Talk:Holodomor/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Much of the content here belongs in Soviet famine of 1932-1934

This article offers a historical overview of the 1932-1933 famine in the Soviet Union from a Ukrainian national perspective. Much of the contents of this article would be more fitting in an article entitled Soviet famine of 1932-1934, which is the common name for the famine in the English-language historiography. Wikipedia:Naming conventions state that "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." "Holodomor" is not a common term in the discourse on the subject in the English-speaking world. A search for "holodomor" in Jstor, the leading database of scholarly journal articles, only returns four results. [1] Notice that all the entries on Jstor are recent. The usage of the term in English-language discourse is largely a relatively recent phenomenon, which probably has to do with the emergence of an Ukraine, and the ensuing dialogue on the country's national identity. In contrast, searches on Jstor, other scholarly databases, and Google yield vastly larger numbers of results for "Soviet famine of 1932-1934" or all the other variants for describing the famine. (Some accounts refer to it as the famine of 1932-33, as opposed to 1932-34.)

Aside from the naming conventions, there are other problems with having tan article on the name "holodomor" be written as if it were Wikipedia's general article on the famine of 1932-34. The famine affected the peasantry as a class, Ukrainians, Central Asians, and Russians alike, not the Ukrainians as a nationality. To deal with the topic in the article on the Ukrainian name is to ignore the famine in parts of Russia, which serves to minimize and thus whitewash the extent of the atrocities of Stalin. 172 21:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Page move is inappropriate, it is a specific term for specific aspect of what will be the topic of another not yet written article. It is about the version which specifically addresses your argument, it is not a POV fork, this kind of fork exists in reality.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 21:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The "holodomor" article should be about the name and its usage, dealing with issues of the Ukrainian nation's collective memory of the famine, not an account of famine itself. Perhaps I should have been more clear. Clearly the page cannot be removed, as there should be an article on the name "holodomor." However, much of the content here should be moved to Soviet famine of 1932-1934. 172 22:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Holodomor is not just famine, there are sources in Russian and Ukrainian presented here describing accounts of people, the ones about "blacklisted" farms are very shocking . Please read the article more throughly it presents the point of view as genocidal event. The UA wiki has mortality rates, where Ukraine stands out (rough translation):

Regions of European part of USSR where mortality rate in 1933 was higher than the birth rate

region	urban	village	Total
Ukrainian SSR	-116,600	-1,342,400	-1,459,000
North Caucasus	-63,900	-227,100	-291,000
Lower Volga	-54,500	-108,600	-163,100
Central Black Earth Region	-23,100	-39,200	-62,300
Urals	-40,100	5,500	-34,600
Middle Volga	-29,100	13,700	-15,400
North region	-7,100	1,600	-5,500

To be informative, this table lacks absolute population counts. Suppose there lived only 300,000 in N.Caucasus area... In any case, today Ukraine is about 60 mln, Stavropol Krai (which was called North Caucasus Krai at these times) is about 3 mln. Assuming that relative population densities didn't changed much, I'd say N.Caucasus suffered way much worse. mikka (t) 22:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems that Ukrainians do not remember it as a regular famine, so maybe it has requires some moderation but not regression to the state it was a year ago. I agree that Andrew Alexander overdoes everything, well at the very least he does not just insert POV but actually compiles facts. –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 00:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

D'accord. I think Andrew has been very productive here, but I also agree that he needs a hit over the head every once in a while... I also support keeping the article with the current focus. The Holodomor is unique in many ways, and the fact that it has been ignored for so long in the English language media means just that it has been ignored in the English language media. What SHOULD be done is to expand the discussion on politization. The issue is unduly politicised, which in itself deserver a considerable discussion.Dietwald 10:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Gnomz, your reply did not really address my comments earlier. You seem to be making the case above that the "holodomor" was 'not just famine.' That's correct, but neither her nor there because I was not stating otherwise. The more apt English-language title would be Soviet terror-famine of 1932-1934. Still, the terror is so widely associated with the famine that most sources just refer to the subject as the "famine." You also seem to be making the case above that the "holodomor" was genocide, which is fine, but not the only legitimate point of view on the subject in Western academic literature. I agree with Dietwald above that what should be done is to expand the discussion on politicization in this article, as "holodomor" is an article dealing with the discourse, analysis, collective memory issues surrounding the terror-famine (whether or not the terror-famine was genocide against the Ukrainian nation, why the famine was overlooked by Western scholars and media for so long, memorials, etc.). I hope to get around to that myself later today. In the longer-run, the historical overview should gradually move from this article to an article on Soviet terror-famine of 1932-1934 (the most important article that Wikipedia has not written), or perhaps a specialized entry on the terror-famine in Ukraine, which, as I stated earlier was not the only affected region of the Soviet Union, although it was clearly the region most devastated. 172 10:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Dietwald, you stated: "The Holodomor is unique in many ways, and the fact that it has been ignored for so long in the English language media means just that it has been ignored in the English language media." If you were a historian and made that comment at a scholarly conference, I would applaud you quite emphatically. IMO scholars and students interested in Eastern Europe and 20th century history everywhere are in need of a new groundbreaking monograph on the terror-famine from the long-overlooked Ukrainian national perspective. I'm hoping that the discussion on Soviet-era Ukrainian history triggered by the Orange Revolution will provide the impetus for such an effort. On Wikipedia, though, I would have reservations about moving too far into the domain of original research. Such an effort is the work of a historian, not encyclopedia editors. Western scholars rarely use the term "holodomor" and a new monograph on the subject is needed to change that, not a Wikipedia article. Even Robert Conquest, who indeed started the discussion on the subject in Western academic circles, rarely uses his term himself. In many of his work on the subject, the term "holodomor" does not appear in the index. Instead, coverage on the subject is found by going to "famine" in many (if not most or all) of his indexes. 172 11:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me think about that.Dietwald 16:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm for "Soviet terror-famine of 1932-1934" (there should be also a more general article "Soviet famine"). Holodomor suggests that the victims were only Ukrainians. Xx236 14:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"Ukrainian émigré scholars"???

Mr 172 continues changing the introduction and pushing the sentence

"In some accounts the famine, often referred to as a "man-made" [4], is called the Ukrainian Genocide [5] [6] [7], especially but not exclusively in writings by Ukrainian émigré scholars"

Neither of the references point to any "Ukrainian émigré scholars" so far. It seems this whole restructuring of the introduction is meant to push forward a single article by Mark Tauger and ignore whole countries, institutions, famous people like John Paul II, more than a million of web pages that refer to the Holodomor as "genocide". This is biased. To start a revert war based on ONE article opposing thousands of references is ridiculous.--Andrew Alexander 23:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The whole concept of "Ukrainian émigré scholars" is long passée, it's part of the terminology that's been used in the early 1980s, when most of the western historians did not yet believe in the genocidal motivation of the Holodomor, and attributed the concept to Ukrainian nationalists. Much has changed since the publications of Conquest and Mace (neither of them was Ukrainian, BTW) and since the Soviet Union eventually admitted the fact of the famine. Wake up, 25 years have passed, we are in 2006. Unlike Tauger's apologetism, Ukrainian Genocide is mainstream terminology today. --_Lysy^talk 09:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

No one is stating that the Ukrainian émigré scholars are the commentators making an argument about a genocidal motivation to the famine today. Nevertheless, it is important to mention them because they deserve the credit for first publicizing the famine in Western intellectual and political discourse before the emergence of Conquest in the late 1960s. The fact that some used to dismiss them as Ukrainian nationalists is neither here nor there.

Your over-simplification of the Western academic literature into two camps of the correct "Ukrainian Genocide" view on the one hand and the incorrect '25 year-old apologetism' on the other is mind-blowing. Another legitimate perspective on the subject is still being defended by leading famine specialists. Moshe Lewin, Sheila Fitzpatrick, and Lynne Viola do not consider the famine to be best understood as a genocide. Their work is not outdated. Indeed, they represent the generation of Soviet specialists following the publication of Conquest's original work. They argue that the Soviet regime's main objective during the 1930s was not genocide against the Ukrainian nation but rather rapid industrialization with brutal indifference to the humanitarian toll in the countryside. Disagreement with the view that the famine was genocide is not to be confused with apologetics. For the most part, the assessment of the impact of the famine of scholars such as Fitzpatrick is fairly close to Conquest's. Fitzpatrick, for example, cites research by V. Tsaplin in her work, putting the Soviet famine deaths in 1933 alone at three to four million. 172 13:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

We should give more credence to statement made by academics than to the political statements. The resolution of Ukrainian Parliament as well as of many other country's political leaderships, including the Pope, who is also a head of state, are notable to be mentioned and they are mentioned. But as political statements they bear less weight in an encyclopedic articles than statements made by historian scholars. --Irpen 23:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, if the references are not yet pointing in the direction of Ukrainian émigré scholars, it is the references that are lacking. Before Conquest it was the Ukrainian émigré scholars who led the way in getting the famine researched and publicized in the Western world. 172 00:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

And there are plenty and then some references to academic sources in this article. Mark Tauger is not the only such source. The whole sentence refering to that article in 1992 is phony. "Military needs"? Huh? Were Jews also slaughtered for "military needs" to get some gold teeth?--Andrew Alexander 23:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Tauger was just chosen as one of the representatives of the scholars who say that the weather played at least had something to do with worsening famine conditions in Ukraine; they do not argue that the seizure of the crops were not the main cause. I do not have an opinion on that view myself, as I lack the background in agricultural science; but I do know that it is a commonly cited one. Please do not stand in the way toward adding more perspectives from the Western historiography, even if you are skeptical of the conclusions yourself. 172 00:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. Tauger is definitely not representative, he is simply outstanding. No serious historian shares his views today. --_Lysy^talk 09:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That's fine if you chose a representative of your views, so did all the other people who entered multiple quotes into this article. The questions is, why a single quote from an obscure journal with some phony wording about "military needs" and unsupported by any other source "weather conditions" should be mentioned first. While all the other references must be moved back and supplemented with even phonier phrases about "Ukrainian émigré scholars". Should anyone stand in the way of this nonsense?--Andrew Alexander 04:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, I thought that you were much more familar with the Western academic literature on the subject. Are you seriously calling the Slavic Review an "obscure journal?" Slavic Review, the jorunal of Advancement of Slavic Studies (AAASS), the major U.S. organization promoting Russian and East European studies, is the premier and probably most prestigious publication in the field. AAASS's conferences are among the most widely attended conferences focused on the region in the United States. An article published by this journal is not a 'single quote with some phony wording unsupported by any other source.' Their editors would not even consider reading an article submitted to them for publication if it fails to contain an extensive bibliography. So, if you are interested in sources for an article published in an academic journal such as Slavic Review, just check its own bibliography. BTW, if you are interested in helping this article conform to NPOV, I suggest that you survey the literature reviews on the subject by means of searching through the archives of Slavic Review and skimming through some of the results. Many of the historians published in the journal at times vehimately disagree with each other. In order to conform to NPOV, editors here must make a faithful effort to represent and attribute the entire sprectrum of scholarly perspectives on the subject in this article, even the ones we may consider "phony" or "nonsense." 172 05:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

No reason to get upset regarding the prominence of Slavic Reviews. I simply skipped a word and meant to say "an obscure journal issue". A single article in 1992 is fairly obscure when you compare it with thousands of other academic publications on the Holodomor.--Andrew Alexander 19:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Again that's neither here nor there. Other articles could have been cited. If readers are interested in other scholarly articles stating the same thing, they can go to the bibliography of the article being cited. There is no prize for name-dropping. 172 20:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Slavic Review is indeed one of the leading journals on any topic re. the USSR.Dietwald 08:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Slavic Review is definitely not an "obscure journal" and Tauger is definitely well known for his peculiar idea of Holodomor. The analogy with Holocaust denial articles is inevitable. --_Lysy^talk 09:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Tauger's article is widely cited as one of the most controversial example of leftist apologetic approach. Another, even more ridiculous POV-pusher is Tottle in his Famine and Fascism: The Ukraine Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard. It may be worth noting that both Tottle and Tauger publised their revelations already after SU's consent to the famine. Nevertheless, I expect that encyclopedic article would follow mainstream historiography rather than some extermist ideas that had been dismissed years ago. --_Lysy^talk 09:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The work of Tauger comes from the realm of the mainstream historiography, though its represents a controversial current within it. At any rate, the criticism of Tauger is neither here nor there because the citation included in the article already makes proper reference to controversy associated with his work by noting the angry exchange between Tauger and Robert Conquest in Slavic Review 51 (Spring 1992): 1992-94. By the way, I recommend that the editors here read through the row between Conquest and Tauger, which will serve as a reminder that the subject of the Soviet famine deaths remains one of the most controversial topics in the history of the 20th century to this date, generating a great deal of disagreement among historians. Other leading famine specialists are offering an approach to the famine that differs from Conquest's. At the same time, they are associated with a niche within the academic discourse on the famine that is more moderate and less controversial than Tauger's. On that note, eventually this article will also have to take into account the work of these other famine specialists, including Moshe Lewin, V. Tsaplin, Sheila Fitzpatrick, and Lynne Viola.

