.--Termer (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

When and where did he raise the question? (Igny (talk) 03:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

When looking for the source on this I only found the UCCLA blog and the report in Ukr Embassy in Canada. Are there any independent sources? It is not that I do not trust UCCLA, it is just that it is not the first time Ukraine fabricated facts during its campaign to gain international recognition of holodomor as genocide. (Igny (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

What are you talking about. Lemkin's essay is a known work on the subject. In case you're looking for secondary sources that refer to it here is one that first came handy: published by Oxford University press; Oxford Journals; Journal of International Criminal Justice, that among other things says about the work: Raphael Lemkin's essay 'Soviet Genocide in Ukraine' is one of the earliest writings on the subject by a non-Ukrainian scholar. etc.--Termer (talk) 06:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean Roman Serbyn? (Igny (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

What about Roman Serbyn? In case you're referring to the author of the article than yes, that's waht it says .--Termer (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I just keep waiting for a non-Ukrainian source of Lemkin's views on Holodomor. (Igny (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

Sorry, didn't get it, the Oxford University press who published this work by Lemkin and the New York Public library where its held are Ukrainian sources in your opinion?--Termer (talk) 22:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Oxford University published a work by Serbyn, not Lemkin. As I do not have access to NY public library I wonder is it the only copy of Lemkin's speech? Why noone brought this up other than Serbyn? I would still be interested in circumstances of this speech, and the context of his claims and Lemkin's actual words and not an essay by Serbyn. Do these words literally belong to Lemkin? Why couldn't I find any more sources on this speech other than reprints of Serbyn's paper? (Igny (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

You're incorrect. The source Journal of International Criminal Justice says it right from the beginning [11] "We publish a piece by Raphal Lemkin". And Serbyn has written an introductory note to this, its all there n black and white.--Termer (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

After some extensive search I found what I was interested in.

Text was probably originally composed for Lemkin’s address at the 1953 Ukrainian

Famine commemoration in New York. Later Lemkin added it to the material he was

gathering for his elaborate History of Genocide which was never published. Ed, Roman Serbyn.

It was never published by Lemkin, only a few Lemkin scholars knew about this speech. On the other hand, phrases like "was probably composed", "ignored or downplayed by most of the scholars" are a bit worrying. (Igny (talk) 00:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC))

Well, its pretty clear, what wasn't published back then was History of Genocide by Lemkin. The essay under discussion however has been published by multiple sources like its clearly spelled out in there.--Termer (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Holodomor court hearings begin in Ukraine

The court of appeals in Kyiv has opened hearings into the "fact of genocide-famine Holodomor" in Ukraine in 1932-33 yesterday (Kiev-time). Only I do not understand who will be sentenced, Stalin In absentia??? Anybody knows some more on this? — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 22:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It almost did. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 23:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The Ukrainian Canadian Congress states 7-10 million.

The Ukrainian Canadian Congress states 7-10 million. - this statement is correctly reported and must not be deleted. It does not state that the death toll estimate is 7-10 million. It only reports what the Ukrainian Canadian Congress found through their inquiry. Please do not mis-quote WP:RS that the all info must come from peer reviewed sources. By deleting this NPOV is introduced into the article. Bobanni (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No. The source is not peer-reviewed, and it does not present any new data. The source states:

"The seven to ten million assessment stated in our Statement of November 10, 2003 comes from various sources such as: Robert Conquest’s book “Harvest of Sorrow,” the Final Congressional Report of the U. S. Commission on the Ukraine Famine and the findings of an International Commission of eminent international jurists convened by the Ukrainian World Congress which rendered its final report in 1990. The number seven - ten million ascribes seven million to the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR and three million to other areas of the USSR including Kuban, the North Caucases in Russia and Kazakhstan."

In other words, it just summarizes the data that are always presented in the article, i.e. it is a tertiary (and not the best tertiary) source. In addition, it clearly has been misquoted, because the number of 10 million relates to whole USSR, not to Ukraine. Since the number of victims is a subject of historical studies, not of opinion of non-scholarly sources, UCC's own opinion is hardly relevant.
I remove these data as redundant and incorrectly quoted.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

not surprising

Once more the US in good company, united with dictatorships, fascist and ex-fascist govs. Cute. Hey, even GB is missing. (This observation independent of the question whether holodomor happened or not, just noting the pattern of the game.) --92.202.213.51 (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

2.6m in the lead?

