Talk:Holodomor/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Repressions against cultural elite

How is the paragraph related to the article at all? Andrew this is not about how the Inoccenent Ukraine was bullied by the evil katsapstan (klyaty Moskali) it is about the famine which not only it experinced. The paragraph is anything but NPOV. Whilst it might be importantm IMHO it belongs to the section of Ukrainian SSR not Holodomor -- Kuban kazak 16:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the paragraph is useful, as it sets the whole famine in the broader perspective. It is not nice that you have removed the whole paragraph without discussing it first, especially that obviously there are other editors who consider it useful. --Lysy ^(talk) 16:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The connection between several stages of evil Finno-Ugric tribes in the north-east brutalizing the Ukrainians belongs to the History of Ukraine article and in encyclopedic terms. The cultural purge, no doubt a historical event, deserves an article on its own and whether there is or there isn't a separate article, still deserves a mention in the History of Ukraine and the Culture of Ukraine articles. On the other hand, adding the info all around to every Ukraine related article is a bad idea. This is like adding info of participation of Ukrainian nationalists in the Holocaust to every article which mentions the WW2 events in connection with anything Ukrainian. --Irpen 17:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Especially when one looks at the POV the paragraph had mass murders like Kaganovich... funny he was not even Russian at all...--Kuban kazak 17:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, it belongs here, as it sets the famine in the broader context and allows its purpose to be explained. Secondly, removing contents is something different than starting a new article on the Cultural purge in Ukraine. I'm restoring the contents for these two reasons at least until someone starts the other mentioned article. --Lysy ^(talk) 18:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

One thing is a bare mention which puts something into context. The other thing is adding a whole section on a marginally related topic to a narrow article. Please reduce the chapter to the mention of cultural purge in view of this if you insist in having it here. --Irpen 18:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why you think that this is a "marginally related topic", but I've reduced it as you suggested. Take a look if this was reduced enough to be acceptable now. --Lysy ^(talk) 19:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The interpretation of the relationship between these events depends on the view one takes on Holodomor. If to consider Holodomor a specifically anti-Ukrainian policy, the relation is direct and staightforward. If Holodomor is considered as a Ukrainian part of the general Soviet policies that were anti-peasant but not anti- any nation in its nature, as well as to view the cultural purge in Ukraine as related to the mass extermination of intelligentsia all over the Soviet Union, there relationship, while still present, is more marginal. Currently, the article present both view on Holodomor and this is the right approach.

I agree with the reduction of the section to the phrase but the current form needs improved. Now it says:

The events of artificial famine of 1932-33 were preceded by the onset of Soviet assault on Ukrainian national culture in their drive to prevent possible Ukrainian national self-determination.

First of all, Ukrainian national self-determination was out of any realistic picture by that time. UNR was far in the past by then. You could talk about cultural development and the degree of self-governing only, so self-determination is too a strong term. Further, the cultural purge was a rather extended in time event. 1932-33 were, first of all, the years of reversal of Ukrainization which was turned towards Russification. I am not sure I can quickly come up with a good phrasing now. --Irpen 20:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The attack on Ukrainian culture started in 1929, and continued through to the wider Great Purge. The UNR might not be relevant, but Ukrainian national identity was relevant, as testified by direct quotes of Stalin, his lieutenants, the text of five-year plans, official Soviet publications, etc.

This is related to the topic, but history sources that I've seen treat it separately. It's not part of the Holodomor, so I don't think it warrants a major section in this article. It is partly covered in "Ukrainization" and "Ukrainian language". A broader coverage of the party purges, the reversal of Ukrainization, the attacks on cultural institutions and church all belong in "History of Ukraine", where they are insufficiently covered.

The appointment of Postyshev and purge of the Ukrainian Communist Party are already mentioned here. I think other related events can be mentioned the same way, in passing, where events of the same period are mentioned. Where there is a more direct relationship, eg, Postyshev personally purging the party while organizing grain confiscation, definitely belong in this article. —Michael Z. 2005-12-19 16:56 Z

Michael, I am totally OK with the approach you suggest. It is just that some want to dump all their grievances to Russia into every possible article. I don't see any benefit of that. Let's mention the purge of course, but not as a part of Holodomor, or at least that some allege that it was a part of Holodomor. Holodomor is the Famine as the word suggests. Also, see my response in the next section of this very talk page. --Irpen 17:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Things like Skrypnyk's suicide don't belong this article, but many of the other facts could be worked into it so that they contribute instead of distracting from the topic. Andrew Alexander, most of the objection to this addition isn't because of denial of the facts or relevance, it's in the inappropriately heavy-handed presentation of them. (By the way, Skrypnyk didn't kill himself out of guilt; he was a pragmatic communist who felt he had advanced the cause, and shot himself to preëmpt his show trial.) —Michael Z. 2005-12-19 18:48 Z

Please stop arbitrary deletions

It must be reminded that this topic is directly referenced from Ukrainian Genocide. It is what Holodomor is called worldwide. If anyone disputes this term, please do so properly on this talk page, without deleting whole sections directly related to the article.

The question of why "Elimination of Ukrainian Cultural Elite" is included in the Holodomor article is trivial. The events related to the Ukrainian Genocide were going on before and during 1933 both in Ukrainian villages and cities. To separate the events in the cities, where tens of thousands of Ukrainian intellectuals were arrested and executed from the events in the villages, where millions of Ukrainians were starved to death is unthinkable. Why should they not be mentioned together? The reason for both of these tragic parts of the Ukrainian Genocide was underlined to be the same by the people in power in the USSR. They said many times to be "fighting Ukrainian nationalism" both in the villages and cities of Ukraine and Kuban.

How are churches LINKED to famine? Considering that most of the repressions against religion took place in the 1918-1920s under Troitsky not Kaganovich then it is compleately irrlevent. Also if one remebers political repressions began mostly in 1937 under Ezhov not Kaganovich. So indeed the only place where these points belong is the history of the Ukrainian SSR, and if you want add there a heading Genocide and combine the famine, the religion and the purges TOGETHER. -- Kuban kazak 11:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

And if anything repressions in Kuban took place in 1918-1920 as part of Lenins "Razkazachivanie" policy. By 1930s Cossacks were officially listed as peasents. And there was not Ukrainian Itelligentisia or Religion in the Kuban. -- Kuban kazak 11:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The sections of this article can't be deleted or moved for the reason of, citing, "Kaganovich... was not even Russian at all" and other very unclear views. Ukrainians in the Research Institute of History and Culture in Kyiv were killed at the same time and by the same people as Ukrainians in the villages. They deserve to be mentioned in this article. It strikes as particularly cynical to decide which Ukrainians mass murdered in 1933 could and which could not be considered victims of the genocide. The direct connection has been established long time ago by many reputable sources. Some of these sources are listed in the article. Unless the deniers come up with their own reputable sources supporting their hypothesis, there can't be any separation of the article sections.--Andrew Alexander 03:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Relation between the Famine and the Purge

First you subtly substituted one term "Holodomor" with another one "Genocide" while the article itself discusses whether H was a G as the term's applicability depends on the view one takes on whether this was an anti-Ukrainian policy or a part of the general Soviet anti-peasant and anti-intelegentsia policies.

That a less used term Ukrainian Genocide redirects here (not "referenced" as you again twistingly called this), means nothing. The existence of a redirect does not prove the term's applicability. Since you infer the rest from your substitution of terms, I cannot really discuss it. The article is about Holodomor = Famine. Even if the cultural purge is relevant, it was not part of Famine. The idea that these events are related is notable and as such, should be mentioned. Lysy attempted exactly this.