Because no consensus has emerged among historians, we as Wikipedia editors cannot simply decide to give serious attention only to commentators writing from the point of view that the famine was an intentional policy of genocide against the nation of Ukraine. Gradually, we will have to move toward properly summarizing and attributing all major schools of thought in the historiography, as we attempt to establish a more comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the historical literature by famine specialists in this article. 172 12:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The major divide is whether the Ukrainian peasants had to die because they were "kulkas" or because they were Ukrainians (or maybe conveniently both at the same time). In this context Tauger and Tottle are marginal, and may deserve to be mentioned in Holodomor denial section but certainly not in the lead of the article. For this specific subject, I would also suggest to focus more on works of contemporary Ukrainian historians instead of North American or other foreign authors. --_Lysy^talk 13:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not. The major divide was whether the regime's main objective during the 1930s was genocide or rapid industrialization with brutal indifference to the humanitarian toll in the countryside. The ad hominems against Tauger are not convincing. Moshe Lewin, Sheila Fitzpatrick, and Lynne Viola are also leading specialists who do not understand the events in the 1930s as genocide. Your suggestion to focus contemporary Ukrainian historians instead of North American or other foreign authors is inappropriate. This is the English language Wikipedia. The vast majority of our readership does not speak Ukrainian or Russian, and do not have reasonable access to works published in Ukraine. Following your suggestion, the bulk of the article's readership would not be able to confirm much of the information in the article by checking the sources themselves. By the way, the insinuation that the Western scholarship is somehow inferior to that of Ukraine is chauvinistic and absurd. Any specialist is going to have to know the language(s) of the primary sources he or she will be researching. A Western scholar is not going to be impervious to recent developments in the country or region he or she is specialized in studying. 172 19:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Try to look at it differently. The fact that this wikipedia is in English language does not mean that it has to be limited in the bibliography to English language sources only. On the contrary, one of the beauties of wikipedia is that it can use the access to the whole range of multilangual sources much easier than any local author could ever do. This is a value not something to fight against. --_Lysy^talk 20:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not state that non-English language sources should not be used at all. I was responding to your suggestion that we "focus more on works of contemporary Ukrainian historians instead of North American or other foreign authors." Preferably the bulk of the articles will be English, though, as that is what readers here will find more helpful. 172 20:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

But 172, you are now starting confusing the works of Tauger, whom you cited first in this article with the works of everyone else, who often disagree with what Tauger had to say. It is obvious that Tauger is nowhere close to "mainstream historiography". He is only known for his denial of man-made famine in Ukraine and not much else. He is an associate professor at a second-rate university program (no offense, but there are many better rated history departments). Placing an emphasis on this person opinion in the first few sentences of the introduction is ludicrous.--Andrew Alexander 20:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The ad hominems against Tauger are uninteresting. By the way, you and Lysy seem to be smearing him by comparing him to Tottle. (Lysy got me to confuse them in my head for a second becase their names start with the same letter and both have six words. Clever trick.) Tottle is not a scholar or an expert on the subject. It is not helpful to obfuscate matters to such an extent that association is being drawn being an article published in a prestigious journal like Slavic Review with that polemic by Tottle that has no academic credibility. 172 20:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can only say that your personal admiration for Tauger to the extent that you attribute his views to other authors is appalling. But let it be. Back to the bibliography issue, I feel that you're trying to put words in my mouth that I've never said. I did not suggest that the Western scholarship is inferior to Ukraininan or that Western scholars do not know Ukrainian and Russian languages. I'm sure many do. On the contrary, I expect western scholarship to be more multi-aspect oriented and much more mature than Ukrainian. I would also expect that Ukrainian histography is young as its independence is. And I'm sure you'll agee that young independencies often tend to be on the nationalistic side. However, Holodomor is the topic that is being researched by Ukrainian historians recently, they have much easier job getting to the archives, talking to the wintesses, have much better understanding of the situation within the Soviet Union and the fact that the sources of the article are limited to Western scholarship only and remain mostly ignorant of the Ukrainian research tells us much about how biased it is. --_Lysy^talk 20:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not state personal admiration for Tauger. I do not have an opinion on his work because his research is outside my area of expertise. I do have an opinion on Slavic Review, which has high scholarly standards for submission. An article pubished in that journal is just as good as any source for our purposes here on Wikipedia. I did not attribute his views to other authors. I was responding to your comments earlier comparing him to Tottle. Regarding your point "the fact that the sources of the article are limited to Western scholarship only and remain mostly ignorant of the Ukrainian research tells us much about how biased it is," that may be something to keep in mind. Still, Ukrainian scholars are likely to be cited by the English language sources. So it is not as if Ukrainian research is going completely overlooked. 172 21:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I believe we would not be having this strange discussion in 10 years from now, when Ukrainian research gets more mature and also more cited by the Western sources. For the record, I share the opinion on SR's high standards and I also think that talking of "Ukrainian émigré scholars", while probably appropriate in the 1980s, is out of its time in 2006. --_Lysy^talk 22:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I clarified the point to avoid possible confusion: Ukrainian émigré historians were among to first commentators to arguge that the the famine was an act of genocide against the Ukrainian people. 172 22:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That sounds much better, thanks. --_Lysy^talk 22:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning that a person works as an associate professor at the University of WV history department is not "ad hominem". Now please, stop pushing his views as "mainstream historiography". You keep reverting to the version that has all those sources behind Mark Tauger instead of giving him proper attention in a proper place in the article.--Andrew Alexander 22:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Where an academic is teaching does not matter. What matters is where an academic has published, and Slavic Review is as reputable as any publication. Further, it is absurd to say that an author who was notable enough for Robert Conquest to debate (see Tauger and Robert Conquest in Slavic Review 51 Spring 1992: 1992-94) is not notable to cite in any Wikipedia article. Your definition of "mainstream historiography" is utterly incoherent. There is no universally accepted interpretation on and approach to the famine among specialists. The "mainstream historiography" would be academic publications. Articles published by Western academic journals must be within the realm of legitimate scholarly debate to be submitted. 172 14:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop twisting my words. Where did I say that it's not OK to cite genocide deniers? How long are you going to argue with yourself?--Andrew Alexander 21:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No, the problem is that you seem to believe that Tauger's research is credible only because it was published in a reputable journal. Even editorial boards of good journals make mistakes from time to time. Tauger's ideas may me mentioned in relevant section on Holodomor denial but certainly not in the lead. Do you see the ideas of Barnes mentioned in the Holocaust's lead ? --_Lysy^talk 19:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The comments above are disingenuous. The view that poor weather had something to do with the famine has always been an assumption held by some Western academics. Tauger is not coming out of nowhere. Tauger is being cited because he is one of the more recent scholars who says he is bringing evidence to bear evidence supporting it, not because he is the only one. I got the idea to make reference to him because Mikka earlier tried to add a note on the notion of a draught in the intro [2], but was reverted because his edit was not attributed. Now it is cited properly. By the way, calling Tuger's research on the weather "holodomor denial" is an extremely unfair smear. Tauger is not arguing that the effect of the 1932-34 terror-famine was any less catastrophic than author like Conquest make it out to be. He is not arguing that poor weather was the sole cause of the famine, or even the major cause. 172 21:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Come one, similarly Barnes claimed that he was not a Holcaust denier, yet I don't see you mentioning his ideas in the lead of the Holocaust article. I don't really want this to sound personal, but your inistence on prominently exposing such theories as Tauger's in the lead shows only your lack of respect to the victims of Holodomor. Tauger's apologetic approach to those responsible for starving millions to death is simply disgusting. How comes the famine did not hit Western Ukraine ? Was weather more favourable in Poland ? Why was the death toll highest in the areas with the best quality soil ? Worse weather in these particular areas ? Sincerely, I cannot even imagine that you believe in what you're writing. There were draughts in Europe before, but they never caused millions of people die, and certainly not in one of the most fertilious part of the continent. It may be interesting to discuss such ideas in the article, but certainly not in the summary. Your continuous repeating that Tauger is not the borderline will not make him more mainstream. --_Lysy^talk 22:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Your misrepresentation of Tauger's work is mind-blowing and makes it evident that you have not even read the article. He is not saying that the draught is the sole cause of the famine, but a confounding factor worsening a famine caused by the seizure of the peasants' harvest. The comparison of Western specialists on the Soviet terror-famine to Holocaust deniers frankly disgusts me. (Almost my entire family perished in the Holocaust. I do not appreciate its usage as an object of political rhetoric.) The Soviet terror-famine and the Holocaust are entirely different ball games. Historians speak with much greater certainty about the Holocaust than they do about the Soviet terror-famine with good reason: We know much more about the former than the latter. Unfortunately, the reason for this discrepancy is, first, the success of Soviet efforts to cover up the famine. Second, unlike the victims of the Nazi concentration camps, terror-famine victims in Ukraine were not liberated by free countries that were able to gather hard evidence exposing the Soviet regime's crimes against humanity. Therefore, in spite of widespread interest in the Soviet Union, Western specialists have still paid little attention to the Soviet terror-famine compared to the Holocaust. It is aburd to compare Western historians of the Soviet terror-famine to Holocaust deniers because, unfortunately, still have legitimate questions to ask about the terror-famine that they have long known about the Holocaust. Now please stop the references to ";;holdomor denial." They are unfair smears of the worst kind. 172 17:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

All right, that brings us back to why are you limiting yourself to the Western historians only, while ignoring Ukrainian sources. You said that I believed that Ukrainian historians are superior and I explained that I did not. Now I think you have answered yourself where's the difference and why Ukrainian research should not be ignored. The probelm is that the orange revolution happened only a year ago and we have yet to wait until it gets wider worldwide acceptance. However how can you possibly ignore Ukrainian research on the mass murder that took place in Ukraine remains beyond me. --_Lysy^talk 18:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not intend to ignore Ukrainian research on the terror-famine. I am waiting until it gets wider acceptance in the community of scholars internationally. Until then, we should refrain from call established points of view in the Western scholarship terms that make reference to such an ugly political phenomenon as Holocaust denial. 172 18:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The more you should understand why Tauber's research is not appropriate here, as the same principle applies. You should wait until it gets wider acceptance in the community of scholars internationally, including Ukraine of course (and of course I expect this will never happen, as his results have been long rejected and nothing seems to indicate that they will get any wider acceptance in the future). --_Lysy^talk 19:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It is absurd to suggest that Tauger's work is politically motivated. Tauger has also written similar critiques of Amartya Sen's theories on the Bengal famine of 1943 (Journal of Peasant Studies 31 no. 1, October 2003). It would be absurd to say that Tauger is both an apologist for British imperialism and Stalinism. Please stop making vailed political allegations against who disagree with the notion that the terror-famine was a "genocide" that Stalin perpetrated intentionally against Ukrainians. Many historians consider this perspective wrong. They may be wrong themselves, but it is utterly unfair to suggest that their conclusions are generated by politics as opposed to their own research. 172 18:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I certainly have no idea what could be Tauger's motivation, and frankly I do not expect they would be political. What I'm trying to persuade is that in order to have the NPOV maintained in the article, one cannot limit himself to the western research only, which firstly is currently underrepresented for the subject, and secondly is much less important than Ukrainian research. --_Lysy^talk 19:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, one cannot limit himself to Western research. At the same time, one cannot limit himself to Ukrainian research. I am open to discussing whether or not recent Ukraiain research, or any school of thought on the famine, is underrepresented in the article as time goes on. The only point above with which I disagree is the statement that Western research "is much less important than Ukrainian research." Wikipedia's NPOV policy means that we have to take an agnostic position as Wikipedia editors on the debate regarding whether or not the POV of recent Ukrainian research has more weight than the view in much of the Western scholarship the terror-famine was a "genocide" that Stalin perpetrated intentionally against Ukrainians. 172 21:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

As much as I'm unhappy because of the oversimplifications of the "environmentalist" approach, I have to agree with you that neither "Western" nor "Ukrainian" research is more important or provides the ultimate answers. I only hope that with the topic getting more hype recently, there'll be more diverse research of the Holodomor in the West soon. Thank you for your patience in discussing the tiny parts of the intro text with me (the text that is supposed to be trashed anyway). Oh, this is not to mean that I consider the time wasted, on the contrary. --_Lysy^talk 21:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Military needs