This seems like the total low end and only accepted by a fringe group of people. Majority of scholars put it at 4.8 as an absolute low, while 7.5 seems to be the higher. The generally accepted range should be in the lead, not the outliers.--Львівське (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating, when it comes to UPA membership the highest possible single-sourced figure clearly belongs in the infobox[12], but here 2.6 million is fringe. Actually read the death toll section. The numbers of two-something and three-something million appear far more often than what you claim to be the "scholarly generally accepted range"...especially when they are given some rationale, and not simply thrown out there. It's just remarkable what's happened to wikipedia. --Tavrian 02:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Where?

Yushchenko does not blame Russia for Holodomor. Where to put this in the article? — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 22:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That sounds very strange. Is there anybody who'd blame Russia for Holodomor? in case I'm not mistaken, Holodomor was a result of the policies by the soviet communist regime whose leader wasn't even a Russian. So what has Russia to do with anything here?--Termer (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

A popular meme, especially amongst some nationalists in Eastern Europe and their neocon supporters in the west, is that all the other republics were simply Russia's unwilling puppets, and therefore current day Russia must take full responsibility for everything bad that happened during communist rule. Obviously this is revisionist nonsense and shouldn't be presented as a legit viewpoint in the first place. Additionally, I would think Yushchenko is just trying to score some points with the moderates in Ukraine before the upcoming election, so I don't think this is worth putting in the article. Although maybe it could go in his own article. LokiiT (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

May I draw your attention here to the fact that Russia is the legal successor of Soviet Union. Also, please note that rhetorical use of terms like 'unwilling puppets' and 'revisionist nonsense' weakens any text's claim for objectivity. Lastly, the premise of the argument is 'obvious revisionist nonsense.' Does anyone know what is revisionist nonsense? Why is revisionism presented as nonsense? Is the history not always in the process of being rewritten? Any historical argument has to be grounded on facts, I see none here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.87.240 (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Legal successor has more to do with non proliferation of nuclear arms than policies of USSR. No, Russians, Russia and Russian leaders are not to blame in any respect to Holodomor and the 1932 Soviet-wide famine (yes, soviet-wide, this did not happen just in Ukraine). 99.236.221.124 (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that many Russians posit the "It was Soviet union, nothing to do with us" argument whenever they are faced with the evil or horrendous actions of the Soviet Union, but seem to instantly forget they said thet when the discussion of the GOOD things accomplished by the Soviet Union (Like Ww2) comes up. Either there is a continuity or not, there cannot only be a continuity of convenience, to be applied whenever one feels like it, and ignored when politically awkward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Most of the perpetrators and instigators of the Holodomor were Jews

I think this is important and it should be added to the article. I present this source http://www.altermedia.info/civil-rights/holodomor_1185.html . This will undoubtedly make this article non kosher, but it is important! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wis (talk • contribs) 03:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Do you think that the Jews also lynched all those poor white Americans? It's a big problem. Important! Drmies (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Holodomor as genocide

The official Yanukovich's statement hardly reflects his own private opinion, so this statement seems to be sufficient to state that Ukraine does not recognize Holodomor as genocide any more.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It is merely his private opinion, and it will cost him his political career. In any event Rada (the the Ukr. P'ment) has not rescinded the official status of Holodomor as genocide.Galassi (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That is merely your own opinion, which mean next to nothing on Wikipedia without backing up by the RS. (Igny (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

So give a RS that EXPLICITELY says the Ukraine no longer etc.-Galassi (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Here it is. Where is your RS? (Igny (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