Personally, I very much dislike removal of info from articles, especially, in view that the facts of the cultural purge itself are undeniable. The relationship between the two, as covered in the article needs a revision, however. Since you persisted, I added a POV tag to the section. It would be good if you, or anyone, start a separate article on the purge. We can than cross-link them. --Irpen 04:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The term "Ukrainian Genocide" is supported by multiple reputable references. In the article itself. Thus the redirection. Not the other way as described above. Also, there is still no single source given which would explain the tag inserted in the article. It's basically "your personal view against all those research papers" claiming the assault against Ukrainian culture as part of Holodomor. The POV tag is thus unjustified and will be removed unless better explanation and references are provided.--Andrew Alexander 05:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like you were writing in rush. Could you copyedit what you wrote and remove this note of mine? --Irpen 05:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

And at the same time the term genocide is denied by many reputable sources. Considering that NKVD archives are still classified then there is nothing to bolster about here. -- Kuban kazak 11:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, Kuban kazak and Irpen, please provide any sources denying the direct relation between the eleimination of Ukrainian cultural elite and the Holodomor. The sources proving the opposite have been provided in the article. It is senseless to repeatedly delete something without proper justification.--Andrew Alexander 15:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

How about the simple fact that religion was repressed in 1918-20. Cultural elite in 1937 and the famine took place in 1932-33. What's more as you have no NKVD orders or documents to support your claim there is no way that you have 100% proof'.

Like I said if you want to create a separete article about what the evil Moscovite horde did in the time of the Uk SSR then by all means do. Otherwise the qoute goes. Lysy's paragraph is good enough, feel free to wikilink that. -- Kuban kazak 16:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Kuban kazak, this is not a valid argument. No, the section is not talking about any repressions in 1918. Please don't mud the waters. Please read what you erase.--Andrew Alexander 16:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

You're the one who is mudding them by linking religion repressions to the famine, or is this not your paragraph:

• In the 1920s the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church has gained significant following among the Ukrainian peasants. Mass arrests of the hierarchy and clergy of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church were culminated in the liquidation of the Church in 1930. Thousands of priests were tortured, executed and sent to labor camps in Siberia and Far North.

Like I said religion repressions took place BEFORE the famine. You are not only aware of this but also contradicting your text. -- Kuban kazak 21:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

But not in 1918 like you said before. The represstions started around 1928 and continued long after 1933. They culminated in 1933 by killing around 7 million people. Is that the reason not to mention the events setting the environment that allowed the genocide to happen?--Andrew Alexander 03:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well look who is wrong. Religion repression began in 1918 and for that fact did not end until 1988, but the most intense took place in 1918-1922 when more than 85% of church property was confiscated and destroyed. By the 1930s religion numbered no more than a few communities in the most remote places. -- Kuban kazak 12:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Alexander, I am sorry but you are talking nonsense. The requirement to provide sources denying something is totally out of whack. Irpen

Out of whack are the attempts to erase valid sources and references to support something.--Andrew Alexander 03:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources which themselves are questionable, I mean you might as well start sending information from Bandera.com for that fact. -- Kuban kazak 12:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that talk about the famine and don't mention the cultural purge and that should do. OTOH, some sources do make such a connection. Very well, we should then mention the purge. We can even add that some scholars think they are related. But do not overblow the connection. If the Holodomor was the result of specifically anti-Ukrainian policy and cultural purge was also specifically anti-Ukrainian, there is a connection. Irpen

So why did you erase the section? The Russian Communist leaders like Postyshev were making that connection, not just scholars, is that reason to hide something?--Andrew Alexander 03:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The connection can only be HYPOTHESISED as there is no direct NKVD or state orders that would say this, and must thus be presented as a hypothesis -- Kuban kazak 12:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If collectivization was anti-peasant and the famine was in Russia too and Ukraine, as a more agricultural nation, suffered more because anti-peasant policies affects it more and if intelligentsia all around the USSR was rounded up sent to Gulag, killed and murdered, the connection between the two is much less direct. No serious scholar or serious editor tried to deny the Holodomor itself nor the purge (my family was actually affected by both). Just don't let your personal sentiments affect your editing. --Irpen 16:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

All you need to do now is provide references for the above point of view!. Put those references in the article if you wish. But don't just erase other references and facts to make a point.--Andrew Alexander 03:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

As do you, as you hold nothing but other peoples mere hypothesis. -- Kuban kazak 12:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think what Andrew tried to stress was that according to on of the quite commonly shared POVs, the famine was a part of a wider Soviet policy to subdue Ukraine. This was to be accomplished bit by a strike against the intelligentsia and cultural elites as well as against the peasants, who formed the core of Ukrainian national identity. Now, when you slightly changed my imperfect sentence, this message is gone again. --Lysy ^(talk) 21:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

We have no idea of the POV of the scholars who wrote about Holodomor but did not mention the purge. Did they think to write about the connection in the other work? Did they think that there is no connection? Did they think that there was a connection but one should simply be treated separately from the other, as Michael wrote above? Irpen

Exactly. You have no idea. Maybe they didn't mention the purge because they didn't know about it. Maybe they just didn't have enough space in their works to go to every side of the Holodomor. It can't be decided for sure until you provide the positive prove that the events are completely unrelated. After all, they happened on the same territory, at the same time, and for the same declared reason.--Andrew Alexander 03:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well since you can't prove yours with your hypothetical sources and the lack of clear soviet documents, don't attack other people. Once again I am repeating the third time, if you want to make an article about how evil finno-urgic-tartaric hordes of samogon drinking balalaika playing Pigs deflowered the poor Ukraine and ate all its salo, then go for it, except all I will do is add on the top that this is nothing but a POV, a hypothesis. -- Kuban kazak 12:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you realize that nobody here yet blamed Russians on Golodomor and other atrocities? People mostly blame Stalin, and Communism in general, and maybe Empire-building intentions of whatever ruling clique happens to be in Moscow at the time, with no regard to the nationality? Why do you try to see it like everybody hates Russians?

First of all I was sarcastic, second of all using quotes like and modern Russian policy or mass-murderers is hardly NPOV. In other words I agree with you compleately, tell that to those who insist it was a genocide directed against Ukrainians. -- Kuban kazak 01:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Some think that subduing Ukraine was an all time obsession of Moscow which never had anything else on its mind. I kind of doubt that. Prior to attachment of the Western Ukraine, the Ukrainan SSR was the territory of the least worries for the Bolsheviks. If you want to read about territories where they had some real difficulties, read about Basmachi revolt. Check Kronstadt rebellion, Tambov rebellion for places where Bolsheviks, unlike in Ukraine, had some real problems. The latter was subdued with utmost brutality and gassing the population by Antonov-Ovseenko, an ethnic Ukrainian BTW. I don't yet see a Russian Holocaust by the Ukrainians article coming, thanks god.

Andrew Alexander uses the emotional and offensive to the opponents arguments when arguing about this article and spreads labels liberally: "How many Ukrainians would have to be murdered for the rest finally to stand up to defend their graves from the pigs?", he wrote. One has to learn to put ones own emotions aside when trying to write objectively. That some words aren't to be used at all goes without saying.

I modified Lysy sentence such that it shows that there was a Soviet-wide assault on intelligentsia and this is a fact. Whether in Ukraine it was a part of the wider plot is a subject of a POV. We can have this idea in the article from Andrew Alexander's sources but clearly implying what researchers' POV it is. We can only have a purely fact-based general statements which is that both the famine and purge were Soviet-wide. MichaelZ wrote above [1] how the connection is treated in the history books. I totally agree to go by this. Take a look at the previous section of this talk. --Irpen 22:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It's an oversimplification to just say that both the famine and purge were Soviet-wide. Mainstream scholars point out that the famine hit hard in Ukraine and Kuban and other regions, while parts of Russia were barely effected. The purges hit early in Ukraine, coinciding with the famine and accompanied by an attack on nationalist communism; Subtelny (1988:418) quotes Lev Kopelev: "In Ukraine 1937 began in 1933". We've heard the arguments before, I'm just pointing out that it's not simply black-and-white. Rather than waste time arguing about whether it was worse in one place or another, let's just write about history with the understanding that every place was a special case. —Michael Z. 2005-12-19 23:02 Z

Totally agree. Irpen

Excellent that you finally agree to write and not just erase. Please follow this yourself instead of simply agreeing.--Andrew Alexander 03:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Funny, at St. Volodymyr's cathedral you were doing quite the opposite. Seriously why not start a new article. Call it Ukrainian genocide and put everything together, mentioning holodomor with other details. But transform this article into Ukrainian genocide one as it carries a different title. -- Kuban kazak 12:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Holodomor and purge, perhaps related, was each a special case and one not being part of the other. We can write that some scholars consider those events related. Having a chapter on the purge in the Holodomor article was equivalent to implying that the article is titled "Ukrainian Genocide" of which starving the peasantry and purging the elite were two elements. The article's title, however, is the "Holodomor" = the Famine. Andrew Alexander is welcome to write a Ukrainian Genocide article that would present the POV that these two events were part of one single plot where such POV is clearly attributed to the respected scholars that subscribe to this view. Since such article isn't written, the "Genocide" article redirects here. I did not create a redirect (this POV redirect was created by the same user:Anrew Alexander who later said that it is "referenced" here) and I would rather have the "Genocide" article as an explanation of the term and its usage.