I see you're restoring the "military needs" in the lead. What were the military needs of USSR in 1932 then~, that made several million of Ukrainians starve to death ? --_Lysy^talk 22:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

If we have no references to more than one author attributing the famine to the "military needs", I would suggest removing this term from the article. --_Lysy^talk 14:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest reading the article instead. The reference should be easily understandable to readers broadly familiar with Soviet history. It is well known that the Soviet Union was a paranoid regime in an almost-constant wartime crisis atmosphere since the great war scare of 1927, when many in the party and the country believed that renewed military intervention by 'capitalist powers' was imminent. Setbacks included the diplomatic crisis with Britain with the Zinoviev letter, the Kuomintang's attack on its Communist allies in China, and the strain placed on Moscow's Repallo relationship with Germany by Germany's rapprochement in the mid-1920s with the Western powers. For brief surveys in monographs on the subject of the restoration of wartime conditions in the late 1920s, I recommend Kennan's Russia and the West under Lenin and Stalin and Soviet Foreign Policy, and for something more recent, Sheila Fitzpatrick's Russian Revolution. 172 14:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your patronising tone, it really helps the discussion. According to your explanations the correct term would be "Soviet regime's paranoia" and not "military needs". --_Lysy^talk 18:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Readers are not stupid. We do not need to load the text with bad-sounding adjectives every time Stalin and the Soviet Union come up. When I see summaries of Tauger's article in scholarly sources, "military needs" are mentioned. If you are interested in a more specific summary, I suggest reading the atricle, rather than making emotional off-the-cuff descriptions. 172 21:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

As to myself being emotional on the topic, believe me, I'm trying to stay calm but it's hard knowing what was done to these people and seeing that it been made the subject of the pseudo-scientific dispute of the likes of Tauber no later than 15 years ago. It's so disgraceful... --_Lysy^talk 22:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm interested in trimming down the summary and removing borderline speculations to their appropriate sections. If, for whatever reason, you insist on keeping such information in the lead, I will insist it is precise and not misleading. Either do move it where it belongs or phrase it so that it's clear there were no objective military needs that would justify starving Ukrainian population to death in 1932/33. --_Lysy^talk 21:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The intro cannot make assertions that disregard certain points of view in the Western academic literature that do not align with the POVs of certain Wikipedia editors. The view that the "holodomor" was an intentional campaign of genocide against the Ukrainian population is disputed by Western scholars. Wikipedia articles can summarize arguments stating that the "holomodor" was genodice and evidence supporting that view; but they cannot make the assertion themselves. 172 21:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, are you able to show that Tauber's theory is seriously supported by any modern (e.g. published in the last 3 years) scholarly source ? how about these "military needs" ? You have still not explained it otherwise than Soviet paranoia, which can hardly be considered a "military need". I agree that this can be discussed and explained in detail further in the article, but leaving it in the lead section of the article like this is simply misleading. This is not an abstract of an academic paper, but a summary of an encyclopedic article and has to be phrased clearly and straightforwardly. I'm assuming your good faith of course, but please explain your rationale in all this pushing. --_Lysy^talk 22:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Your request that I show you that Tauger's research is supported by a work published in the last three years suggests to me that you do not know academic publications work. The process of submitting an article for peer review and publication is a long one that can take at times a couple of years. Go to Jstor and do searches on key words dealing with the famine. The view that poor weather had something to do with the famine has always been an assumption held by some Western academics. That's why Mikka, who is as well-read as any Wikipedia editor, inserted a note on the possibility of a draught earlier. A reference to that view, without an assertion of its validity, is appropriate. 172 17:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, I do not appreciate your patronising attitude in this dispute which only shows how mature you are. Rest assured that having published myself, I am aware of the process of academic publication and of how the value of academic research is evaluated. Are you trying to suggest that nothing has been published in the recent years as nobody has submitted anything before ? Or what point are you trying to make with this ? As to Mikka, I believe that he is better-read than "any" Wikipedia editor and I value his contributions a lot, but I don't think this is an issue we are discussing here. As to the draught itself, are you aware of why had it not created famine in Western Ukraine, what was not under Soviet administration at that time ? --_Lysy^talk 17:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry if you took offense to my tone. Since you have published yourself, you should have been aware that the request that you made earlier was somewhat unreasonable. As to the draught itself, yes, I am aware of the point and other arguments against the notion of a draught. I am not qualified to state support for either your POV or Tauger's. Nor do I need to be qualified to edit this article. Wikipedia:No original research requires that editors refrain from inserting their own jugments about the historiography in articles and instead summarize the views of all sides in a debate, even ones with which they are not inclined to agree. 172 18:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

To summarise this part of the dispute: I think that this is obvious and you have agreed that there were no military needs of the Soviet Union in 1932 that could justify starving several millions of Ukrainian peasants. Just for completeness, can you confirm it again, please ? --_Lysy^talk 19:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I will not reply to the red herring above. This is a moral and normative question because you are asking if something justifies something else. It is utterly inappropriate because no scholar I'm citing defends Soviet policy. 172 16:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to phrase it your way, of course. All I'm asking is your confirmation that the "military needs" can go. I'm not insisting on replacing it with "Soviet paranoia" since you seem to care about political correctness. I'm asking you to confirm this as a courtesy, as I don't want to respond by reverting to your reverts. I do respect you but would like to ask you for the same. --_Lysy^talk 17:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I've seen references to "military needs" regarding Tauger's work in academic literature reviews that I have read. I am having server problems and do not remember the exact journal volumes and numbers at the moment. I will get back to you shortly with the reference. 172 17:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe the "military needs" term was used in academic reference, as an abreviated phrase intended for initiated reader of the scholarly publication. Our context however is the intro of an encyclopedic article and has to be understandable also to people searching for basic information regarding the Holodomor. Therefore using such ambiguous wording, assuming some wider previous knowledge of the subject is not appropriate in the intro. Is this something you could possibly agree with or not ? I do not doubt you can find a reference for someone using this term, but that is not the point. --_Lysy^talk 18:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not want you to consider it ambiguous. I think that the following is a more clear summary for the purpose of the intro: Some scholars have also attributed poor weather and Stalin's military and economic goals as additional factors in explaining the famine. 172 21:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would be addressing my concerns. Thanks. --_Lysy^talk 21:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Intro

Alexander, could you please stop modifying the intro as per your own discussion? You opposed my suggestions to the intro because the article needs to be worked through first. I agreed to that. The fact that you continue to edit the intro is quite uncalled for. Could you please stop modifying the intro? Because if you continue to modify the intro, I will do the same, because your are pushing your POV.Dietwald 13:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

But I don't "continuously edit" anything. Simply restoring facts and references deleted by other users. If you have more facts and references to add to this article, please do so. I will never erase them.--Andrew Alexander 18:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

And you, of course, will be the arbiter of those. How about a time-out on the intro?????? I have not touched it since, even though I hate it. I would appreciate it if you would reciprocate, and the same goes for the others. Let's deal with the article first, and then the intro. The intro sucks. There should be a banner for that... Sucky Intro alert, or something like that. Dietwald 19:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbiter of what? Please read the previous response. Cutting facts and references is easy. Finding them is hard.--Andrew Alexander 19:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Just one thing. Whatever lead version for the time-out we choose, if it includes the introduction of "Genocide" term it should not be in the first line because whether it is Genocide or not is important part of the later discussion. I tried to move it to the section. A.A. returned in to the first line. I tried to move it further down in the lead and explained. It was returned to the first line yet again. As I said many times, I strongly disagree with using the lead for POV pushing. Yes, altering the lead dramatically gives the most effective POV alteration per unit time spend on the article. This is exactly why it should be done with caution. Some editors do it all the time. Please edit the article rather than the lead. --Irpen 19:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing is what you would do by ignoring a more commonly used name for the Holodomor. Please read the arguments in the archived discussion. "Genocide" is mentioned MORE OFTEN in relation to the Holodomor than the Holodomor itself. Following the Wikipedia guidelines the article has to actually move to "Ukrainian Genocide". The only reason it's not moved there is to accomodate "diverse points of view" of the people who deny the genocide. And this is fine.--Andrew Alexander 19:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

In just about all scholarly accounts I can think of at the moment, the topic is found under "famine" in the indexes. Making references to "people who deny the genocide" is not in good faith. No serious scholar does not consider the famine any less of an atrocity than authors like Conquest make it out to be. And, yes, we do have to accomodate diverse scholarly points of view on the subject per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. 172 21:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to focus on the article, as well as "freezing" the intro summary, but would like it to be respected by everyone, including 172. That is: trim the lead down and rewrite it based on the article's contents only when we are more or less happy with it. This would involve 172 not pushing the POV of Holodomor denial into the lead, of course. --_Lysy^talk 21:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I am glad to see that you are stating that you intend to be compromising here. However, I will only be fully convinced that you are working in good faith if you refrain from using emotive and grossly unfair allegations of "holodomor denial" against academics whose work does not align with your POV. No serious scholar denies the scale of the atrocities in Ukraine in 1932-34. The issue is their argument that they are bring to bear evidence suggesting that rapid industrialization without reference to the humanitarian consequences was the regime's main objective during the 1930s, not genocide against Ukrainians. 172 21:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. That's what I meant when I wrote that the major divide is whether the peasants died because they were "kulaks" or because they were Ukrainians. OTOH it would be nicer if you assumed my good faith and not required me to convince you of it. As to my will to compromise, I'm surprised that you had not noticed yet that, unlike you, I've not reverted your edits that I don't find appropriate, and I'm trying to persuade you in the talk instead. --_Lysy^talk 22:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You're over-simplifying the scholarly debate. The view that the famine was a result of state policy but not a deliberate genocide against either Ukrainians or kulaks is still held by historians. I will try to assume good faith on your part. You will be able to help me do that by refraining from the usage of politically and emotionally charges of "holodomor denial" to scholars and others who cannot be fairly described as such. 172 16:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me quote Lemkin on Genocide, then: [Genocide] is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group. Are you saying that Stalin was so naive or ignorant as not to be aware that millions of people are dying while he exported the grain to the West ? At to my usage of "holodmor denial" I obviously used the term for simplicity and I do not understand why does it irritate you ? --_Lysy^talk 17:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

All right, I have the growing feeling that we are wasting our time in this discussion about the lead, that could be otherwise spent better on the article itself. Let me make a compromise proposal: can we at least remove this outrageous sentence about "weather conditions" and "military needs" from the lead ? And leave the rest in to please you, until the article itself is improved ? Would this be fair enough for a compromise ? --_Lysy^talk 22:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No, the intro will have to take into account with attribution all the academic accounts on the famine, even those with which individual Wikipedia editors disagree. If you want to exercise greater editorial discretion over the point of view of articles, I recommend joining a project that does not put a constrain such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view on its participants. 172 16:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but Tauger's POV is far from anything being Neutral. I hoped it would be possible to reach some compromise with you but you seem to be pushing his POV above the limits. I understand that members of your family perished in the Holocaust and that you do not appreciate its usage as an object of political rhetoric. I'm going to respect it and apologise if I've written anything that would hurt your feelings. Now, what do you think about respecting the memory of millions of the Holodomor victims ? --_Lysy^talk 17:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Tauger's POV is not neutral is neither here nor there. The POV of no scholar is neutral. Following NPOV, we summarize and attribute his views and those of other scholars without making our own assertions about whether they are right or wrong in the article. 172 17:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know I'm repeating myself here, but somehowe you're missing the point. The idea of NPOV is not that we need to mention every borderline view there ever existed. There were scientists (in fact all did) that believed that the Earth is flat. Would you be mentioning this as an alternative POV in the lead of Earth article ? Similarly the fact that Tauber published something in the early 1990s is not so notable today, after the collapse of Soviet Union, after Ukraine got independent and after the academic research in this particular subject moved lightyears ahead compared to where it's been for the previous 50 years. I have nothing against discussing different strange ideas in the article, but the leading intro is for the summary of the facts and not a place for a wider discussion of Tauber's peculiar views. --_Lysy^talk 18:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that if Tauger himself started edting Wikipedia he might start comparing the people who disagree with him to flat-earth theorists. No matter how passionately you feel about a subject, there is no license for any editor to disregard the NPOV policy. 172 18:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. We both understand well the reasons to respect the memory of the Holocaust victims. Why would you deny the same right of respect to the victims of Holodomor ? I'll spare you the graphic descriptions of how long and how terribly these people suffered. All these apologetic attempts, attributing their tragedy to bad weather, bad position of the moon and what else are just so obviously disgraceful that I cannot imagine you don't realise this, especially given your family story. I'm sorry for this personal appeal, but these double standards astonish me. --_Lysy^talk 19:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not interested in editing this article or the Holocaust article from an emotional perspective. I already explained to you why the two subjects are different ball games. It is regrettable that the subject of the famine in Ukraine is still more debatable precisely because the Soviets managed to conceal evidence so long. But Wikipedia editors have no business changing the world. Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy or original research. 172 03:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