Per WP:BURDEN "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Please, provide a source that states that current Ukrainian official position is that Holodomor was genocide.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually do not see much sense in compiling lists of countries "recognizing Holodomor as genocide". While dictatorships have uniform views on all history questions, democracies are run by politicians having different views (or even not having any particular views at all). USA e.g. couple of times adopted laws commemorating victims of the famine that used word Genocide. Its UN representative on the other hand voted against using this term at some point, etc. It is not showing changes in the official position of the USA (that does not exist) but just show that different American politicians have different opinions on the problem (as well as e.g. whether treatment of Australian aboriginals or American Indians constituted a genocide, whether Irish famine was a genocide, and million similar questions). IMHO much more usable will be to refer to laws, cour decisions, statements by officials, etc. that could be seen as support or otherwise that Holodomor was a genocide. Saying this, Ukraine position is based on Ukrainian Laws, Appellate Court decisions, etc. They are still valid whatever Yanukovich had said in an obscure speech. Thus, if we are to present lists of "Holodomor is Genocide" countries then Ukraine is still in although a footnote is probably deserved. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Technically, the "Holodomor is genocide" rhetoric and policy was mostly based on Yuschenko's (and his team's) speeches. I could not find references to appropriate Ukrainian laws in English, other than some vague news reports. Can anyone search Ukrainian official sites in Ukrainian? (Igny (talk) 04:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC))

Found it. What is the current status of this law?(Igny (talk) 05:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC))

Thanks! I meant this law. I think unless it is repelled or amended it trumps all Yanukovych's speeches Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

10 million

Hi, recent edits put "over 10 million of people starved to death" and so on into article, but that's not what the source says. The source given says "cumulative loss" which is not the same. --windyhead (talk) 09:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Moved: was at [[Talk:User_talk:Windyhead]]
Please explain what you mean by "the source says 'cumulative'". My source does say cumulative losses, but cumulative losses means not only Ukrainians, but other nationalities as well. Which is why I never claim that 10 million Ukrainians died - instead I say people. And this still doesn't actually explain the removal of the two other additions of mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxenbrigg (talk • contribs) 17:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No, cumulative losses means starved to death + unborn + so on. --windyhead (talk) 10:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Really, stating victims of the Holodomor were unborn is hyperbole. Isn't it an agenda to add cumulative loss articles to this article? You could proceed along that path ad infinitum.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

How did the famine end?

Could anyone add a section as to what brought an end to the famine, what actions were taken, how did Ukraine recover from the famine? What played the role in the famine, if one looks at the regional heads, then quite a number lost their position in 1933. Obviously a missing section in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.170.84.179 (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

New infobox template for famines

While working on Famine in India, I thought of and created a new infobox template that can potentially be used in every famine article on Wikipedia. For a list of articles where it can be used, see the categories famines in India, famines and other relevant categories. The usage documentation still needs some improvement and the template might undergo minor teaks further. I am looking for feedback from an expert on famines so I can add/improve parameters in the template. Please feel free to comment/suggest improvements. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Implementation

I started a section that ought to be expanded about how this was accomplished - not underlying causes but how the grain was taken/how food was taken from the starving peasants/how the Holodomor was implemented.Faustian (talk) 05:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The title

is another example of a very odd transliteration. "Holodomor" Ukrainian: Холодомор means death of cold; death of hunger is Ukrainian: Голодомор (Холод = cold, Голод = hunger, googletranslate will confirm that :). Everyone in their right mind would transliterate Голодомор as Golodomor. Any support to change the title? Materialscientist (talk) 07:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Main counterarguments

1. The choice for a WP title is directed by common English usage rather than standard transliterations (see the Kyiv v. Kiev dispute)
2. holodomor has bigger consonance with the Holocaust, as the parallels between the two have been strongly advocated by Ukrainian nationalists, which was likely the main reason for wider usage of holodomor in English in the first place
3. golodomor is also a transliteration from Russian, which is out of favor for Ukrainian nationalists, (again see Kiev v. Kyiv for more on this)

In short, any attempt to rename the article will fail. (Igny (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC))

• In both Russian and Ukrainian the famine is named Голодомор, but the transliteration is different whether the name is taken from Russian or Ukrainian. Ukrainian Г is usually transliterated H (see e.g. our own Wikipedia:Romanization_of_Ukrainian/BGN/PCGN_transliteration_table) while Russian Г is transliterated as G (see e.g. WP:RUS). Thus, transliteration from Russian is Golodomor and from Ukrainian Holodomor. As the famine is considered mostly as mostly a Ukrainian event naturally Ukrainian term is used more often (check Google usage). Spelling Holodomor sounds funny for a Russian ear but it is not the reason to change established English term Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Х=/x/=kh. Г(ukr)=/ɦ/=h. Ґ(ukr)=/g/=g. Generally speaking, that is... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Move notice