The good review of the perceptions of these and other events among some historians is:

• John-Paul Himka, "War Criminality: A Blank Spot in the Collective Memory of the Ukrainian Diaspora", from Significance of the Second World War for establishing of state symbols and collective cultural memory in Central-Eastern Europe, International conference, Lviv, 2003 (also available online at Spaces of Identity, Vol. 5, pp. 9-24, ISSN 1496-6778).

While the main topic of the article is a painful subject of the collaboration of some Ukrainian nationalist elements in the real Holocaust, the article speaks at length about the connection of several events that historians make with the Famine. I wonder, can we add the Himka's article to refs or further reading to the Holodomor. It is less about the Holodomor, but more about the way historians perceive it. Any thoughts? --Irpen 00:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. The article makes 1 mention of the Holodomor. It doesn't support any of the assumptions or ideas expressed above by you and Kuban kazak. Why did you even post this article on this talk page?--Andrew Alexander 04:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It mentions "Famine" plenty of times. Don't play games. --Irpen 04:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Alexander, while interjecting your responses in the middle of someone's posting is sometimes unavoidable at talk pages, please excersize some care to keep some clarity. I had to signaturize my entries after your posting to keep this discussion clear for the readers. I will answer to your posting separately. --Irpen 04:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Will "interject" the most convenient way for reading. And I am still waiting for your responses explaining why major encyclopedias and other reputable sources have "POV" as opposed to your personal view on the Holodomor. You inserted, once again, the tag in the text, which clearly indicates that you found some sources supporting your private theorizing.--Andrew Alexander 04:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

About interjection, all I said, was that you have to take some care that the dialog doesn't loose clarity for the outside readers. Add my sigs at least in the end of the paragraph after which you choose to write your thoughts. As for the rest, your requirement to find 'sources of denial of connection is nonsensial. If everyone thinks they are totally interconnected, there would not have been any works about Holodomor that "forget" to mention the purge. I never saw comprehensive articles about Gulag that forget mention Stalin or NKVD.

And in any case, purge is not a part of Holodomor which means "Famine", thus the details fall out of the scope of this article. It does not mean that it should not be mentioned here. But the current form implies that it was two parts of a grandiose scheme. A possibility but not a fact. You are welcome to write a "purge" article and interlink it to this one. Or, as Kuban kazak offered, write a "Ukrainian genocide" article presenting the POV of scholars that think that Russia was (and maybe is) totally preoccupied with a conspiracy against Ukraine and Ukrainians throughout its existence. --Irpen 04:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Your jokes about genocide are not very enternaining. Regarding the Holodomor. The setting of the environment of hate and fear by the likes of Postyshev in 1932-33 is acknowledged by many, including Postyshev himself. Of course, you could say that breaking windows in Jewish shops and gassing Jews in Germany are two "unrelated" events. The world, however, thinks differently. While breaking windows didn't kill anyone, it did create the environment that led to gas chambers. While arresting and executing priests, writers, musicians, painters, actors didn't actually kill millions of Ukrainians, it did create the environment of fear and hate that lead to and supported the mass murder. This is a common view supported by almost every book and article that are referenced in the article. I could cite you page after page from those sources mentioning in detail the assault against Ukrainian culture.--Andrew Alexander 05:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

However the famine did not kill all the Ukrainians, and in fact all of them fought for the USSR minus those from the territory gained in 1939 (although there are pleanty of Volynians who fought in partisan movement-particulary from Rovno and Vladimir-Volynskiy). Second Hitler back in Mein Kampf and in 1933 repeatedely said of his actions against Jews and his open hatred. There are nazi documents to prove that. However you do not have Soviet documents to prove that (nor do any of your books or nationalist fairy tales). Combine that with the fact that there was also more Russian priests, musicians painters and actors killed and repressed than Ukrainians, and that the famine was nationwide, outside ethnic Ukrainian borders (Don, Kuban, Volga, Kazakhstan...) and what do we have? A HYPOTHESIS nothing more. Hypothesis if presented must presented as such. I am once again offring you to write a "Ukrainian genocide" article presenting the POV of scholars that think that Russia was (and maybe is) totally preoccupied with a conspiracy against Ukraine and Ukrainians throughout its existence. (sorry Irpen for copypasting) -- Kuban kazak 13:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Since when Encyclopedia Britannica became "nationalist fairy tale"? And of course there are documents proving anti-Ukrainian frenzy of Postyshev and his comrades. They are cited in the text you keep erasing.--Andrew Alexander 15:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Soviet Documents, original NKVD orders? I do not think Britannica holds them. -- Kuban kazak 19:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

But to see the facts of killings and establish the connection from the speaches of Postyshev and the likes as well as witnesses' accounts, it's not necessary to see the arrest orders. That's what Britannica and other sources did.--Andrew Alexander 19:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid we are not interested in original research, so asking for documents and NKVD orders is not very useful. Even it we were doing oroginal research there's not much hope that Soviet and NKVD archives will be opened soon. Until then we have to rely on existing research of historian and other secondary sources. If the text is well referenced, I don't see any reason to question it, unless you are able to provide other respectable sources exhibiting alternative POV. --Lysy ^(talk) 19:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough expand the section on the heading Was Holodmor Genocide?, but putting a heading which is not only consicely edited into the text but also compleately messes up its structure and perspective as well as using qoutes like mass-murderes is absurd. -- Kuban kazak 19:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

How about first restoring what has been deleted without any good reason? Franlky, I am a little bit tired by now restoring the same referenced text deleted by the people like Kuban kazak, who simply try to prove their points without giving any references. I think these deletions went way too far against policies of Wikipedia. I don't how many deletions do we need, 100, 200, 1000 before a responsible administrator will pay some attention and stop it.--Andrew Alexander 20:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough if you insist on mantaining the connection then first of all how about actually integrating it into the text, pulling everything together and finally presenting it in a conscise and well structured manner. Having done none of them and mantaining heavy POV pushed loose facts, I have taken it on myself to do it for you. To be fair this laziness is not very Ukrainian. За пять лет жизни там я таких упрямых даже во Львове не встречал. --Kuban kazak 22:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Alexander, Your breaking glasses/gassing analogy doesn't work here. These were clearly two parts of the Holocaust, the Genocide. This article is not about the Genocide. It is about the Famine. The question of whether the Famine and the Genocide are equivalent terms is a subject of debate and there is even a chapter in the article called "Was Holodomor a Genocide?" which present both sides of this debate since none of them can be dismissed. As it was said to you many times, you may write a separate article based on scholarly works that consider Ukrainian Genocide a fact, with purge and Holodomor as two parts of it. If such article is properly referenced and makes it clear in the text that it presents the view of a particular scholar or a group of scholars, it may be, actually, a valuable article, a review of a particular POV. However, the subject of this article is Holodomor:

As such:

1. "Ukrainian Genocide" as an alternative name of Golodomor belongs to a chapter where the debate is presented, not to the intro. Its presence in the intro implies that the issue is settled. But even that was not enough for you! You placed it in the very first line! You can't continue pushing your POV into articles by starting with brutalizing their most prominent parts, the intro paragraphs. You did so in Ukrainian language and it has yet to be cleaned. I already talked about this tactics of your here. Hoping that you would accept just some compromise I only moved it a little bit down from the first line still leaving it in the intro (where it does not belong). You reverted it back to the very first line. Too bad that you found my sentence lacking grammar but you can correct for that. That you called my edit a "vandalism" just shows your attitude. While it's not new, it isn't acceptable
2. The "Elimination of Ukrainian Cultural Elite" chapter, in its current form, again is inferred from the view that the subject of the article is "Ukrainian Genocide" as if the article goes through the Genocide stages. No source ever talks about Gulag without mentioning Stalin or Stalinism. No such direct connection between the Famine and the purge is similarly clear. Modern mainstream Ukrainian history books speak of their connection but treat them as separate events rather than Purge being a part of the Famine, as Michael has pointed out earlier. I don't understand what you mean by your reference to Britannica. That it talks about both in its "History of Ukraine" article is only natural. It also talks about NEP in the same article. Does it imply that NEP was also part of Holodomor? On top of that, your "appointed mass murdered" phrasing is totally unencyclopedic. Even Hitler article doesn't use a "mass murdered" term.