If the western sources on the subject today are sparse or, as you claim, dominated by the likes of Tauber, the more we should reach for Ukrainian sources. This is not original research. --_Lysy^talk 08:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, David Duke had to go to Ukraine to get his disgraceful PhD. He would not have been able to get it in the United States. I stand by my support of the usage of Western scholarship on the subject. 172 16:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Good, so now you see what a POV is. Your POV is that all Ukrainian research is not worthy because of MAUP. Is this POV of yours enough to exclude Ukrainian results from the Holodomor article ? --_Lysy^talk 20:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that Ukrainian research is not worthy because of MAUP. Ukrainian research can be cited; but like Western research, it cannot be considered the final word on the subject. As an aside unrelated to this article, I am glad to hear news that Yushchenko has condemned MAUP. Still, Western scholars are concerned that MAUP remains accredited by the Ministry of Education. I get the impression that you are a leading scholar in your own country. I regret any way in which MAUP tarnishes the reputation of Ukraine's community of historians, as I know the vast majority of historians there are competent, striving to hold themselves to the highest standards of historical research possible. 172 21:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Genocide

As far as I am concerned, we can remove the weather for now, and I think, forever too. The contentious point, as I see it, is the following. No one denies that the Famine was caused by the action of the Soviet government. But this, by itself, does not automatically implies that the term Genocide is appropriate. Genocide includes not just Genocideal consequences but genocide anti-Ukrainian intent. The intent of the confiscation of crop is what matters. Was it to support industrialization AND suppress an unreliable for Bolsheviks peasantry? In the latter case, the consequences for the Ukrainians, as the most agricultural nation of the USSR, would be the most devastating. OTOH, if the goal set by Moscow rulers was to exterminate Ukrainians as an ethnic group, the term Genocide is applicable. This is the matter of debate in this article and we cannot present both sides in the text but pre-conclude the outcome in the intro by using the POV term. This debate neither denies the national catastrophe that the famine was for the Ukrainians nor it is apologetic for the Stalin regime. --Irpen 22:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

As for the real intentions we will not know, probably at least as long as the Soviet archives remain closed. And while they are sealed, we can only wonder what's so secret there that cannot see the daylight. If there are proofs of Soviet's god intentions then why would not they announce it ? Anyway, the term "genocide" itself belongs to the realm of international politics rather than scholarly research. It is there for the simple reason that many countries had officialy recognised Holodomor as an act of genocide, nothing more, nothing less. These are just facts. And what is the problem with it ? --_Lysy^talk 22:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not twist what I said. Never did I say about good intentions. Both intentions are bad but only one is Genocideal. The term Genocide belongs to politics among the politicans only. In the encyclopedia, we should stick to the legal and/or academic definitions and the definition of Genocide requires the Genocideal intent. While it would be useful to see the Soviet archives, it is not necessary. If most mainstream academic scholars consider this Genocide judging from the analysis of events, we could use the term in the article in the intro. As shown above, there is a debate. As such, there is no universal conclusion. The term Genocide should not be used to satisfy someone's Political or ideological preferences. Politicians do that, but encyclopedia writers cannot do that with them. --Irpen 23:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's read again, "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." Now, why again "the term Genocide belongs to politics among the politicans only"? I am missing your argument here. No, not "only". It can be mentioned and is mentioned in many other places. This is why it is mentioned here. To reflect the reality.--Andrew Alexander 00:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I poorly phrased myself. I meant that this is a political term only when its is used by politicians, like in Rada resolution. Otherwise, it is a legal and academic term and is applicable to encyclopedia without question but devoid of politicization to advance any agendas or for any other reason. I read the Art. 2 and it starts with the word intent. That is what is the crux of the dispute. Once we established that mainstream scholarship agree that the intent was mass killing of Ukrainians, rather than the death toll was a collatoral damage that criminal Soviel leadership didn't care for and, moreover, the intent to kill was specifically anti-Ukrainian rather than anti-peasant, only then... In the meanwhile the term belongs to the section "Was Holodomor a Genocide?". --Irpen 00:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I now see why you wanted to delete the "Elimination of Ukrainian Cultural Elite". Because it shows the anti-Ukrainian intent. It's hard to deny the obvious. So delete it! This genocide never ended since the "genocide denial" stage is still on.--Andrew Alexander 00:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Alexander, you have been asked many times to avoid attacking the opponents. This does not make what you say sounding any more convinsing.

Now, to your charge. Rather than delete, I tried to change the presentation of the info. --Irpen 07:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Should I bring links with deletions? It's not hard, tell me when you want to see it, OK?--Andrew Alexander 08:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The cultural purge of intellectuals was Soviet-wide. While hitting different areas harshest at different times within the decade, it was anti-elite, anti-intelligentsia and anti-clergy rather than anti-Ukrainian per se. Besides, as I pointed to you earlier, it is a different, even though a related to the Famine event, and is treated as such in the literature. I checked Subtelny and Wilson (see complete refs in the History of Ukraine article). --Irpen 07:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You pointed nothing of the sort. I am still waiting on the citations that support your assertions. Writing "Subtelny and Wilson" is not enough. Sorry, but your own thoughts on that subject are known, no reason to repeat.--Andrew Alexander 08:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, the starvation of much of the peasantry to death was Soviet wide and hit Ukrainians the hardest as the most agricultural nation. --Irpen 07:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Was most of Russia or Belarus not as "agricultural" as Ukraine was? Do you even believe what you write here?--Andrew Alexander 08:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

user:172 suggests a separate article about the Soviet Famines that views these events as related and in the context. --Irpen 07:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

User 172 already deleted the chapters on the mass killings by Stalin in the Stalin article. To me he seems like a not very "mainstream" thinker.--Andrew Alexander 08:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I did no such thing. I deleted your text dump which was redundant and did not fit into the three-year old organization of the aritcle. By the way, I have a low tolerence for ad hominem fights on talk pages. I have and will again request arbitration against users who make such politically and emotionally loaded insinuations against other Wikipedia editors. 172 16:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

172, you deleted the chapters describing the mass killings of Kalmyks, Chechens, Crimean Tatars, Kazakhs, and Ukrainians from that article. In the case you need a link to that deletion, just let me know.--Andrew Alexander 17:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

As Irpen already asked you, please stop smearing your opponents. I did not delete established "chaperts" on the subjects but a text dump that you inserted with a bunching of headings dealing with topics already covered in the article. At any rate, we should agree to disagree on the merits or your edits earlier on another article so that we are can focus on the subject at hand we are supposed to be discussing on this talk page. 172 17:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Reminding you and Irpen your editing history is not "smearing". You deleted several chapters dealing with several Stalin-ordered mass murders not covered in the rest of the article. You can see this deletion here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Stalin&diff=33355632&oldid=33354707. You chose to delete relevant and new information for that article showing the numbers and circumstances of the killings. We can go sentence by sentence and compare it with what already was in the article. So please stop your "smearing" rhetoric and aknowledge what you did.--Andrew Alexander 05:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

In no way such an approach is apologetic for Stalinist crimes. You, OTOH, insist on presenting it from purely Ukrainian perspective. That may also be an acceptable approach but as long as you allow the breadth of mainstream views into the article. Holocaust denial is not a mainstream view in any way. That Holodomor was a result of criminal social policies, rather than Genocedial ethnical policies, OTOH, is the view widely accepted, although some scholary works support your claims too. The article should present and attribute both approaches.

Give us the facts and references, would you please? I don't even know what you mean by "social" policies. Were armed brigades of NKVD on the border between Russia and Ukraine a "social" policy?--Andrew Alexander 08:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Alexander, I expected you to be more familiar with the Western academic literature that your dialogue with Irpen above suggests. The view that famine was the result of economic and social policies, rather than genocidal ethnic policies, is widely accepted. As I stated earlier, see authors such as Lewin, Viola, Manning, and Fitzpatrick. In the coming days, I will be summarizing their intepretations on the famine with attributions in relevant portions of this article and perhaps other articles. 172 16:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Ones again, please stop smearing your opponents. --Irpen 07:32, 1 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Show me where and I will stop it. Until then, discuss the article please.--Andrew Alexander 08:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

User 172 already deleted the chapters on the mass killings by Stalin in the Stalin article. To me he seems like a not very "mainstream" thinker. That smear was as extreme as any smear a Wikipedia editor can make against another Wikipedia editor. An apology on your part would be encouraging. 172 16:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, I believe you are wrong here. The definition of Genocide is not an issue of an academic debate but belongs to international politics and esp. international law. Genocide is defined not by scholars but by international community of United Nations. If a crime is recognized as a genocide, it has far reaching legal consequences. This is why some countries, and Russia particularly, are so reluctant to recognize their crimes as genocide. Contrary to what you have said, it is not a matter of an academic dispute, but of political declaration of individual countries. If international community declares it a genocide, than it is a genocide and it is prosecuted in these countries as a genocide, regardless of what an individual scholar might claim in his article for whatever purpose. The reason why Russian authorities so fervently deny that Katyn or Holodomor were genocides is that otherwise they would have to start official investigations aimed at prosecuting the people guilty for that. Now, I believe that you would understand very well why this would be not desirable for them. If it's not obvious, I'm happy to explain, probaly not here, not to clutter this discussion any more but in your or my talk page. --_Lysy^talk 09:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The statement that the subject of genocide is not a matter of genocide is not a matter of academic debate is one of the most absurd statements I have read on this talk page. It is wrong on a clear factual level because historians and social scientists have been studying the subject for years. Frankly, it gives me the creeps. The idea that politicians should take over the tasks of historians and social scientists and are higher authorities on the pursuit about the historical past reminds me more of Soviet totalitarianism than any model of a free society. 172 16:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Wake up, then. How do you explain that the U.S. recognised Holodomor as a genocide while Russia had not ? Do you think they don't read each other's historic research works ? --_Lysy^talk 17:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that the U.S. commission findings are wrong. I am just saying that it is not our business as Wikipedia editors to declare them correct, which is simply a cut-and-dry matter of the policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. 172 17:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes and what I'm trying to explain, that whether a crime is a genocide or not is not a matter of POV of one or the other historian. By definition, it is only whether intarnational community declares it a genocide or not. Only then it has any legal importance. You may go on denying that it was a genocide, but if a government recognised it as a genocide it will be prosecuted, regardless of your personal opinion. That's why it is to be seen as belonging to the realm of international politics and not scientific dispute. Of course scientific research is (or should be) the basis of such political declarations. But obviously it is not since Russia does not call it a genocide, while having access to the same academic research that Ukraine or USA. I apologize if I'm sounding desperate here, but somehow you're not understanding what I am trying to explain~, while it seems so obvious to me. I'm probably using wrong words, or you're not willing to give me some credit and try to understand it ? --_Lysy^talk 17:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Since there is international disagreement about whether the Holodomor can be classified a genocide or not, it's not the place of this article to take a side or pretend to resolve that question. Since the term genocide can have legal repercussions, and can have a specific technical (legal?) meaning (but it is also used informally in various contexts), the article shouldn't directly refer to the holodomor a genocide. The article already documents which countries have recognized it as a genocide. It should also mention that Holodomor is sometimes translated famine-genocide.