The name seems POV and a more neutral name is "Ukrainian famine". TFD (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This is like suggesting we move "Holocaust" to "Big Jewish pogrom", big time reject on this prop.--Львівське (talk) 06:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Scanning for quantity of (scholarly) sources "Ukrainian Famine" seems to edge out "Holodomor" slightly, but not by much. I couldn't find a decent source that discussed use of the name in the context of which is more appropriate, although "Holodomor" appears to originally be a "POV fork name" created to maintain the association with the Holocaust. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you do a google search in scholar on those, and compare also to "Soviet famine" which is the name I've come across almost universally in my reading (admittedly, a reading focused on Soviet historiographies rather than Ukrainian ones). Fifelfoo (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit of a roughshod method because I am using quote marks to focus the phrase a little (google scholar will pick up the word "famine" and so w/o quotes you will get a lot of unrelated material). So with quotes "Soviet famine" actually does worse, looking through the material briefly this looks a lot like a subset of the Soviet famine, given the term "Holodomor" for semi-political reasons and also commonly called Ukrainian famine. I'm inclined to say that the scholarly work under Ukrainian famine is generally better, but w/o a source to back up the choice of one phrase over the other it is hard to make a decision. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Do not move - Holodomor describes this event specifically and is used by the European Parliament, Ukrainian Government, etc. specifically to describe this event. "Ukrainian famine" could refer to lots of events; even the "Great Ukrainian famine" would be a form of denial, i.e. a POV in the title. Smallbones (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you briefly explain your use of denial in this context so I can make full sense of your expressed opinion? The issue for me in comprehending your opinion on the move is that Holodomor in English appears to have a different meaning to the word's Ukrainian root words, based on a specific predominantly Ukrainian historiography. Thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 12:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a complex problem, I think we need to dig more into the sourcing to decide either way, --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Reject. See Lvivske comment above.--Galassi (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

His reasoning is particularly bad/useless... I'd consider adding your own rationale. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Perfectly fine rationale. Same as calling the American Revolution a colonial riot. And also: Ukraine had a famine in 1947 as well, naturally caused.--Galassi (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Also 1921-23--Львівське (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, my final thought on this is to keep the article at Holodomor. Bear in mind I have only read about 15 of the main sources (in Google scholar) for each of these terms. It appears that the term is 100% political term adopted by historians to help cement the association to the Holocaust. The better scholarly work appears to refer strongly to "Ukrainian famine" and notes "Holodomor", generally, only as a term adopted by Ukrainian Historians. On the other hand it is a widely adopted term, and no longer quite has the POV twist it originally inferred. So... whilst there is no really strong reason not to rename it, I don't think a strong reason exists to rename it. Although I would note that the above rationale against the move is mostly junk and not based in either policy or sources. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It is adviseable to be respectful of someone else's "junk" opinion, at least outwardly.--Galassi (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Uh, not really :) it was a bad and non-policy based rationale, hence my point. If that was construed as bite-y I apologise, but the rationale was poor --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It is impossible to describe the scholarly consensus on the famine under the title Holodomor, as it is a propaganda term. If this article is to discuss the famine, then the title needs to be changed. If however we are to have an article under the present title, then the first sentence must make it explicitly clear that the term is not universally accepted and is only relevant in the context of modern Ukrainian historiography. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot find a source that disputes this as universally accepted. Care to point me in the right direction? My reading points to this being a relatively accepted term --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

To Petri: You would need to source the specific evolution of the word from propaganda to scholarly, otherwise it won't wash here.--Galassi (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The term is universally accepted for the Ukrainian nationalistic narrative that Russians / Commies / Judeo-Bolsheviks genocided Ukrainians. What Is not universally accepted is the POV, that this narrative accurately describes the events of 1932–1933, nor that the term should be used to refer to them. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. – The Russian position on the issue may have been expressed in the most polite manner in the message of the President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev to the President of Ukraine Victor Yuschenko on the subject of the so-called Holodomor (Hunger-plague) on the 14th of November, 2008:

• Dmitry Medvedev (November 14, 2008). "TO THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE VIKTOR ANDREYEVICH YUSCHENKO". kremlin.ru.