As per this,

1. if you keep restoring the section in the unchanged form, it will be "POV-section" tagged until rewritten. I may try to rewrite it myself one of these days.
2. I am removing again the words "Ukrainian Genocide" from the first line. Do not return it there without a discussion

--Irpen 04:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

But has been repeated many times that hundreds of reputable sources include the Ukrainian culture repression into the Holodomor, for the reason of place, time, and declared cause. Of course, you can ignore all these arguments, but that's not the reason for you and Kuban kazak to disrupt this article. Please argue based on sources, not your own conclusions. This is not an academic peer-reviewed article doing original research. This is merely a text that re-tells trustworthy references. Deleting sources and quotes due to personal logic is unacceptable. Especially if the logic so skewed that it claims that a section that never mentions a specific word must be deleted because of that word.--Andrew Alexander 04:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, I don't think that the quality of this paper is of any concern to Irpen or Kuban kazak. Both of them react almost instantaneously only when an article is getting a new source, a photo, or a quote to erase all those they personally disagree with. This is sad that the article is being destroyed like this. User:Andrew Alexander|Andrew Alexander]] 05:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Latest deletions by Kuban kazak [2]

The copyright of 70 year old images was discussed in detail above. Removing these images seems like a plain vandalism, so familiar in this article.--Andrew Alexander 18:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes but did you bother adding copyright tags to them and citing their sources. The images were removed automatically by Wikipedian bots. Perhaps you could finally do something useful and edit the images to permenate their appearance on the article. -- Kuban kazak 12:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, yes, I did bother. Right before you removed those images.--Andrew Alexander 18:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I am not concerned with the images for that fact. You solved the problem...great I am honestely happy for you. -- Kuban kazak 19:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

And again, removing quotes and references from the introduction, substituting it with strange sentences like --Andrew Alexander 18:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Quotes and refrences that are repeated in the article later on. And what is the qoute saying? that Kuban suffered equal to Ukraine. Is that what the article is about? How the Kuban is suffered as Ukraine? No. Does that summarise the article? No. Does it belong in the lead? No.--Kuban kazak 12:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You removed several quotes, for your information. This is unacceptable and plain against WP policies.--Andrew Alexander 18:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The quote is repeated later in the text. I think putting quotes in the lead that give related information but not summarising the article is also unaccepatble

"Since the economic and social policies of the Soviet government are generally considered to have been the its main causes, the Holodomor is also frequently referred as Ukrainian Genocide" <-- K.k.'s quote--Andrew Alexander 18:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Now this does tie in many of the details, expressed by you together and such does belong in the lead.--Kuban kazak 12:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The sentence lacks precision, grammar, sources, and seems like another act of vandalism with the goal to mutilate this article.

Well you can talk! Putting in together unconsiced facts with POV motivations like Mass-murders. Как говорят не ищи правду в других коли в тебе ее нету. -- Kuban kazak 12:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the Holodomor was a mass murder. Do you disagree? I would like to see some references for that as well.--Andrew Alexander 18:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well as there is no information, ie original NKVD documents that say that the pupose of the famine was to starve to death, then we can only assume. My personal opinion is irrelevant to WP for that fact. IMHO it was a famine and many people died. My condolences for those who died. However I do not see how some people in Lvov during the time when everyone mourns openely go around and burn Russian flags. -- Kuban kazak 19:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, User:Kuban kazak removed the whole section, destroying the chronological framework of the article, mixing the referenced material with personal commentaries. In there he claims bogus historical facts, like "Although in 1918-1920 it /the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church/, along with the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) was subject to many repressions". The church didn't even exist in 1918. This editing war is taking too much time and it will be presented to the administrators of Wikipedia.--Andrew Alexander 03:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually it was formed in 1919 and by mid 1920s almost ceased to exist. Its final remains were terminated in 1930. Sorry got the dates wrong. But what I am pointing out is that the main repressions against religion circa 1918-1925-ish caused both ROC and UAOC to become only a shadow of themselves.--Kuban kazak 12:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It's great that you're sorry. Unfortunately you continue following the same pattern over and over. Destroying the article with personal comments, deletions, made up history.--Andrew Alexander 18:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Now that is history would you like sources for that? Just go straight for any UAOC or ROC site and click history. -- Kuban kazak 19:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Latest changes by Irpen [3] [4] [5]

The first change claims, "rv Andrew Alexander, changes explained at talk more than once and NEVER TAKE REMOVING OF TAGS LIGHTLY! Your ridiculous tag is still at Russian architecture".

Irpen, perhaps, it's not clear to you, but the "exlanation" provided wasn't sufficient. The reason is, it never included any references. Please read again. This article is not a scientific paper allowing original research and conclusions. Every word that you claim to be "POV" is supported by multiple books and articles on the Holodomor. There was not a single relevant reference provided by you on the talk page explaining your recent edits. You may not appreciate the efforts of other people writing this article and even be opposed to them, but it's not the reason to freely change something without a single source.--Andrew Alexander 21:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I did not change anything with sources or references. They are all there. I only moderated your interpretation (applicability of Genocide to Holodomor as just another unquestionably equivalent term, especially in view that the dispute is covered later in the article) --Irpen

The text says "also known as Ukrainian Genocide". This term has been acknowledged by 26 countries. It has been used by John Paul II and many other highly respectable people. Please point out exatly where you found "interpretation" in that phrase. Please provide a valid source arguing against that "interpretation". Any other explanation given here are just your own misinterpretation of an extremely well supported term. Get some sources! You may disrespect whatever 26 democratic countries had to say, but you need to support your arguments factually, and not via basic speculation.--Andrew Alexander 06:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

What does a Catholic have to do with an Orthodox country? That is more than OT. The fact that 26 countries acknowledge it fair enough, this is mentioned in the article, why repeat. Say someting like

• The government of Ukraine as well as those of 26 countries, including .... have officialy recognised it as Ukrainian Genocide

-- Kuban kazak 12:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I also added a POV tag to a purge section as I explained to you why. Your approach to throw everything in the lead and remove the tags is discussed above. --Irpen

And your explanation needs references! Is this clear already?--Andrew Alexander 06:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Mass murders, deliberate Soviet Actions. THe thousands of priests also need refrences. I have simply offered to rewrite the facts and actually put them after the details of the famine where they belong - Was Holodomor genocide. However this will require me to present is in a more NPOV, which is difficult for someone like you to do as it will be an insult to your свидомый менталитет. Действительно как муха на г... -- Kuban kazak 12:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Besides, note, that the lead summarizes the article and not the sources. As such, the refs should be kept in the article rather than the lead. Because you like to throw everyning in the lead, I did not change it for now, but still it doesn't help when the lead is full of footnotes. --Irpen 21:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you wish. You wish we would just throw dirt at each other on this page while deleting each others essays. This is not going to happen. This article will very well supported with references when it's finished. No matter how hard is the resistance from your and Kuban kazak's likes. This article will be one of the best referenced articles in Wikipedia.--Andrew Alexander 06:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok I will see what this site comes up with. I am sure we will have some excellent refrences there.. oops 1, 2, 3 -- Kuban kazak 12:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Finally! This will be mentioned in the text, even in the intro if you wish. Thanks. A Russian web site called "Unified Rus'" claims that the Holodomor was "just a famine". Anything else?--Andrew Alexander 18:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

And another revert by Irpen: [6], completely ignoring all the pleas for at least a single reference. Again, a personal view of Irpen is above above any rules. He will POV tag whatever he wants and whenever he wants. Anyone asking multiple times for a reference and then deleting the POV tag would be doing it "frivolously".--Andrew Alexander 07:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Unreferenced comments like Mass murderers are not NPOV -- Kuban kazak 12:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Article POV tagged

The most obvious problems currently in the article are:

• the first line "... also known as Ukrainian Genocide". Even if we take that H. was a Genocide, and statement from many govs is a good point, we should just say that "it is widely considered Genocide(refs)" as is done later in the text. However, "Ukrainian Genocide" is not just another term for Holodomor. **Example:
  • • "The Soviet Union was a totalitarian state" is a statement supported by refs.
    • "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, also known as the Totalitarian State", is not an appropriate first line of the USSR article.--Irpen 19:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

This is an invalid comparison. The 'Ukrainian genocide' and 'famine-genocide' are used quite often as unique substitutions for the Holodomor. Previous discussion on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Holodomor/Archive1#Genocide.--Andrew Alexander 00:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

But this is wikipedia, not some other book and already preemptely equating the two puts a POV. Just because some governments share that POV does not mean wikipedia must. I am not saying that it is an unimportant fact to not mention, on the contrary.--Kuban kazak 00:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I am simply looking at the recognition and use of the term. You argue that the term isn't spread, but you lack evidence of this. Actually, variations of "Ukrainian genocide" are even more wide spread than "the Holodomor". This is proven by a simple Google search already referenced in the discussion above.--Andrew Alexander 01:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

That may well be, but the fact that it is widespread you forget the following:

• Was the famine genocidic?
• Was it directed against Ukrainians only because they were Ukrainians?
• Was it part of a larger plot against Ukrainians?

Now even if the POV of those who write the google results agree with all the questions, this does not mean that Wiki will adopt this POV, I am putting a controversial topic on the top of the page.--Kuban kazak 01:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

K.k., your questions could be answered using references, of course, but this is irrelevant to this discussion. We are not discussing what a certain event was and why, only what it is commonly named. I will get back to your questions in great detail when we resolve the naming issue and move on to other topics of this article.--Andrew Alexander 09:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• I tried several compromised about that which A.A. all rejected. I will get to this later, but because this is the very important disagreement about the very first line, it, by itself, warrants a POV tag over the article
• Despite several attempts to find a solution of the purge chapter, including bringing in refs that treat it as, perhaps, a related event but not a part of the Famine itself, these were all rejected.--Irpen 19:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

You're missing a point once again. These events are part of the Holodomor according to many sources. And so far you haven't produced a single source that said the opposite.--Andrew Alexander 00:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Look you refuse to write an article of Ukrainian genocide, yet you are transforming this article into one. For the last time this article is about the famine whether it was part of genocide or not. My only question is why have you still not renamed the article? --Kuban kazak 00:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Why should I write something that is already written? Again, Kuban kazak, besides a Russian web site, is there any source supporting your viewpoint? You want to change the way the world looks at the Holodomor, but you can't do it without any sources. Such is the policy of Wikipedia.--Andrew Alexander 01:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Finally, please note that never a single reference brought by A. A. was ever deleted from the article. I purposefully didn't edit the article for the entire period of A.A. 3RR block so that he won't claim the time he was blocked and not able to respond was used to alter the article contents. --Irpen 19:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

But you did remove quotes and links to references many times. I can provide you with evidence links for that.--Andrew Alexander 00:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Quotes no, but I did remove them from where they do not belong to where they do. -- Kuban kazak 00:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you Irpen? If not, why are you answering for him? I hope there is no sockpuppetry involved here.--Andrew Alexander 09:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The recent reverts by Kuban kazak [7] [8]

Again, Kuban kazak, ignored all the previous discussion on this page and re-inserted bogus historical facts, e.g.,

"Although in 1918-1920 it /Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church/, along with the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) was subject to many repressions"

And you cut off the post WWII, on the contrary this would support your case for genocide...and you remove it??? Вот ты меня удивляешь--Kuban kazak 02:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Kuban kazak also wrote personal comments, deleted several quotes and reference links (e.g., a quote of the US Congress Commission). He once again mixed the time framework of this article. It seems this article is destroyed on purpose.--Andrew Alexander 02:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Destroyed. On the contrary the article now appears like a conscise article, not a series of misleading qoutes and facts. Please note that in my edit NOT A SINGLE FACT WAS OMMITED. But try actually reading my edit to the article and your edit from a 3rd person POV. Remember what I said, not a single fact of information which you provided is ommited. Once the person reads the article he will make his own conclusions about it, that is the point of WP on any constroversial issues, to simply lay down the facts. The question is how we do it?--Kuban kazak 02:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, destroyed. The article timeline is a mess. So are the reference numbers. So are the hisotrical facts. Instead of adding some value to the article in the form of references and quotes, you continue inserting quotes of yourself (outright baloney like "Seed grain stocks as a result of limited famine relief were low for the 1933 planting") and mixing the remaining content.--Andrew Alexander 05:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Timeline? This article is about the famine, not about the purges.-- Kuban kazak 14:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is about the Holodomor, which is more than "just a famine". Insisting that it was "just a famine", with no events leading to it is a very narrow POV. So far you have found 3 articles on a Russian web site to support this POV. The POV has been included in the intro. But that's not enough for you. You wish to delete the whole section altogether to push the POV even further.--Andrew Alexander 20:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we should stick with the guidelines and actually first explain about the famine (or the famine part of the genocide if you like) and then talk about the genocide hypothesis. -- Kuban kazak 14:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

What "guideline"? And we did explain what the Holodomor was in the intro. The one you were trying to erase so many times.--Andrew Alexander 20:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Your version is not only unconscise it is messed up and unordered. I mean an article on Aushwitz chambers will first talk about them and then put it in the larger aspect of the holocaust. Same here. Once again want an article on Ukrainian genocide then write one!!! -- Kuban kazak 14:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

We already did! It's called "Holodomor". If you don't like it, go and write another article called "the process of starvation during the Holodomor" (right after you write "Auschwitz chambers", make sure you spell it right). Don't push your POV on this article.--Andrew Alexander 20:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

In that case fell free to remove the info on the purges altogether! -- Kuban kazak 01:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand you want to remove the info about extra killings that happened in 1932-33 in Ukraine. Also to erase the word "genocide". Also to rewrite the whole article following the Russian examples you have provided. This simply can't be done! If it's hundreds of books and articles talking about the Holodomor and what has led to it, that information absolutely must be described in some form here. This description has to be accurate, without baloney that you try to put all around it, inventing history and mixing the timline and making it plain hard to read. You have invented history that never happened, how many times does this have to be repeated until you stop vandalizing this text?--Andrew Alexander 05:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's resolve the POV tag first before inserting more POV in the article

I don't think the latter would solve the problem. It is necessary for Irpen to work closer on the discussion of his POV tag, he seems quite active editing other articles. Please see above the discussion [9]. Thanks.--Andrew Alexander 09:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Alexander. I made my objections very clear in the very section you linked.

1. "Ukrainian Genocide" belongs to a section where the issue on whether Holodomor was a Genocide is discussed with the arguments of both sides presented. Your using the term in the intro, preemts the discussion and sides with one particular opinion.
2. the coverage of the cultural purge in the article should be similar to the aproach in other literature on the Ukrainian history, that is a separate issue, even a related one, rather than a part of Holodomor (which is Famine).

I tried to change the article in accordance to the above but you rejected any attempts of a compromise, one of each even included keeping "Genocide" in the intro but, at least, moving it down a little bit from the first line [10]. Until these two issues are addressed, I can't agree on removing the POV tag. --Irpen 05:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Irpen, I don't think re-wording the same arguments is going to resolve the issue. I suggest we try to remove original "research" in the form of personal thoughts as much as possible from this argument. Yes, indeed a commonly used name "preempts the discussion". But there are also discussions on thousands of terms used in Wikipedia. This is not the reason to strike down all those terms until everyone agrees. Because this may never happen. I suggest we come up with arguments based on reputable sources. E.g., a reference to hundreds of thousands of results about Ukrainian genocide is reputable. I also suggest we look at the studies of the Holodomor and decide whether extermination of the cultural elite is mentioned there and to what extent. This way a truly neutral POV can be achieved. You're saying that executing thousands of Ukrainian writers, artists, journalists, scientists isn't related to the famine. I say it is. But these are our personal views and they need to supported by references. I base my views on very good sources however.

For instance, the US Congress Commission on Ukrainian Famine said in its conclusions regarding the famine:

"Postyshev had a dual mandate from Moscow: to intensify the grain seizures (and therefore the Famine) in Ukraine and to eliminate such modest national self-assertion as Ukrainians had hitherto been allowed by the USSR."