Both Subtelny and Magocsi note the question and identify the different views about the intention of the famine, without trying to answer the question. Magocsi concludes his list of several views of the Holodomor with "Or was it an act of genocide directed specifically against Ukrainians?". We should take the same approach, listing the range of opinions, without taking a particular side. —Michael Z. 2006-01-14 18:10 Z

Yes. However it should be (and it is) clearly mentioned that much of the international community already recognised it as a genocide in the formal sense. BTW, does anyone have the complete list of the countries and the dates when they declared Holodomor to be a genocide ? --_Lysy^talk 18:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That's very reasonable to me. By the way, Lysy, thanks for your reference to the letters between Conquest and Tauger. Interesting read. Dietwald 19:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, to specify, the way that it should be made clear is a note in the intro listing the major countries that have made such a declaration. To introduce the "holodomor" as a genocide at the very beginning of the article is inappropriate because calling the terror-famine a genocide ourselves signifies that we are openly picking sides in a debate on which historians disagree. 172 16:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I believe we have it already in the intro, so it seems we all agree on that one ? I've asked about a more complete list of the countries and dates out of the curiosity rather than any intent to cram it into the intro. --_Lysy^talk 19:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Alexander keeps reverting back to a version of the intro that introduces the terror-famine as a genocide at the very beginning. Earlier I was wondering if you'd been supporting Andrew's reverts. 172 20:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

172, I simply edit the article the way the topic is already represented in the mainstream media, Internet, historical forums. If the word "genocide" was rarely applied to the Holodomor, it would make sense to make an argument against introducing it into the article. But the word is applied almost universally, "genocide" is used more often than "Holodomor". It is impossible to ignore the reality and say, "we don't care what the world thinks, we would like to follow a few people instead."--Andrew Alexander 02:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the term "genocide" generates more Google hits than "holomodor" is neither here nor there. The former is an English term and the latter is not. English terms are almost always likely to generate more results on internet searches because the intenet is still mostly an English-speaking world. Of course the point of view that the famine was an intentional policy of genocide against the nation of Ukraine is has been advanced in mainstream media, internet, and historical forums. There are also the Western scholars I keep citing who view the famine as an outcome of collectivization rather than an intentional policy of genocide. We cannot pick sides in a debate between historians that is still raging because of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. 172 23:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Not just the term "genocide", but the term "genocide" related to the Holodomor. And also, there is more than enough space in this article given to any possible revisionist version of the Holodomor. More than necessary in my opinion. You, however, would like to advance your view even further and strike out the mainstream name "genocide" used all over the mainstream accounts as another name the Holodomor. This is not acceptable since now you are censoring what is widely accepted.--Andrew Alexander 15:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You are using the term "mainstream" in a biased and loaded way. Western historians still debate whether or not the famine was an intentional policy of genocide against the nation of Ukraine. An interpretation defended in respected peer reviewed academic journals is going to be within the "mainstream" academic discourse on the subject. 172 22:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

But this is irrelevant to this discussion because the notion of the Holodomor, or Ukrainian Genocide, has long left the exclusive domain of historical journals and moved long time ago into the "mainstream" public domain, i.e. politics, media, history textbooks, Internet. A few revisionist articles do not even closely compare in numbers with the amount of witness data, media articles, books, films. Yet you wish to undo the public awareness of the Holodomor through Wikipedia and remove "Ukrainian Genocide" words from this article? This is not what Wikipedia is about!--Andrew Alexander 01:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit War looming

Alexander, I am becoming exasperated with you, and I think the same goes for most people. I thought it was agreed to leave the intro alone -- as YOU suggested. Since YOU don't stick to your OWN proposals, I am beginning to doubt your good faith in this. Putting 'also known as the Ukrainian genocide' into the lead is clearly not correct at this point in time since YOU have FAILED to provide convincing data that this is in fact the case. Even Robert Conquest does not refer to this as a genocide. I am currently uncertain how to classify this, but this does not mean that your view of this is right. The funny thing is, I even sympathize with your sentiments, but this is totally besides the point. You are pushing your ideas by being obnoxiously uncooperative. I think it may be time to move to arbitration.

Your claim regarding millions of sites referring to the holodomor as genocide is idiotic, since only roughly 64,000 sites even mention the term. There is about a milliong articles referring to genocide and Ukraine, but just in case you don't understand Boolean logic, this simply means that a million sites use both terms. They could all say that the famine in the Ukraine was not a genocide, and that would also count as a hit. Capis?

So, please pull yourself together and try to be cooperative, because currently you are acting rather obnoxiously. By the way, I am going to revert your most recent change. Dietwald 19:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

And it seems Alex got support from another stranger, reverting no a non-consensus version. I can't revert it again because of 3RR, so I would like other editors to help out a bit and freeze the intro to a version that had some sign of consensus before Alexander came in and pushed his POV. ... Very frustrating.Dietwald 19:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Alexander, I would really appreciate if you could refrain from further reverting to your previous version. I would also appreciate if those who agree with Alex (seems at least one pop-up did) do the same. Let's clear up the article, and then go to the intro. I currently still hate the intro, but I will not alter it until we have found some consensus on the matter.

This was once a nice, peacefully edited article. The current heat really does a disservice to every aspect of it.

What I hate the most is that I find myself arguing against somebody with whom I probably share a lot of ideas and attitudes on the topic in general. I'd rather butt heads with some Stalinist revisionist, or just a plain old Marxist, not with somebody who could be an ally in the advancement of truth on the matter of Stalinism in particular, and Marxism in general. Dietwald 16:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

So would I. But I'm affraid that the phenomenon that you allude to is common and often inevitable on Wikipedia. When an editor like Alexander is so adamant about supporting a view with which he agrees, he or she often forcse his or her fellow-editors to reluctantly represent the opposite POV, even when the other editors disagree themselves with the POV that they have been forced to represent. 172 18:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Genocide Once More

Alexander, before you put the genocide reference back in as apparnetly factual, please provide us with evidence that Stalin did in fact set out to destroy the Ukrainian people as a nation. That he did in fact mean to eliminate the Ukrainians because they were Ukrainians. So far, the evidence for this is speculative and spotty. Fact is: millions died through famine. Fact is: The Soviets created the conditions for this famine. Fact is: The Soviets did little to nothing to prevent the mass dying in the Ukrainian COUNTRY SIDE, while the cities did NOT experience serious. Please explain why Ukrainian cities did NOT suffer from famine, IF Stalin intended to eliminate the Ukrainians as a people because they were Ukrainians. Apart from Tottle and others on the lunatic Stalinist apologist fringe, nobodoy denies the facts I have just listed. HOWEVER, the question whether or not the Holodomor was genocide is not clearly answered. You may feel it was, but that means zilch. It's POV, it's not correct, no matter how strongly you feel about it, and no matter how much I sympathize with your sentiments. Pomnish?Dietwald 19:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has prompted me to look at the phrase in the introduction "often referred to as the Ukrainian Genocide,^{[3] [4] [5]}", and its three references.

1. News release by the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America: the term genocide appears in quotations; "Ukrainian Genocide" only appears in the UCCA's own press release text.

Are we reading the same text? Simply look at US Congress resolution HR562.--Andrew Alexander 23:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The US does not owe Wikipedia. -- Kuban kazak 00:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

1. The Pope's statement only includes the uncapitalized term famine-genocide.
2. The text of the resolution only mentions the word in a quotation of the US Government Commission report: "'Joseph Stalin and those around him committed genocide against Ukrainians in 1932-1933'"

These don't really support the common use of the term Ukrainian Genocide at all. I suggest we add instead of or before it, the term Great Famine, which is used by Subtelny and Magocsi in their big histories. We might also mention that famine-genocide is sometimes used as a translation of Holodomor, but mostly in a political context and not by historians. —Michael Z. 2006-01-14 19:43 Z

Makes a hell of a lot more sense than "also known as". I only suggest "often referred to as" to accommodate the genocide pushers. IMO, the term should not be mentioned at all in the first paragraph, for more than obvious reasons.Dietwald 19:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

"Genocide pushers"?! This is impressive, Dietwald. Yes, over 1 million web pages of "genocide pushers"...--Andrew Alexander 23:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well in 1933 more than a million German people voted for hitler. Just because the majority of people have O type blood group does not necessary mean that the article Blood has a redirect from O type group. In fact the latter has a heading in the title linking to the main part - Blood. For the article Blood there is a heading there...Was Holodomor Genocide?, with a link to O type group. --Kuban kazak 00:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend taking a look at the quite recent Italian Research on the Holodomor by Stanislav Kulchytsky, which I've also added to the "links and sources" section of the article. I believe it sets the better perspective of the whole issue. --_Lysy^talk 22:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Previous Discussion on Genocide

This is worth reading again. It seems that we are arguing what the Holodomor should be called vs what it is called already.

---

Genocide

OK, let's return to this issue although it was discussed earlier. I will just summarize it briefly. Holodomor's effect was no doubt genocidial for the Ukrainian nation but to call the Holodomor a Genocide requires more, we need to see a Genocidial intent of ethnic cleansing of Ukrainians. There is no agreement as to this issue. I mean every serious academic agrees that Holodomor did happen and that it was catastrophic. Whether it was organized specifically against Ukrainians, or it was a consequence of Soviet policies that where largely anti-peasant (and Ukrainians were the most agricultural nation) is a separate issue. To reduce this argument to, perhaps, an oversimplification is just to say that there are two positions: the events were ogranized as anti-Ukrainian in nature or they were generally anti-peasant and Ukrainians, being the most peasantry nation, suffered most. Both positions must be pointed in the article and this is done indeed in the appropriate section. Calling Holodomor a Genocide form the very start of the article is picking a side in this debate. I repeat that this has nothing to do with the denial of the scale of the catastrophe. The issue is only in how to present the word Genocide here. --Irpen 05:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The Holodomor is known as "Ukrainian genocide" and there are references provided for this. In the case there are some other sources disproving this fact, they must be presented. This is not even going into the definition of the word genocide and the causes of the Holodomor. If someone is saying "the Holodomor was not a genocide" and this view as wide spread and supported as the one of John Paul II who was saying that the Holodomor was genocide, then this must be shown. Simple talk will not prove or disprove anything.--Andrew Alexander 06:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Google test returns interesting results, "Ukrainian Genocide" - 12,600 hits almost all refer to Holodomor, negligible amount refers to "Ukrainian genocide of poles", I guess this is adressed in "Ukrainian Genocide" AND "famine" search - 11,200 hits,

More logical would be to subtract these 470 results, leaving 12,130. Even more logical would be to search for this, providing 1,370,000 results. Even John Paul II called it "famine-genocide", also "genocide", not exactly "Ukrainian Genocide", but close enough.--Andrew Alexander 07:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Alexander, at this stage I can longer view your reply to Irpen as having being in good faith. You know that calling "holodomor" a genocide form the very start of the article is picking a side in a debate on which historians disagree. You know becuase I have made reference to those histroians over and over again. Please stop spinning us in circles over and over again on talk. 172 16:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, I've gone through first 1000 results and they all look credible, oh dear, and yes it is logical, I was thinking about the "Ukrainian genocide" we had in the intro...I guess this is more than overwhelming. –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 07:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

$%!@, I feel so stupid.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 08:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

not sure how to filter crackpot-Stalinite sites, which obviously include this term for other purpose , but this I think is as close as we can get, and 9,730 hits, and this is versus 37k for Holodomor. 21,500 hits have Holodomor but never mention genocide.

So, we can make guesses, that it is pretty much well-known, but less known than Holodomor, I do not want to judge the content of the web sites, not sure if 1/3 metions on the Internet qualifies it, acceptance-not acceptance. –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 06:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

In 1991-2005 population of independent Ukraine was reduced almost on 5 million person! It is a genocide whether or not? In the Soviet Ukraine (1945-1990) the population constantly grew.

Who makes crimes against Ukrainians today???

Ben-Velvel 13:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Reminds me of our Communists wasting Duma time by attempting to impeach Yeltsin citing "genocide of Russian people".