Others in Russia will be less polite. A major opinion states, that the word is noting more than incitement to ethnic hatred targeted at Ukraine's Russophone majority. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Although Valentino writes about the famine in the Ukraine, he never gives it a name and never mentions the term "holodomor". Rummel refers to the "Intentional Famine in Ukraine" and never uses the term "holodomor". This book uses the term "holodomor" in brackets for the "(artificial) Ukrainian famine". TFD (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Although the event is politicized (so is the Holocaust, it was used as a state-building and unifying theme by Zionists in Israel, but nobody in their right mind would argue that the Holocaust itself is a political invention) it has far more scholarly backing and documentation than the Russian narrative, which basically has no proof and just continue's Stalin/Hitler's "big lie". This Russian narrative is far more politically motivated.--Львівське (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

By "Russian narrative" I assume you mean the Stalinist narrative. But we should not be promoting any narratives, merely using the terminology generally used by scholars and explaining how they have viewed it. TFD (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"Holodomor" is a widely used term at this point. As it encompasses more than a natural famine, it might mislead some if it were simply called "Ukraine famine" to be sure. Collect (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The claim at the top of this thread that This is like suggesting we move "Holocaust" to "Big Jewish pogrom" fails quite miserably. Holodomor is a Ukrainian term, used in a particular nationalist narrative. "Holocaust", on the other hand is an English term. The argument would only make a tiny bit of sense if Wikipedia's Holocaust article were at Shoah, which (unlike Holodomor) is not a nationalist term, but (like Holodomor) is a foreign-language term. However, as you'll notice, the Shoah article is just a re-direct to The Holocaust, so if anything, that would be an argument for moving the Holodomor article to an English-language title, and keeping Holodomor as a re-direct. As an aside, that comment must be a record for proving Godwin's law - first comment in the thread, and it took only 28 minutes.
Now, if we were to restrict ourselves to relevant arguments, the only relevant guideline here is WP:ENGLISH, and all arguments should be made in relation to it. What is the most common term used in reliable English-language sources? It's possible that it's also Holodomor, but we need some evidence one way or the other.Jayjg ^(talk) 18:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose move. It seems so obvious that I'm not even sure how to justify this oppose. But anyway, in terms of English language sources, how hard is it to type in "Holodomor" into google books (by itself 3K+ hits [13]) along with a some English word to screen out non-English sources: [14], [15], etc. While the word Holodomor may be of Ukrainian origin by now it has entered the English lexicon and most certainly English language academic discourse.

Also, while I understand (and essentially agree with) Jayjg's point one big difference in the Holodomor/Famine vs. Shoah/Holocaust analogy is that in the latter case, both terms "Shoah" and "Holocaust" accurately convey the nature of the thing being discussed. Not so with Holodomor and Famine where the second term obfuscates rather than informs.radek (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia requires sources. Could you please provide a evidence that the term "Holodomor" is more commonly used than "Ukrainian famine". TFD (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know Wikipedia requires sources. Don't patronize me. However, you and a couple of others seem to be working under the mistaken impression that for the article to be under "Holodomor" it must be shown that this term is more commonly used than "Ukrainian Famine" (actually most sources seem to use something like "Holodomor, A Ukrainian famine"). That's not the case. What needs to be shown is just that the term "Holodomor" IS used by English language sources (and oh boy are there a lot of those, per the links I've already provided above). The relative usage of "Holodomor" vs. "Ukrainian famine" MIGHT determine what this and some other articles are about. But it doesn't determine whether or not an article under the title "Holodomor" should exist.radek (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