As another example, Robert Conquest in his famous book "The Harvest of Sorrow" starts the part "The Terror-Famine" with the chapter "Assault on the Ukraine/1930-32", where he describes what you call "the cultural purge".

--Andrew Alexander 08:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You misquoted me by your "You're saying that executing thousands of Ukrainian writers, artists, journalists, scientists isn't related to the famine.". I never said that they are unrelated. All I said is that purge was a separate event and not a part of the Holodomor, whether they are related or not. I said that purge is not commonly treated as part of the famine. Read also what Michael wrote above [11]. They are viewed as separate, but perhaps related phenomena. --Irpen 08:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The reputable references provided above say the cultural extermination was part of the Holodomor. Please explain why your opinion and the opinion of another Wikipedia editor should be placed above the opinions of the world-known people who investigated the Holodomor. After all your opinion is not simply another POV but a request to erase the opinions of those people from the article. --Andrew Alexander 08:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Since Irpen is not responding, the tag should soon be removed. This is the last call to Irpen and other editors of this article. Please support your views with quotes and references explaining why the "Elimination of Ukrainian Cultural Elite" is not part of the Holodomor. Thanks.--Andrew Alexander 09:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

opa http://www.anti-orange.com.ua/article/noelections/65/4540 which qoutes a fact that the United Nations do not officialy recognise the holomor as genocide, although Russia actually supported Ukraine's case...Finally what does holodomor mean it means a forced starving, therefore if the purges are related, they should be mentioned after the starving. Once again I am not against mentioning those details, on the contrary, but I am against screwing up the facts and diverting a person's attention from the famine to the purges. If you want to write a parallel article on the genocide in chronological order please do. There is nothing wrong with that. -- Kuban kazak 10:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately the article starts with a blatant lie "Nonetheless the US Congress could not officially acknowledge the Holodomor as genocide". This article contains sources refuting this assertment. Regarding UN, the vote there hasn't happened yet. There was a proposition to start preparing for that vote by the Ukrainian President. Regarding the rest of the arguments. Where are the facts "screwed up"? Be specific. Also, "diverting attention" to something that is recoginized as part of the Holodomor also doesn't seem a viable argument. Again, you're lacking sources. Please find them before editing this article. This way revert wars can be avoided.--Andrew Alexander 20:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Andrew, and the rest. This article has become a real mess over the previous weeks. Without trying to blow my own horn here, I would like to point out that at one time much in this article was pretty neutral and without any reason for serious objection. The most important aspect about the Holodomor, in my opinion, is this: millions died in the Ukraine as the result of totally idiotic, and morally reprehensible, economy related acts by the Soviet government on the orders of Stalin. This is the essence of the Holodomor. Millions died. Why? Because they starved. Why? Because they had no food. Why? Because it was taken away from them by the government. This is probably the most simplistic rendition of the events. Once you get into the 'why did the government do that', things get muddy. However, there is NO evidence that the Soviet government *set out* to eliminate the Ukrainian speaking population of the Soviet Union in as such. There are those who think the policy was genocidal, but when you look at the definition of genocide as used for example by the UN, you will find that genocide is a description of INTENT. You can have a genocide without anybody having died in it. At the same time, you can have everybody of a particular ethnic group die, and still not have a genocide. It's similar to the between murder and manslaughter on the individual level.

Andrew, I am sure everybody here agrees with you that the Soviets were a bunch of murderous lunatics on par with the Nazis. However, while the Nazis set out to commit genocide, the Soviets set out to commit "classicide" -- the so-called kulaks were murdered not because they were Ukrainian, but because they belonged to a social class the Soviets decided to eliminate.

Dietwald 12:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Dietwald, I would have no problem with your explanation of the Holodomor had I not read many witness accounts, historical facts, speeches and letters of Soviet leaders, etc. Please read some yourself (e.g. go to http://www.maidan.org.ua/holodomor/zmist.html, click on the first three links - I, II, III, this contains verbatim witness accounts with short summaries in English). The details show much more than just "economic policy". Those people were tried to be killed with all the food taken from them before and during the famine. Ukrainains were fleeing to villages right across the border in Russia, where food was available. And they were not even "kulaks". Again, I insist on you presenting your evidence for whatever other point of view.--Andrew Alexander 19:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Alexander, unfortunately, I cannot read Ukrainian -- my Russian is pretty awful, too. I think the same may be true for most people here. However, how about this: if you could provide me a citation in some peer-reviewed journal on the issue, I will most likely be able to access it, since I have access to JSTOR. Regarding them not being 'kulaks', I agree. The Soviets were pretty hare-brained about their definitions of 'kulaks', and not only in the USSR. The Mongol Soviets, for example, defined as a 'well-to-do' herder somebody with 200+ animals, when any Mongol herder could have told them that 250 was the minimum to provide for a family... BUT, back on topic, if you could provide this kind of evidence from peer-reviewed sources, in English, I'll be more than happy to support you on this. I am the last person who wants to defend the Soviets, I think their criminal nature is still underreported. So, please help me out here, if you can. If you have evidence I can read that would show them to be genocidal to boot, I'll just add that to the long list of reasons why I am an anti-Marxist:) Dietwald 19:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Dietwald, there is English text provided for each of the testimony, e.g. http://www.maidan.org.ua/holodomor/tom-I_html/LH03.html. You can navigate to different testimonies by changing "LH03" to "LHXX" (e.g. LH53) and "tom-I" to "tom-II" or "tom-III". Regarding references, there are plenty of them provided in the article. E.g. read the book of Robert Conquest "Harvest of Sorrow", which is full of references to original Soviet documents, foreign and local witnesses. The book is available on Amazon.com and in many libraries.--Andrew Alexander 20:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe a simple question will help answering that: If it was "classicide" why was it exercised in Ukraine only, and not in the whole Soviet Union ? Were all the kulaks in Ukraine only ? --Lysy ^(talk) 20:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No but then neither was the famine, which even the same commission says spread outside Ukraine borders: Don, Kuban, Volga Basin, Northern Kazakhstan. -- Kuban kazak 00:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Stupid Intro

Sorry for being blunt about this, but the intor is stupid, as it is far too long. We should really find a version that cuts it down, and I know this will piss people off, but the intro is ugly and not elegant. Let's take that quote out of there to begin with. Yes, it has been discussed before, but itshould be done, really. It's ugly!!!!Dietwald 19:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead. It probably could be much shorter. --Lysy ^(talk) 20:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree to cut the intro when we bring the whole article to the standard given in the intro. That is, every statement is well referenced with reputable sources. As of now, "cutting the stupid intro" would leave the article in an even more "stupid" state when people poured their thoughts without bothering to support own assertions. As such states persists, the intro will be protected. If you insist on cutting the intro just because "it's too long", I am afraid you would simply be pushing your own POV regarding the Holodomor.--Andrew Alexander 20:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Alexander, I find it amusing that you dare to speak about POV pushing conserning especially this article. You seem to feel like you own it so far.

Dietwald, please make sure to study edit history and talk page before returning to active editing of this article. It is a good idea that you started with talk.

Tag removal: none of my conserns listed above are addressed. I do watch this talk page but I feel that editing this article is useless as long as Andrew Alexander acts the way he does. You can't have it both ways: persist on your POV and have a tag removed. You are welcome to run a survey. If you see that the opinion that the article is not neutral is just my own and a small minority of those that "refuse to accept", you will have the right to remove the tag in spite of my disagreement. --Irpen 21:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Irpen, I think you make a huge mistake thinking that somehow your or my opinion determines what this article should or should not say. I hear it not the first time from you. Yet who are you or myself? What scientific or public credentials do we posess to make such judgements? I understand we all want to feel important and knowledgeable enough to write original papers. But we are not. I asked you many times on this page, please provide some verifyable sources of your assertions and your assertions will be immediately inserted into the article without a single objection and even with my full support. No, you simply don't want to do it. So you decided to insert a POV tag without any arguments, simply because "people feel that way". Which brings us back to the first questions in this reply.--Andrew Alexander 21:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Alexander, references were given to you above to historic works that treat the purge as a related but a separate event (Subtelny). Many publications do not call Holodomor a Genocide and links to criticism of this treatment (e.g. Himka and his refs) are also given to you. As such, at least both positions should be presented in an appropriate section ("Was H. a Genocide") and the word "Genocide" should at least be removed from the first line. Purges need to be presented as a separate, perhaps related, event and not part of the process. We can then add to the article that some think that was a part of pre-planned in Katsapstan plot to kill as many Ukrainians as possible and the Russians and the Kazakhs that died from hunger at the same time was a collatoral damage. We may of course put it in more encyclopedic terms. I told you those things several times and the article still is where it was. If you claim that I am blind or a shameless pusher of an unreferenced POV, you can list the article at WP:3O and/or WP:RFC/HIST and see whether non-involved viewers would agree that my objections are bad faith and should be dismissed. While there, check my request for comment re Bukovyna. --Irpen 21:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Purges need to be presented as a separate, perhaps related, event and not part of the process.