2005-1991=14 years != 500 days. While I have suspicion about the Russia "barely experiensed" as compared to Ukraine, because I've heard very similar stories of famine in Russia, I have nothing to dispute it - at least we have no ghost towns.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 19:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Aaar,this was the goofiest part of the discussion, I think it is actually that Ukrainian Genocide would be correct descriptive substitute for Holodomor, as well as Ukrainian Genocide will most inambiguously refer to Holodomor. Well, I actually did not want to raise the issue, but that search dicussed found all genocides coupled with famine, holodomor or 1933 ; the latter padded the result with Nazis, most sites I've seen are relevant, anyway it leaves almost a million.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 05:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Some of those >1 mln sites: http://www.ppu.org.uk/genocide/g_ukraine.html - "The central government now demanded impossibly high quotas of grain, forcing the population to give up even the seed-grain supplies needed for next season's planting. There is no doubt that the regime's leaders knew that this would create a food shortage. Indeed, borders were closed and supplies cut off to ensure it; granaries and other food stores were hunted out and locked up under guard by soldiers and secret police units. A man-made famine was thus created deliberately to starve political resisters to death. Up to 7 million people in ethnic Ukrainian regions died of hunger. Some of the too-slow-to-die were shot in large numbers to hasten the genocide.".

http://www.historywiz.com/grainseizures.htm - "On December 6, 1932, the state stipulated a complete blockade of villages for allegedly sabotaging the grain procurement campaign, thereby guaranteeing that these villages would starve. Russian peasants were then encouraged to settle into the empty villages."

http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm - "Ukrainian Communists urgently appealed to Moscow for a reduction in the grain quotas and also asked for emergency food aid. Stalin responded by denouncing them and rushed in over 100,000 fiercely loyal Russian soldiers to purge the Ukrainian Communist Party. The Soviets then sealed off the borders of the Ukraine, preventing any food from entering, in effect turning the country into a gigantic concentration camp. Soviet police troops inside the Ukraine also went house to house seizing any stored up food, leaving farm families without a morsel. All food was considered to be the "sacred" property of the State. Anyone caught stealing State property, even an ear of corn or stubble of wheat, could be shot or imprisoned for not less than ten years."

http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/siteinfo/newsround/sovkill.html - "Ukraine was sealed off. All food supplies and livestock were confiscated. NKVD death squads executed "anti-party elements." Furious that insufficient Ukrainians were being shot, Kaganovitch - virtually the Soviet Union's Adolf Eichmann - set a quota of 10,000 executions a week. Eighty percent of Ukrainian intellectuals were shot."

http://ctr.concordia.ca/2003-04/nov_20/16-ukraine/index.shtml - "Chalk said he had just come back from presenting at a conference sponsored by the Kennan Institute of the Wooodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., where he put the Ukraine famine in perspective. “There is no question in my mind that the famine-genocide suffered by the Ukrainian people deserves recognition as one of the largest and most neglected of the twentieth century.”"

http://faminegenocide.com/resources/witnesses.html#Lev - "Lev Kopelev, The Education of a True Believer. New York: Harper & Row, 1980. (Chapter IX "The Last Grain Collections") Father was gloomy and immediately let into me. "Everything is done for! Do you understand? No grain in the village! I'm not talking about the Central Workers Co-op or the city story, but the village. The grain growers are dying of starvation! Not some derelict. tramps, not some unemployed Americans, but the Ukrainian grain growers are dying from want of grain! And my dear little boy helped to take it away.""

Does anyone among the editors of this article dispute the above facts?--Andrew Alexander 22:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

26 countries

Today, the governments or parliaments of 26 countries including Ukraine, Argentina, Australia, Canada, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, United States, and Vatican City recognized the 1932-1933 famine as an act of genocide.

source? see discussion on russian wiki Ilya K 14:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

What discussion ? I'm sure there are many. --_Lysy^talk 17:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ilya, as each country was added to that list, there was a reference provided in the edit history. It should still be available.--Andrew Alexander 22:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be the discussion at ru:talk:Голодомор на Украине, the section "29 стран - признавших Голодомор Геноцидом ПРЯМАЯ И ЯВНАЯ ЛОЖЬ". —Michael Z. 2006-01-17 01:20 Z

Most of us don't speak or read Russian(not to mention cyrillic).Please provide an English translation. --Molobo 03:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

the title of discussion is "29 countries that recognized the 1932-1933 famine as an act of genocide is DIRECT and OBVIOUS LIE!" Ilya K 10:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

Pardon my rude frankness, but the editorial quality of this article's introduction has gone to crap.

The current article is not about a term; it is about a historical event. Consequently, the nature of the event should be mentioned before launching into an etymological analysis. And then the fourth sentence pops up, with zero context or explanation, conflating an incidental factoid with a very complex historical premise: "Some scholars have also attributed poor weather and the military and economic goals of Soviet ruler Joseph Stalin as additional factors in explaining the famine."

This is terrible. Please set it straight, or I'll just revert back to the last version which reads even slightly like a coherent English paragraph. —Michael Z. 2006-01-18 06:33 Z

Because the term "holodomor" has not yet become the common term in the English-language literature on the famine, it is necessary to mention the etymology before launching into a discussion into the nature of the event. Please see my comments under the heading "Much of the content here belongs in Soviet famine of 1932-1934." Regarding the fourth sentence, it may need more context, but it cannot be removed, as there have been works by Western scholars who have attributed the famine to factors that are not emphasized by the proponents of the genocide thesis. 172 07:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No, as in any article, whether the reader is familiar with the subject or its name or not, the first thing to explain briefly is what it is, next why it is important. Etymology comes later (in dictionaries too).

For articles on discouse subjects, it is sometimes necessary to mention the etymology first. Here, it is necessary because the term "holodomor" is still not common in the historical literature in the English-speaking world. By the way, even some historians are still unfamiliar with the Ukrainian term. Many monographs on Soviet history do not include the term in their indexes and do not even mention the term. The term does not even appear in the indexes in works by Robert Conquest, who is with little doubt the best-known specialist on the 1932-34 famine. Instead, the topic is found in indexes most often under "famine, 1932-34." Because Wikipedia:Naming conventions require that "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize," the bulk of the coverage of the famine as a historical event should be moved to an article like Soviet famine of 1932-34 or Soviet terror-famine of 1932-34. 172 00:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The weather in 1932–33 may have reduced the initial harvest, but it certainly was not the cause of the famine. More accurate to state that a below-average harvest was turned into a deadly famine by Soviet actions. Stalin's economic goals were related to the reasons for seizing the crops, not some unrelated factor, as implied by the current wording.

There are still accounts of the famine that consider the weather a factor. Considering it a factor does not imply that it was the only factor or even the main factor. 172 00:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding content belonging elsewhere, whether one agrees or not, that is no excuse for bad writing here (same goes for the fourth sentence). The intro reads very awkwardly, compared to just a few days ago—edit for content or POV if you wish, but please don't bring the quality so far down as a consequence. —Michael Z. 2006-01-18 09:38 Z

Michael, I agree with you that a few days ago the intro was in a better style. However, its POV pushing was so blatant that I am not sure what's wrose, the intro that needs improvement in style or the intro that is written in wuch a strongly POV pushing way, which is a trademark intro style of user:Andrew Alexander (see for instance the intro to UA lang). Some editors take an enormous effort in making sure the intro is written in a stronly POV way and remain as such because the easiest way to POV affect the whole article is to edit the intro drammatically. Feel free to edit it for style of course but please do not revert to the version that starts with "H., also known as Ukrainian Genocide". This is thoroughly discussed here and this is what A.A. pushed for in a strongest possible way. --Irpen 17:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, I don't understand why someone would ignore the discussion, ignore the questions asked and then come here and accuse another editor of bad faith.--Andrew Alexander 18:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Alexander, I said nothing about your good/bad faith right now. I said about your POV pushing. The questions you asked were answered above by myself and by others. What you do is revert war over the intro. The article itself has to be addressed first. People here have almost agreed to freeze the intro until then. My only condition is for Genocide not be in the first line, I even agreed to it in the intro although, as it has been shown, there is no consensus among the historians that Holodomor and Ukrainian Genocide are interchangeable terms. Your continuous reinsertion of the contentious term in the first line is nothing but a blatant POV pushing. --Irpen 18:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, in my opinion "extreme POV pushing" is bad-faith editing. I must ask you to stop making these kinds of comments since they are unfounded and mean spirited (not to mention to be against the WP policies). I will also ask you go one topic above and answer the simple question I wrote for you and others.--Andrew Alexander 23:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Back to the name

I don't consider listing a common name for the Holodomor as "blatant POV pushing". The current Google results are:

Holodomor - 47,100 [6]

Ukrainian Genocide - 384,000 [7]

Genocide Ukraine OR Ukrainian - 1,030,000 [8]

Famine-Genocide - 31,700 [9]

Based on the above results it's quite safe to say that Ukrainian Genocide is a common name for the Holodomor.--Andrew Alexander 04:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Google results should be used in some circumstances in WP but not to substitute the scholarly data. It was demonstrated to you above that the scholars do not consider the terms universally interchangeable. This is not the dispute about the article title, when the common usage in English is an important factor and the google test is an important criterion to derive English usage. The issue here is whether Holodomor was Genocide or not. For this we go to the literature written by specialists rather than to google. --Irpen 05:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, I just have to add that what Irpen points out above has been already explained to you many times over the past few days by both Irpen and me. Please do not revert to that non-neutral old version again. 172 08:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Please explain. Where did you get the idea that "scholars" (in this specific case Mark Tauger and a few of his supporters) get to decide on the name of a certain historic event? What Wikipedia rule or policy did you use for this conclusion? Where can I find that rule? I will stop using the common name published on millions of web sites as soon as you provide the source.--Andrew Alexander 20:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

For one the term "Ukrainian Genocide" is not neutral because not all historians agree that the famine was genocide. Moreover, "Ukrainian Genocide" is not even the common name. Of course the term generates many Google hits because the term is used by those promoting the thesis arguing that the famine was genocide. Still, in published accounts by academic historians-- even Conquest-- the subject is found in indexes under the name "famine, 1932-34" or a similar variant thereof. These accounts are more representative of terms that tend to be used in encyclopedias than the random selection generated by a Google search. 172 23:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Conquest wrote in his book, "It certainly appears that a charge of genocide lies against the Soviet Union for its actions in the Ukraine. Such, at least, was the view of Professor Raphael Lemkin who drafted the Convention." Ukrainian Genocide seems a more common name than the name Holodomor from the search results above. Of course, one may claim that the Holodomor itself is published by those who wish to promote the fact that the famine happened. Historians (Mark Tauger particularly) may disagree on the fact itself. Yet please explain from the Wikipedia perspective why it must restrict using a common name.--Andrew Alexander 05:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The topic nevertheless comes up under "famine" in Conquest's indexes, though he is the main historian associated with the genocide thesis. "Ukrainian Genocide" is not the common name but rather a term associated with a particular side in a controversial debate. 172 06:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately the simple numbers above contradict this statement. And still no answer regarding WP policies. As expected.--Andrew Alexander 06:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Your numbers are based on Google searches, which tell us nothing more than how many Google hits those particular searches generate. You no that historians disagree with on whether or not the famine was genocide. Please start editing in good faith. 172 07:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The number of web pages found as well as the web pages themseves are provided. Please stop talking nonsense. And please answer the question.--Andrew Alexander 07:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Your Google search numbers show evidence that the term is used; and that's it. I reject the usage of Google searches in place of real research. Still, it is intersting that even if one accepts your argument that Google searches can be used in place of real research, your point is still wrong in that the neutral term-- "Ukrainian famine" gets a far greater number of hits than "Ukrainian genocide." 172 07:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is that a few historians cannot deny a common name. They argue whether the name is correct. And this argument has been presented. Requesting a censorship of a common name is against Wikipedia policies. Also, "Ukrainan famine" returns 252,000 results [10]. Make sure to compare with the results above before making false statements. You chose to delete both related terms from the article. You also chose to ignore direct questions and assume bad faith.--Andrew Alexander 08:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I was not incorrect. Put the terms in quotations when doing searches in order to restrict results to the exact phrase. "Ukrainian famine" gets 47,800 results. [11] "Ukrainian genocide" gets 14,000 results. [12] Even by your own standard (Google searches), which I consider flawed, "Ukrainian famine" comes up as the more common term. 172 08:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

After catching you over a primitive vandalism it's hard to take your arguments seriously. Of course quotation marks will give fewer results. Because many people said "famine-genocide", "genocide in Ukraine", "Ukrainian people genocide", "genocide of Ukrainians", etc. Neither changes the meaning. Unless you try to doctor the link to jerry-rig the argument in your favor.--Andrew Alexander 08:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not commit a "primitive vandalism." If I modified your comment it was by accident, or one of the common page history glitches. When comparing the number of search results it is necessary to both the two entries being compared in quotations. Otherwise you are not searching for the exact phase but rather any page that happens to have all of the words in the search anywhere in the article. BTW, note Irpen's comment below. The salient point regarding your Google searches is mentioned by Irpen in his comment below. 172 08:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Google search is useful among other factors when deciding on the article's title but not to determine whether something was Genocide which is too a complex to be left to google. "Ukrainian Genocide" placed in the first line, eslecially with "also known as" implies the Holodomor was a Genocide. This is more than just suggesting another term for it because "Genocide" is very charge word on one hand and very specific on another. "Also known as Ukrainian Famine" would sound totally different. --Irpen 08:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Basically this doesn't answer the question of why a common name has to be ignored. Implying is not quite sufficient for erasing something that is written all over the Internet. Suggest another common name. But don't simply erase based on some personal feelings. And answer the question why such feelings constitute a neutral point of view as opposed to the facts discovered above.--Andrew Alexander 08:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Irpen explained to you why your method of Google searches is insufficient way of providing evidence that "Ukrainian genocide" is the "common name" for the subject. Further, as I said earlier, "Ukrainian famine" is a more common prase online than "Ukrainian genocide." Searches for "Ukrainian genocide" without the quotations, by the way, are likely inflated given that articles on the Holocuast will often include both the words "Ukrainian" and "genocide" somewhere or another. 172 08:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Inflated Death Toll

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/archive/hunger/deaths.xls

The death toll in Ukraine is not quite 1.5 million. There were 1.9mn deaths and 668k births in 1933 compared to 552k deaths and 1.1mn births in 1927. In 1932, there were 668k deaths in 1932 to 782k births.