And another issue while we're at it. Since the term "Holodomor" was first used in print in the late 1980's what matters here is what is the CURRENT usage of the term. Hence the proper criteria for analysis of relative uses of Holodomor and "Ukrainian famine" include the appropriate time period - say, post 1993 or something. To reiterate my point above, this determines what goes IN the article, not what the title should be.radek (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is a bad argument, because Ukrainian Famine is a reasonable alternative scholarly term. It appears, generally speaking, to be slightly more used/accepted and generally appears to have better scholarly work associated with it. However; as I said before upon reflection Holodomor seems a reasonable term and fairly widely adopted within academic circles (which is an important marker) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 20:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The fact that the term "Holodomor" gets 3k+ hits in Google books (even allowing for some non-English sources) means that the term is notable and not just a neologism. Hence there needs to be an article under the title "Holodomor". "Ukrainian famine" is the term that was used for this event prior to the fall of Communism. But that was about 20 years ago. "Holodomor" is no more a neologism then than the term "Mobile phone", which also didn't exist 20 years ago. If you limit google books search to post 1990 "Holodomor" outnumbers "Ukrainian famine" by about 3 to 1, never mind that "Ukrainian famine" picks up hits on other famines or other Ukrainian things, whereas Holodomor is a lot more precise; basically "Ukrainian famine" should be a disambiguation page which possibility links to this article, among others. At any rate, the consideration as to which term is more widely used can only affect what goes in the article. It does not affect that an article under the title "Holodomor" should exist - that depends simply on the term's notability which is well beyond being clearly established.radek (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Having completed a fairly exhaustive run through of the Google scholar and most of the book hits for the famine name I can confirm that it is widely and consistently used to refer to this event. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The argument of Jayg that the claim at the top of this thread that This is like suggesting we move "Holocaust" to "Big Jewish pogrom" fails quite miserably. Holodomor is a Ukrainian term, used in a particular nationalist narrative. "Holocaust", on the other hand is an English term. is invalid and itself fails miserably. 'Holocaust' is no more an English word than 'Holodomor' is, the usage of the former is simply more widespread than that of the latter. As the respective article tells us, the word Holocaust comes from the Greek ὁλόκαυστος holókaustos: hólos, "whole" and kaustós "burnt". That we (still?) know much less of the Holodomor than we know of Holocaust doesn't render it a mere phenomenon of nationalist narrative. MIaceK (woof!) 20:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you're misunderstanding. Holocaust is an older English word adopted in modern times to commonly refer to the Jewish Holocaust, now universally accepted amongst scholars. Holodomor is a Neologism created for political impact (the association with Holocaust), however is appears to be gaining acceptance. Lets use good arguments people :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 20:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Errant (and other editors), could you please provide evidence that the term Holodomor appears to be gaining acceptance. TFD (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

For someone who hasn't provided any kind of evidence or sources to back up your own contentions you sure demand such of others quite quite a bit. In a way, the evidence hasn't been provided (actually I did link to some searches) because it's so obvious to anyone who is capable of typing the word "Holodomor" into their computer that no one's bothered.radek (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you please read this discussion thread before commenting. Please see above: "Although Valentino writes about the famine in the Ukraine, he never gives it a name and never mentions the term "holodomor". Rummel refers to the "Intentional Famine in Ukraine" and never uses the term "holodomor". This book uses the term "holodomor" in brackets for the "(artificial) Ukrainian famine". TFD (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)" TFD (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I have read it. Please don't assume I haven't and again, please drop the patronizing tone. I fail to see how a couple of data points - isolated books - prove anything, especially when you're asking for evidence about whole literatures and general English language usage. What you've shown is that there exist at least two or three books which do not use the word "Holodomor". And I've shown that there exist more than three thousand that do.radek (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

TFD, I could be convinced to revise my opinion. The body of scholarly work under the term Holodomor is slowly appearing to be mainly nationalist based (i.e. from Ukraine), which lends weight to the idea this is not as widely accepted outside the country. my main feeling before was that there was no particular strong argument for the move (and so it would be unnecessary). I still feel that now, but if there was a source that dealt more carefully in the origins of the term I could probably be swayed :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Nicolas Werth, the main contributor to The Black Book of Communism writes, in "The Great Famines of 1931-3" in the 2010 Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies (p. 396),[16] "The term used today in Ukraine to designate this famine, Holodomor, is explicit: it combines the words holod (hunger) and moryty (to kill by privations, to starve, to exhaust). Thus it clearly emphasizes the intentional aspect of the phenomenon. The description of the 1932-3 famine as a genocide is not, however, universally accepted among historicans who have studied the question, whether they be Russians, Ukrainians, or Westerners." TFD (talk) 23:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What does that prove? The author gives the origin of the term. And how is this relevant to the move discussion? The author states that there is a dispute among historians whether or not the Holodomor was a genocide or not. Ok. That's stuff for article content. It is not in anyway evidence for moving the article.