That is exactly what I did, by NPOVing and moving them to the existing headings and INTEGRATING the standalone facts into the text. Yet someone here thinks its better to have a massive POV slanted standalone heading preceding the details of the famine, despite the article being clearely titled Holodomor and the first sentence saying: referes to the man-made famine of 1932-33... --Kuban kazak 12:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

IMHO:

1. Intro
2. Details of the famine
3. Was Holodomor genocide (Thats where the purges, the churches should be included, and the text saying that some see it as related and the 26 country recognition, the controversial commision findings, etc). This was what I have been trying to put forward all this time!!!
4. Objection to mainstream account.
5. Refrences

- Kuban kazak 12:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, you have deviated from the requested format of this discussion. Please read above the requests to use citations to support whatever point of view regarding this article. This way desires of many editors can be rationally explained. This isn't an original research article. That quote that you reproduced from the article is actually backed by hundreds of sources including the original Soviet orders to blacklist villages given in the text. Again, no one is against your point of view as soon as there are sources to support it.--Andrew Alexander 22:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I am glad you're finally speaking of references. Let's look at those 2 references you mentioned.

a. Subtelny: what was mentioned on this page is this: "The purges hit early in Ukraine, coinciding with the famine and accompanied by an attack on nationalist communism; Subtelny (1988:418) quotes Lev Kopelev: "In Ukraine 1937 began in 1933"." Sorry, I don't see Subtelny treating the Holodomor separate from the extermination of Ukrainian culture.

b. Himka: I've read the reference you provided - http://www.univie.ac.at/spacesofidentity/_Vol_5_1/_PDF/Himka.pdf - and haven't found what you assert here. Please provide a specific quote denying the Holodomor was a genocide. As much as I respect Himka, I still don't think such quote (if exists) would explain erasing a term mentioned on hundreds of thousands of web pages and acknowledged by the governments or parliaments of 26 countries. I see no problem however with adding presumed Himka's quote into the article.

I think more references will make this article better as it lacks quite a few sources now. Simply search for "citation needed" and you will see it. This isn't the reason you put the POV flag in however.--Andrew Alexander 22:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Irpen, I think that inclusion of Genocide in intro is substantiated, I feel that he overdone some things the as far as the rest of points concerned. Probably a very brief mention of the purge coinciding with famine is warranted in the intro, but everything very brief.

Basically

(famine)&(grain exports)&(coinciding repression of cultural elite)&(localization of severe mortality)->(historians say it was genocide)

Holodomor itself is a Ukrainian word, a unique name for this famine and for a good reason.

I guess that an outside view would be helpful too. Given expressed uncompromising stances you will never agree. It would be better if Andrew Alexander gave some ground in formatting the intro and Irpen gave some ground to his version of the events.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 23:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Very good points, Gnomz007. Yes, "Holodomor" is a unique word even in Ukrainian. Also, I was never that firm holding some ground in that article. I strongly support inclusion of any information backed by verifiable sources. For instance, Kuban kazak came up recently with three articles from the Russian web site "Unified Rus", which were almost immediately included by myself in the intro. I've been begging Irpen for weeks to come up with at least one source that supports his statements here. He produced 2 references, but I can't even see how they relate to what he is claiming. I am afraid we will have to wait another few weeks before he finally comes up with some sort of explanation. Meanwhile the article must remain tagged for no apparent reason but some editor personal views.--Andrew Alexander 05:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

my changes

1. removed repetition from intro
2. removed irrelevant pic of a happy kolkhznik woman
3. fixed translation "mere hunger" -> "mere famine"
4. rm loaded wording "final solution"
5. "Elite" section moved down, since it is not main topic.

mikka (t) 23:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

1. What repetitions? You removed a quote and a reference, added some personal POV not supported by anything, added "some historians refer to the 1932-1933 famine in the Soviet Union" in front of "man-made". At least you didn't remove the original Soviet document reference right after that word. The whole edit is not adding a single reference, while adding a bunch of personal comments. "Some historians" include John Paul II, 26 countries, thousands of testimonies, over a million of web page.
2. That was a cover of a Soviet magazine in Ukraine from the time of the famine. This basically reflects the position of the Soviet authorities. Famine? What famine?
3. Whatever
4. Again despite the quote given right after the wording.

Again, if a group of people here decided to remove quotes and references, there is nothing that can be done. The Wikipedia will seem like a revisionist site trying to push through some Stalinist views about the Holodomor "caused by a draught". Never mind the draught never happened. That's a minor detail. Who cares about references? Let's invent history!--Andrew Alexander 00:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I am just wasting time here. These "editors" don't care about making this a better article by providing references. All they care is removing other people references and adding some personally invented facts into the article. As such I think my time will be better spent not touching this article at all. It took enourmous efforts to introduce some actual facts into this vandalized text. People would delete facts because it's "ugly", "too long", "not part" whatever other excuses to drive their point of view forward. These editors don't seem to be concerned with the facts of the matter, only how those facts look according to their views. As many facts don't look that good, they come and slash it. One editor expressed it here very well, "Wikipedia sucks!". Yes it does. If quoting and referencing takes such effort.--Andrew Alexander 00:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, now I am taking this personal. I am not suggesting the deletion of anything from the article, merely making the intro better. It's an intro, get it? INTRO. INTRODUCTION. as in: just the basics, the bare bones, the absolute minimum of information. not the entire discussion, ok? Get a grip here. Dietwald 19:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Dietwald, how can you possibly write an intro if you haven't read any substantial accounts of the Holodomor? What are you going to base that intro on? Your own thoughts? Did you get and read the book of R. Conquest already? Take it personal. Go to some library and read the book. In case of any disagreements come back and we'll discuss them here. Don't be afraid to discuss FACTS OF THE MATTER.--Andrew Alexander 21:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, you are becoming insufferable. Want to start a pissing match on qualifications on the matter? Bad idea. For the case you have not noticed it, I actually contributed a substantial proportion to this article, including some of the structural elments, ok? So, cool it. Look at other articles, look what an intro looks like. You are totally missing the point here. The intro is too long. I read the stuff you linked. It's fascinating. I read Conquest, and not just his books, but most of his scholarly articles. I may have missed it, but I do not recall that he says the Soviets had a policy of exterminating the Ukrainians as a people. I am not sure how to make this more clear to you: there is, to my knowledge, no evidence that suggests the Holodomor could be classified as a genocide, that is: policies designed with the purpose of exterminating an ethnic group. Nobody denies millions died in the Ukraine as the result of Soviet policies. Nobody denies the Holodomor was man-made, nobody denies that the Holodomor was not a natural desaster. You want to spin this into saying it was a genocide. It was not, ok? You have NOT provided any scholarly sources that show it was genocide (look up the definition of genocide every time I use the word, and every time you want to use it, and compare what you want to say with that definition before you say it, because you seem to have no clue what a genocide is). Once you have sources that show the holodomor was a genocide (look up the word), people here will most likely agree state in the intro that the holodomor was a genocide (look up the word). Ok? You are beginning to really tick me off here. Dietwald 12:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't panic.