Can anyone offer a resonable explanation to why these accurate figures from the archives are not to be posted?

Which archives are these? The numbers you quote look quite precise and self-confident for a period when most academics say that the true numbers will never be known because there are no reliable records. Some of the problems with the Soviet census have already been discussed. —Michael Z. 2006-01-20 21:11 Z

They are taken from 2004's "Years of Hunger" by Australian scholar Stephen Wheatcroft who used archival data. Why don't you actually observe the sources in the table before resorting to speculative "no scholar has seen the records"? Every scholar cited about the famine made flatulent estimations that have been exposed as false during a period when no records were available. This chart comprises the 1937 Soviet census, leaving your bogus argument "1937 census was sabotaged" in vain. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/archive/hunger/deaths.xls

Since you are unable to refute these facts, they will replace the preposterous "7 million" death toll.

revert warring is not helpful

Andrew Alexander, the claim in your most recent edit summary that you were restoring the "most agreed-on version" of the intro was disingenuous at best. You know very well that the issues concerning the intro have been discussed thoroughly with you, Irpen, Lysy, Mzajac, and another of other users. Your undiscussed reversions backed up by Ultramarine three times and Yakudza once-- users who have not been participating in the recent talk page discussions at all-- are not helpful in reaching a consensus. Irpen and I have already established (1) not all historians agree that the famine was a campaign of genocide against the nation of Ukraine and (2) "Ukrainian Genocide" is not the common name for the famine. Please stop the disregarding the Wikipedia principles of NPOV and consensus-building. 172 07:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This is an inaccurate dsecription. Look at the edit [13]. You have simply deleted the view of Ukrainian émigré historians and inserted various weasel statements, like "Some scholars have argued". Ultramarine 07:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No, your description above is inaccurate. The so-called "weasel statement" that you mention above is referenced in the footnotes. Not all historians specializing on the famine agree that the famine was a policy of genocide against the Ukrainian nation. This fact has been thoroughly established by references to the relevant scholarship on the subject over the course of many discussions taking place on this talk page starting around a week ago; and this fact must be established in the intro to balance the point of view of the genodide thesis. Familiarizing yourself with the issues brought up on the talk page over the past weeks, particularly comments by Irpen and me, should have alterted you to the strong neutrality concerns regarding Andrew Alexander's version of the intro. For future reference, I suggest following the advice of the template on the top of this talk page: "Please read this talk page discussion before making substantial changes." 172 08:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what footnote? Both your articles are very confused, with a strange intermixing of "Notes" and "References". And you inserted numerous other statements without any attempt to source them. Ultramarine 08:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

My articles? In my defense I didn't write any of this article, barring my attempt to NPOV Andrew Alexander's intro. "Exactly what footnote" should be clear to you. A citation follows the end of the "Some scholars have argued..." sentence. The footnote is a reference to an article published in Slavic Review by Mark Tauger, whom I choose to cite among other historians because his rejection of the genocide thesis is particularly vigorous. 172 08:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

And please, no more statement like "This fact has been thoroughly established by references to the relevant scholarship on the subject". Give sources in the article. Ultramarine 08:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Mark Tauger is cited in the article. He has his own bibliography in his article if readers are interested in his sources. Lewin, Fitzpatrick, and Viola are other specialists on the famine who reject the genocide thesis. 172 08:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't see what the problem is. Mark Tauger is amply represented with the text. However, removing common names for the Holodomor is unacceptable and has been discussed in detail above.--Andrew Alexander 08:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I support. Ultramarine 08:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No, starting an article on the famine calling the subject "Ukrainian genocide," despite the fact that there are historians specializing in the famine who reject the view that the famine was a campaign of genocide against the nation of Ukraine, means that the article is picking sides in a controversial debate among historians. We are forbidden from taking sides in such a manner by the NPOV policy. Further, neither of you have provided evidence that "Ukrainian genocide" is the common name for the subject. I reject this assertion. In works published by professional historians, including Conquest, who is the scholar most associated with the genocide thesis, the subject is found in indexes under the name "famine." Andrew Alexander has cited his Google search results as evidence that "Ukrainian genocide" is the common name for the famine. However, aside from the problems associated with using Google as a way to establish a fact like that (note Irpen's comment in the discussion below the heading above this one), Google seems to suggest "Ukrainian famine" is a far more common term on Google than Ukrainian "genocide." 172 09:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It needs to be said that Wikipedia rules demand using proven common names ("What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?") within WP articles. Ukrainian genocide is a common name, it was shown to you above even though you refuse to see it.--Andrew Alexander 09:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

"Ukrainian genocide" is not a common name but a term associated with proponents of the genocide thesis. What word would the average user the Wikipedia put into the search engine? Well, I have already shown you that "Ukrainian famine" is a more common term appearing in Google search results than "Ukrainian genocide." I have already explained to you that the authors of the best-known professional historians writing on the subject, including Conquest, include the subject under the "famine" in their indexes. Sorry, POV cannot be stuck into the intro under the guise of the "common name" policy because "Ukrainian genocide" isn't even the "common name." 172 09:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, people may use variations of "Ukrainian genocide", such as "Ukrainian famine-genocide", "Ukrainian 1933 genocide", "genocide of Ukrainians", etc.: [14] (2,050,000 results altogether).--Andrew Alexander 09:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You cannot be serious. People may use variations of "Ukrainian famine" too, such as "Soviet famine," "Ukrainian terror-famine," "famine in Ukraine," etc. I'll give you credit for coming up with a crafty argument for inserting blatant POV into the intro under the guise of the "common name" policy; but it won't work. Sorry, but I'm gullible enough to buy it. 172 09:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree that we can mention this alternative name, after all we are not renaming the article. I have tried to understand the "Notes" section. It is still used? It should be deleted or merged with the references. Ultramarine 09:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The version that Irpen and I have been restoring mentions the term "Ukrainian Genocide" without conveying the incorrect impression that the famine is universally considered by historians to be a "genocide." The problem of notes and references can get sorted out later. Right now the issue is the intro. The version that you reverted states: In some accounts the famine, often referred to as a "man-made" [4], is called the Ukrainian Genocide [5] [6] [7]. Ukrainian émigré historians were among the first to argue that the famine was an act of genocide against the Ukrainian people. Ultramarine, the version that you were reverting to was not the "correct version," as you like to call it. I hope that you will prove to me that you are here on Wikipedia to edit in good faith by reverting your own reverts here. 172 10:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This argument repeats itself. Why do you think that the term "famine" contradicts the term "genocide"? Most of the web pages that mention "Ukrainian famine" also mention the term "genocide". When John Paul II spoke of the Holodomor, he called it "famine-genocide". There is nothing "crafty" about this. If over a million of web pages call an event genocide, this has to be reflected as an alternative name in the first sentence. And I am not against calling this event also "famine" (which you will find in the first sentence as well).--Andrew Alexander 17:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The usage of the term "genocide" is not going to be exclusive to websites prompting the genocide thesis. Many sites mentioning "Ukrainian" and "genocide" are probably going to be dealing with the Holocaust, inflating the total number of Google results. It is also interesting that you refuse to talk about published works by professional historians when it comes to establishing a common name. You probably are well aware that the POV of proponents of the genocide thesis-- nationalists in Ukraine and libertarians in the West-- is disproportionately represented on the Internet. An advocacy group promoting the genocide thesis with great passion and emotion is much more likely to put up a website than historians who reject the genocide the genocide thesis with dispassionate research methodological and empirical grounds. Yet, surprisingly perhaps, "Ukrainian famine" is a more common term than "Ukrainian genocide," although there is no shortage of advocacy groups online prompting the genocide thesis. [15][16] Andrew Alexander, please give it up. "Ukrainian genocide" is not the common name. Frankly, the endless revert warring and the stream of repetition of the same few Google search results is starting to look like POV-pushing of the tendentious sort. Please follow the advice that Irpen gave you below: "pushing the contentious term in the first line is very unhelpful and brings a poisonous climate to the possibility to work on the article." 172 21:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh please. Do not be ridiculous. The notion of "Great Russian chauvinism" inflicting genocide on Ukrainians (Little Russians) is so preposterous. The Soviet archives show that there were as many deaths in Kazakhstan (1.5 million) as there were in Ukraine. Andrew Alexander is a fascistic right-wing puke if I've seen one.

Mr. anonymous. There are too many fascists like us around. And even your anonimous status will not help you with YOUR revert war. Andrew Alexander have spent many month WORKING on this article and brought it to a very balanced point. And this state is supported by other users here.--Bryndza 20:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

While I appreciate the work of A.A. to bring the referenced factual info to the article, it is very unfortunate that his motivation seems to have been an russophobic agenda to present the events as the plotted genocide of Ukrainians by Russia, a POV which exists but far from being the widely accepted one in the mainstream. With the article having a section devoted to the question whether Holodomor was indeed a Genocide with arguments of both sides presented, A.A. pushing the contentious term in the first line is very unhelpful and brings a poisonous climate to the possibility to work on the article. -- Irpen 20:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We were having reasonable discussions on this talk page until Ultramarine and Andrew Alexander started tag-team revert warring on this page. 172 21:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It's got much more to do with an anti-Communist agenda pushed by propgandistic Cold Warriors of the West. They refuse to admit that their bogus "7 million" figure is false even when the RGAE archives show that the death toll in Ukraine from 1932-1933 numbered at 1.5 million. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/archive/hunger/deaths.xls -- Zvesda

Zvesda, the Cold Warriors in the West were right about the famine all along. Regardless of whether or not the famine was intentional, regardless of whether or not the death toll was as high as 7 million, the famine was still one of the worst atrocities and disasters of modern history. I don't understand the point of your comment above. 172 21:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The point of the above comment is that you are WRONG about the death toll. The facts have been released on this issue and they must replace the blatant "7 million" death toll. I never objected to the factors contributing to the famine but have to the intentionally inflated death toll. The western Cold Warriors are WRONG about the famine because of how archival data numbers the Ukraine famine deaths at 1.5 million. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/archive/hunger/deaths.xls -- Zvesda

Irpen, I do not think third party would find a lot of anti-Russian notes in this article. In our case we are reading behind lines and fin anti-Russian here or anti-Ukrainian there. In fact, it may be not really so.

172, you call holodomor "one of the worst atrocities and disasters of modern history" yourself. Yet you do not agree that there is strong opinion (don't take POV only in negative ligt) that it was intentional. So strong, that it deserves to be mentioned in intro. How does it match? Or atrocity can happen "accidentally"?

Zvezda, but why you choose the lowest (beside 0) number estimated? And where is push for 7 millions? I see "between five and ten " which is quite flexible and represents opinions of quite wide number of scholars. Except those probably, who were fighting at the other side of barricades against "Cold Warriors"--Bryndza 01:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "intentional", the debate here is not whether it was accidental. It certainly is not by accident that the policies that brought up the mass starvation were not stopped and reversed. The debate is whether it was anti-Ukrainian specifically or anti-peasant in general, and whether the intention itself was to kill people rather than industrialization and export of grain for cash-strapped Bolsheviks with the humane deaths being criminally disregarded. While horrible in any case, the latter is not a Genocide in the legal sense. Pushing for the version that the Holodomor was specifically a concequence of intentionally anti-Ukrainian policies plotted in Moscow, thus disregarding the Russian peasantry that died from the same Famine, is nothing but Russophobia. Additionally, it disregars deaths among other nations, such as a catastrophe of the Kazakhs but this is marginal for the POV pushers. --Irpen 01:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Bryndza, you are misrepresenting me. Your claim that I do not agree that there is strong opinion that the famine was an intentional policy of genocide is totally incorrect. My version of the intro states In some accounts the famine, often referred to as a "man-made" [4], is called the Ukrainian Genocide [5] [6] [7]. Ukrainian émigré historians were among the first to argue that the famine was an act of genocide against the Ukrainian people. My own position on whether or not the famine was intentional is agnostic. I have no business having an opinion on the matter one way or another because I am not a specialist on 1930s Ukrainian history. Nevertheless, I am a historian, though not a famine specialist by any means, which gives me expertise on handling the problem of balancing opposing positions (and having to present arguments for positions that are not necessarily my own) in the historiography of any area of research. Further, I am a Wikipedia editor who supports the NPOV policy. My stance as a Wikipedia editor is to ensure that the intro and content of this article balance the opposing positions in the historiography. You claim that my commitment to NPOV and standards as a professional historian clash with my view that the 1932-34 terror-famine in Ukraine was "one of the worst atrocities and disasters of modern history," as I called it earlier, is also a misrepresentation of the worst kind. Not all atrocities are necessarily genocide. Regardless of whether Stalin was interested more in expropriating wealth from the peasantry, with an eye on the country's balance of payments as he sought to finance his program of crash industrialization, or if the famine was an end in and of itself designed to commit genocide against the people of Ukraine, the human cost of Stalin's collectivization was so enormous that the cost must be described as an atrocity-- genocide or not. My comments on the talk page and edits to this article are not at all contradictory. Please stop misrepresenting my position. 172 01:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This is probably the sixth time I've pointed to the Soviet ARCHIVES that provide demographic data for famine-stricken regions. Every single one of those "estimates" were conducted during the Cold War. THERE WERE NOT EVEN 5 MILLION TOTAL DEATHS in ENTIRE UKRAINE between 1932-1933. Why do you refuse to consider these sources? http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/archive/hunger/deaths.xls -- Zvesda