One of the first books in the 3000+ hit google book search for "Holodomor" is this [17] which is written by a non-Ukrainian, it's from Princeton University Press, and doesn't have even a whiff of "nationalism" about it. Yet it has an entire chapter entitled "Holodomor". And yes, likewise the author gives the origin of the term, which is not surprising or actually relevant here.radek (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The book is by Norman Naimark and called Stalin's Genocides. As you may remember you proposed moving the article Communist genocide to Mass killings under Communist regimes because you believed the term "genocide" was not neutral and could exclude the Ukraine famine.[18] Certainly some historians use the term "genocide" but most do not because although they consider it to be at least to some degree mass killings, they do not think that it meets the criteria for genocide as normally defined. TFD (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

<--First, no. That is not what I "believed". I have no idea how you get that from my comments (the word "Holodomor" does not appear in your link. The word "Ukraine" appears twice in someone else's comments). Second, what is the relevance of that to this discussion? We are NOT discussing whether the Holodomor was or wasn't a genocide (which is indeed under discussion among scholars), what we are discussing is whether the term Holodomor is used by English language sources (which it is, overwhelmingly). This is a red herring. To steal a bad joke from a bad movie a red red herring. So what does your comment have to do with anything? You're not only bringing up irrelevancies but are also putting words in my mouth/head.radek (talk) 05:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I am just quoting one expert who btw you have strenuosly defended in Mass killings under Communist regimes. I always opposed using his writings in that article because the Black Book was published outside the academic mainstream but now defend his work published within the academic mainstream. Ironic that you are now trashing him. TFD (talk) 06:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What. Are. You. Talking. About. ???. I haven't trashed anyone. I have no idea what the relevance of any of your last few comments is to this discussion.radek (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason not to use the The Black Book at the other mentioned article is that the two chapters which actually support the supposition weren't academic or in fact supporting the supposition. As much as I detest the work, at least some of the other chapters are, to my knowledge, scholarly. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Radek, we should name articles using the terms most commonly used by scholars and avoid controversial terminology that implies an interpretation of events. You and I are both aware that policy requires that and we are both aware that each other is aware. TFD (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Firstly, I do not see any POV in the current title. Nobody argues with the fact of mass deaths from hunger. The word is relatively new in English but it is intensively used in diplomatic and scolareship communications. Secondly, Holodomor is shorter and more specific than Ukrainian famine that may stand e.g. for the 1921 famine or any other event. Thirdly, and most important the proposed move seems to upset many Ukrainian editors and we need them to develop the article Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Lvivske & Co. This is a rather silly request. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral prefer content migration of the famine to Soviet famine of 1932-1933 and producing this article as an article on the historiographical tradition using the Holodomor term here, pulling Holodomor genocide question back into this article on three grounds: 1) English. The term Holodomor originates in the late 1980s, and the vast bulk of scholarship in English preceeds this work. A further significant bulk of English language scholarship preceeds the limited adoption of Holodomor by English scholars. 2) Precision. Holodomor in English is implicitly tied up with a particularist post 1988 Ukrainian historiography, which through popular use has been tied up with stronger claims than the academic consensus. This introduces the problem of NPOV where scholarly works dismissive of the strong claims closely associated with the term Holodomor are used to support an article titled Holodomor which necessarily deals with stronger claims than the consensus. 3) Expansion of Soviet famine of 1932-1933 will draw out the historical difference in famine amelioration in the non-Ukrainian SSRs, and the absolute and deliberate failure in famine amelioration in the Ukrainian SSR. This will better contextualise the historical failure of the Soviet government to prevent famine in Ukraine SSR. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been following the discussion from the beginning and now I think what a wonderful suggestion Fifelfoo has made! It seems to summarize everything neutral and scholarly that has already been said. --Garik 11 (talk) 08:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Could not have said it better. This article needs to focus on the historiography. There is also the question, whether the "Ukrainian famine" realiy needs an article apart from the wider Soviet famine of 1932–1933. This is in fact similar to my comment here: User talk:The Four Deuces#How to get rid of POV crap?. This article however is not total crap and will not just melt away. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think there needs to be an article on the subject of the Holodomor. This is the name currently given for it. It is not helpful to have some watered-down article title such as Ukrainian famine. Clearly the name "Holodomor" was coined to echo the "Holocaust" name given for German-led genocide against the Jews. The Holodomor has many dimensions - one of which is the way that communist-sympathisers/infiltrators in the West either denied it or tried to make out that it was a natural event. Ultimately, Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopaedia, that normal people use a reference work. It is useful and helpful for normal people to be able to find an article on the Holodomor, and calling it "Holodomor" makes it easier to figure out that they have reached the right article.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)