1. Q: What quote? A: The quote is present in section "Was Holodomor genocide?" I am telling you this for the FOURTH time in this talk page: the quote is not removed from the article. It is simply out of style of the intro.
2. Picture... OK. Now I got it. You must provide a reasonable caption. Otherwise it simply didn't make sense.
3. Thanks.
4. The quote does not say "Endlosung". It is a loaded term. Even if you really mean it and if something similar indeed happened, it has no place in an encyclopedic article.

mikka (t) 01:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The picture HAD "a reasonable caption". And what you think Postyshev was blabbering about when he said "1933 was the year of the defeat of Ukrainian nationalist counter-revolution?" Did he not have "final solution" on his homicidal mind?--Andrew Alexander 21:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Holodomor probably not genocide

Andrew, before you go looking for a quote by Conquest saying the Holodomor was genocide, read this article: http://www.faminegenocide.com/resources/bilinsky.html Dietwald 19:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

NB: The article actually makes a good point for considering the Holodomor genocide. However, the Wiki entry should not state this as if it were an undisputed fact. I'll be more than happy to support an entry that would describe the genocidal tendency of Stalin, but I would object to an article that states the Holodomor was a genocide in the same way the Holocaust was a genocide. The two were technically two different things, even though there is certainly no dispute that both are in the same category of criminal behaviour by states. Dietwald 19:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Grudging Apologies

Andrew, I would like to apologize to you on something, namele the bloody definition of genocide thingy. Someone just pointed out a detail that for some reason totally slipped my mind: "Art. 2. In the present convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

Mea culpa.

Dietwald 20:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Dietwald, in the case you seek to make the intro shorter, there are many ways to do it without cutting the references. E.g. the phrase "The Soviet authorities also banned travel out of the famine affected areas under the pretext that people travelling for food spread "anti-kolkhoz agitation"." can be reduced to "The Soviet authorities also banned travel out of the famine affected areas." with a reference to the source after that sentence. There are plenty of sources available that confirm that. Also, the sentence "The exact number of casualties is unknown due to the fact that the pertinent archives of the NKVD (later KGB, and today FSB) remain closed to historians in general." is basically imprecise. NKVD may have never counted how many Ukrainians they killed that year. They never bothered. The fact of the closed archives, however, is still very important. Also, the sentence "The Soviet government admitted the famine's existence only in the late 1980s." needs a reference. So there is plenty of work to do there. Please join.--Andrew Alexander 22:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

New Shot at Intro then

The Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор), often referred to as the Ukrainian Genocide,[1] [2] [3] was the 1932–1933 man-made[4] famine on the territory of today's Ukraine, as well as some regions of Russia populated by ethnic Ukrainians. The Holodomor was caused by the Soviet authorities when they seized the 1932 crop.

The Soviet government admitted the famine's existence only in the late 1980s. This sentence should be deleted as it is not a necessary element. Actually, this first sentence alone is -- in my opinion -- a pretty perfect description of what the Holodomor was (I also suggest to change the tense of the intro sentence into the Simple Past).~~

At the height of the famine, while confiscating crops from the starving peasants, the USSR exported 1.70 million tons of grain in 1932 and 1.84 million tons in 1933.[5] The Soviet authorities also banned travel out of the famine affected areas.

under the pretext that people travelling for food spread "anti-kolkhoz agitation". I hate to do this, but I think using the term 'pretext' in the intro is needlessly tendetious. Keep in mind that I would love to have an intro along the lines of: in 1932 to 1933, the criminal Soviet regime, run by a group of gangsters, willfully caused the death of several million people... As this is Wikipedia and not my personal blog, I can't do that but have to strive for neutrality. Yuck.

The death toll of the famine is estimated at between five and ten million people[6]. The exact number of casualties is unknown.

due to the fact that the pertinent archives of the NKVD (later KGB, and today FSB) remain closed to historians in general. I think this sentence also does not belong into the intro.

Still the Holodomor remains a politically charged topic for many parties, especially in Russia. Many Russian authors continue claiming that the Holodomor was not an act of genocide but a "mere famine".[7] Whether or not the Holodomor is a politically charged topic is irrelevant to the concept of the Holodomor. I think this also belongs into the body.

Further, the governments or parliaments of... clutter, IMO. I suggest:

The Holodomor has been recognized as an act of genocide against the Ukrainian people by 26 countries.

Among them: Ukraine, Argentina, Australia, Canada, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, United States, Vatican. I suggest to move this to the body as well

Every last Saturday in November is the official day of commemoration of the Holodomor victims in Ukraine.

So, the severely cut intro would read like this:

---

The Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор), often referred to as the Ukrainian Genocide,[1] [2] [3] was the 1932–1933 man-made[4] famine on the territory of today's Ukraine, as well as some regions of Russia populated by ethnic Ukrainians. The Holodomor was caused by the Soviet authorities when they seized the 1932 crop.

At the height of the famine, while confiscating crops from the starving peasants, the USSR exported 1.70 million tons of grain in 1932 and 1.84 million tons in 1933.[5] The Soviet authorities also banned travel out of the famine affected areas.

The death toll of the famine is estimated at between five and ten million people[6]. The exact number of casualties is unknown.

The Holodomor has been recognized as an act of genocide against the Ukrainian people by 26 countries.

---

I think this intro will make everybody feel that their particular hobbyhorse topic on the issue has been left out, but I don't think the intro now would actually misrepresent anything. This really is meant for somebody who has never heard about the issue to read in ten seconds what the issue is about. I think this is what an intro should do... Or maybe we should find a definition for "Intro" somewhere;) Let's all go THERE and mess THAT article up together:)

Dietwald 16:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Голодомор is not a unique in the soviet histori.It is wrong to write only abaut ukrainen.Голодомор ware an nord kaukasus and povolzhski region too.Jaro.p 09:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Jaro -- That's not the point. This is about what is known as the Holodomor, not about the general famine in the larger context. You can add that in the discussion, but this is about the Holodomor. It's like the Kennedy assassination... other presidents were assissinated as well, but that does not require those assassinations to be mentioned in an article intro on the Kennedy assassination (lame comparison, I know, but it should illustrate the point).

Ok, the rest of you belligerent editors: what do you think of the most recenet proposal I have put forward? Shall I put it in? Dietwald 16:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Dietwald, how about first cleaning up the rest of the article from unsupported info? I have nothing against a shorter intro. Provided that the article is good. Right now it's unsatisfactory in the amount of speculation, while lacking information. There is little explanation on why the Holodomor happened. What were the motives? There is no explanation on how it could happen. Taking all the food from millions of people wasn't an easy task and required several years of careful preparation. So what did the killers do? There is no information on how some people managed to survive. It wasn't because of Soviet tender care. So what did those people do? I am afraid making a shorter intro will make the article worse.--Andrew Alexander 03:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, robbing people of their food does not require too much preparation. Conquering armies have done so for centuries pretty much on the spur of the moment. I support your desire to keep the article free of speculation, but I will gently hit you over the head every time you cannot constrain yourself from doing so;) Dietwald 10:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with Andrew. All other sections of the article should be considerebly improved. Only then one may start a discussion whether the intorduction should be shortenned or expanded.--AndriyK 18:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine then. But please, let's focus on tightening it once we are at it. Brevity is the mother of brilliance, after all. Dietwald 10:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Zvezda numbers

According to the Russian State Archive of Social and Political History, between 2-3 million died in famine. So WHO counted? –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 23:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

According to Stephen Wheatcroft's "Years of Hunger", from derivations of archival data, the death toll in Ukraine amounted to approxmiately 2 million. There were an additonal 1.4mn deaths from Kazakhstan. With Kazakhstan excluded, tehre were 2.9 million deaths throughout the USSR.

"The number of excess deaths in 1932-33 (plus the excess deaths in Kazakhstan, which began a year earlier, and the deaths in the OGPU system [Gulags]) therefore amounted to some 4.6 million (2.9 + 0.3 [Gulags] + 1.4 [Kazakhstan]) [p. 412, "The Years of Hunger"]

A question of reason

The portuguese article is only the best! Why?

Because they proved the genocidal nature of the Holodomor...

Wheatcroft lovers: please read this paper [[12]] or [[13]] or [14] or [15] or [[16]]!

Do you want more? I have a lot...

In this Wikipedia, Genocide its like the Nanking Massacre, or the Pontic Greek Genocide, or the Revolt in the Vendée, or the Rohingya Massacre, or the First Jewish-Roman War, or the Darfur conflict, or the Bar Kokhba's revolt, or the Kitos War, etc, etc, etc, etc, but not the Holodomor!

Amazing!

LuisMatosRibeiro 20:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)