Zvezda, I can not accept those numbers because of at least three reasons: 1. Not all deaths were registered (and especially those from rural areas) 2. Natural migrations are not taken into account. 3. Forced relocation of population from other areas of USSR to affeted by hunger areas is not taken into account. Not to mention many other "minor details". Plus I do not agree that there was no estimations made after 1990 or that Cold war affected absolutely all estimation from the period before 90-ies.--Bryndza 03:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

172, sorry, I did not plan to represent you in any way. I missed your version of intro behind numerous reverts/edits of the text. In general, I have nothing against it (the way you cited above). I also would like to make a correction - I did not want to say that atrocity is only genocide. Absolutely not. I rather wanted to emphasize that atrocity (of any kind) can not be non-deliberate (or my understanding of meaning of the word is incorrect?). I also have little interest to know what would be the excuses of Mr. Stalin for the crimes he consciously committed. But I'm interested to know how would you bring to NPOV articles like Armenian genocide. In the future I will try to more careful with my judgments of your edits.--Bryndza 03:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I understand your confusion now; so, I apologize for the terse tone of my initial reply. I'm not sure if I understand your point about how atrocities must by definition be deliberate. The specialists on the 1932-34 famine in Ukraine who disagree with the genocide thesis argue that the main objective of the collectivization was financing rapid industrialization, despite the enormous human cost. The regime's indifference to the famine created by the circumstances of collectivization is what they view as an atrocity. As for your question regarding articles on Armenian history, at the moment I don't know. In all my time on Wikipedia I don't recall even reading any of the articles related to 20th century Greek, Turkish, and Armenian history on Wikipedia. If I have time, I'll try to take a look. 172 08:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

There are "specialists" arguing that the Holocaust was not a Genocide and is explaned by some "difficulties of war time" or so. How did the opinions of this "specialists" influenced the leading paragraph of the corresponding article. Perhaps Holodomor denial deserves a separate article, similar to Holocaust denial.--AndriyK 11:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

AndriyK, your comments are frankly grossly unfair and inflammatory. A number of leading Western historians of the famine, such as Moshe Lewin, Sheila Fitzpatrick, Lynn Viola, and Mark Tauger aruge that the "genocide" designation is inapplicable because, they argue, the famine was the result of the Soviet regime's indiffernece to peasants as a social group rather than Ukrainians as a national or ethnic group. They argue that the famine was the result of collectivization, the main objective of which was financing Stalin's program of crash industrialization during the 1930s. They do not deny human toll of the famine. Accusing them of "Holodomor denial" is a horribly unfair smear. Historians who disagree with the genocide thesis do not deny that the 1932-34 famine ranks with the worst atrocities in human history. By the way, these issues had been discussed for over a week here on the talk page before you started revert warring. See my discussion with Lysy earlier. 172 11:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of "leading Western historians" that do not deny human toll of the Holocaust, but they argue that "genocide" designation is inapplicable, because "people die of natural causes resulted from the difficulties of war time". I would not list here the names of this "leading Western historians" (so they usually called in anti-semitic literature).

The troops on the boders of the regions with Ukrainian population preventing the people to escape the famine areas are also a result of "the Soviet regime's indiffernece to peasants" and "financing Stalin's program of crash industrialization"? Or the "leading historians" deny this fact as their other "leading" coleagues deny the existence of gas cameras?--AndriyK 11:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

AndriyK, Lysy made a similar comment on this talk page. I can reply to you by quoting my 17:34, 14 January 2006 post: The comparison of Western specialists on the Soviet terror-famine to Holocaust deniers frankly disgusts me. (Almost my entire family perished in the Holocaust. I do not appreciate its usage as an object of political rhetoric.) The Soviet terror-famine and the Holocaust are entirely different ball games. Historians speak with much greater certainty about the Holocaust than they do about the Soviet terror-famine with good reason: We know much more about the former than the latter. Unfortunately, the reason for this discrepancy is, first, the success of Soviet efforts to cover up the famine. Second, unlike the victims of the Nazi concentration camps, terror-famine victims in Ukraine were not liberated by free countries that were able to gather hard evidence exposing the Soviet regime's crimes against humanity. Therefore, in spite of widespread interest in the Soviet Union, Western specialists have still paid little attention to the Soviet terror-famine compared to the Holocaust. It is aburd to compare Western historians of the Soviet terror-famine to Holocaust deniers because, unfortunately, still have legitimate questions to ask about the terror-famine that they have long known about the Holocaust. Now please stop the references to "holdomor denial." They are unfair smears of the worst kind. 172 11:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

And what about the troops?--AndriyK 12:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I am aware that historians who promote the genocide thesis argue that the closing the borders so Ukrainians could not escape to Russia is evidence that Stalin was targeting Ukrainian nationals. Historians who disagree with the genocide thesis tend to argue that the Stalin regime was on verge of being discredited by the atrocities and disasters associated with collectivization, and tried to conceal the information by cordoning off the affected areas and keeping peasants locked up on the farm. I am not endorsing either view because I am not a specialist on the famine myself. Further, the terror-famine is a subject which has only recently begun to receive the attention that it deserves among historians. Historians have many legitimate unanswered questions about the famine. My stance is that we strike a balance between the competing perspectives in the historiography in order to conform make this article conform with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. 172 12:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

But sir, Stalin could have stopped confiscating food if he ever wanted to avoid the disaster. Grain confiscations went on well into 1933, after sealing off the borders of Ukraine. Stalin had grain stores guarded by troops, fending off dying of starvation. And what does it matter anyway? The point of the debate is that "genocide" is a common name and "Western specialists" can not dictate what name has to be common. It's NOWHERE IN WIKIPEDIA RULES. WP:NC, however, needs to be followed.--Andrew Alexander 23:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not an Internet debating forum. You are entitled to your views on the historiography. Because of the NPOV policy, editors must balance opposing positions in the historiography, and present arguments for positions that are not necessarily pur own. Further, regardless of how many times you assert that "Ukrainian genocide" is the common for the subject, as I've demonstrated probably over a dozen times so far over the course of more than a week, you have not been able to establish compelling evidence for your claim. Yes, the term is used; but it is particular to advocates of one side in a debate that remains quite controversial among historians. Your claim that historians cannot dictate what name is a "common name" is neither here nor there. Written scholarly publications carry much more weight when it comes to the purposes of writing an encyclopedia than any random website that can come up in Google search results. 172 03:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

172, there is one more question left about "crash industrialization during the 1930s" theory: Why this was made at expence of Ukrainian pesants only, but not Bielorussian, Russian, etc. This selectivity makes it difficult to believe in solely economical reasoning of holodomor. As for Armenian genocide - you do not have to read a lot. It is simply a crime. And how do you make NPOV about crimes?--Bryndza 14:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You ask how one writes an NPOV article about "crimes." Read the write-up on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. NPOV is not my policy; it's Wikipedia's policy. It's your prerogative to disagree with the principles that govern Wikipedia. If you reject them, I recommend quitting the project. Wikipedia is already five years old. The way things are done around here are pretty well-established. You asked why rapid industrialization came at an enormous social cost to only Ukrainian peasants. I lack the authority to answer your question myself. However, Fitzpatrick, who is an authority on the subject-- among others-- argues that most of the major grain-producing areas of the country and not just Ukraine—including Central Volga, Kazakhstan, and Northern Caucasus—were plunged into famine in the winter of 1932-32. You are entitled to disagree with these historians. Still, because of Wikipedia's NPOV policy, we must balance and summarize in a fair manner all competing positions in the historiography. 172 03:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yakudza, Ultramarine, your joining just to help in revert wars ignoring extensive discussion at talk is extremely unhelpful. Same applies to AndriyK who wrote above just repeating the already answered statements. Too bad that people are uninterested to really work on this important topic and come here just to revert war. --Irpen 16:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Yakudza, Ultramarine, and AndriyK have not been participants in the talk page discussions. Their reverts are only making it more difficult to reconcile matters on this page. Edits to the page should relate to careful considerations of the issues being discussed on the talk page, not a sort of proxy war between Andrew Alexander and his allies on the one hand and Andrew Alexanders opponents on the other hand. 172 03:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Bryndza is choosing to be oblivious to the facts. All of the REGISTERED DEATHS were included in the years between 1927-1933. There is not a single more reliable source than the Soviet archives. Your personal feelings are irrelevant to the facts. Unless it can be refuted, the figures will have to replace the spitefully inflated "7 million" death toll. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.102.211.115 (talk • contribs) .

Calculations of deaths based on Soviet archival data by V. Tsaplin put famine deaths at three to four million in 1933 alone The seven million figure for 1932-34 corresponds with the approach to the study of the famine in Conquest's Harvest of Sorrow. I don't know your source; but to call the 7 million figure "spitefully inflated" is putting your comments outside the realm of reasonable scholarly discourse on the subject. Your comments are unhelpful. 172 03:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr anonimous, plese consider that the "All of the REGISTERED DEATHS" are not all deaths since NOT ALL DEATHS WERE REGISTERED. And I repeat two more points: 2. Natural migrations are not taken into account. 3. Forced relocation of population from other areas of USSR to affeted by hunger areas is not taken into account. These are not "personal feelings". This is statistical methodology which has to be followed. --Bryndza 03:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Calculations of deaths based on Soviet archival data by V. Tsaplin put famine deaths at three to four million in 1933 alone The seven million figure for 1932-34 corresponds with the approach to the study of the famine in Conquest's Harvest of Sorrow. I don't know your source; but to call the 7 million figure "spitefully inflated" is putting your comments outside the realm of reasonable scholarly discourse on the subject. Your comments are unhelpful. 172 03:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr anonimous, plese consider that the "All of the REGISTERED DEATHS" are not all deaths since NOT ALL DEATHS WERE REGISTERED.

If you had actually opened the link I had provided, you would see at the top that the death toll was compiled in "Years of Hunger" by Stephen Wheatcroft. The FAMINE ENDED IN 1933 and in that year 90% of the the total excess deaths in Ukraine occurred; it did not last beyond 1933. In regard to the one who plucks an spontaneous name (Tsalpin?), there is not any information by this person available on the internet. The chart shows excess deaths THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, natural migration is accounted for. You have got not any evidence whatsoever to back up allegations of "not all deaths were registered". Why wouldn't all deaths be registered and why would there be a registration of 1.4 million excess deaths if the country according to your whacky logic was trying to conceal the famine? You are merely speculating.

172, my "speculations" are based on this analysis (if you are familiar with Ukrainian) which uses Soviet sources as well. Accordind to this study, demographical consequences for 1932-1933 famine are expressed in 4,649,000 deaths in Ukraine. It does not account Ukrainian lives in Kuban. I consider this study as reputable as you consider your source. Who is right?--Bryndza 02:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I was replying to your "speculations." My comment was directed to 204.102.211.115, who seems to be a pro-Communist apologist. Regarding your question, it doesn't matter for our purposes who is right-- Tsaplin, Conquest, Fitzpatrick, your source, etc. The more estimates attributed to authoritative historians specializing in the famine, the better. Because of Wikipedia's WP:NOR policy, we cannot put ourselves in the position of deciding which historian is right and which historian is wrong when there is a discrepancy in their respective works. 172 05:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The difference between R.W Davies and Stephen Wheatcroft's source is that their figures are derived from the archives. Fact: there were 1.5 million registered deaths in Ukraine during 1932-1933 (Source: RGAE 1562/329/108). This fact is irrefutable and any such statements above this death toll are blatantly false. Conquest's material, incessantly cited on this page, consists of hearsay from traitorous emigres. Conquest has been wrong in regard to the total number of executions and his material reeks of right-wing fascism ("Communists in Italy and France mounted militant strikes!!!".