Revision as of 16:47, 25 November 2023 editBlindlynx (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,162 edits →Revert: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:21, 4 April 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,291,680 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Holodomor denial/Archive 6) (bot | ||
(5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header}} | {{Talk header}} | ||
{{Vital article|level=|topic=History|class=B}} | |||
{{Calm}} | {{Calm}} | ||
{{Old AfD multi|page1=Holodomor denial|date1=1 January 2008|result1='''keep'''| date2 = 15 November 2010 (UTC) | result2 = '''keep''' | page2 = Denial of the Holodomor }} | {{Old AfD multi|page1=Holodomor denial|date1=1 January 2008|result1='''keep'''| date2 = 15 November 2010 (UTC) | result2 = '''keep''' | page2 = Denial of the Holodomor }} | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= | |||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Ukraine |
{{WikiProject Ukraine|importance=mid}} | ||
{{WikiProject Soviet Union |
{{WikiProject Soviet Union|importance=Mid}} | ||
{{WikiProject Russia|class=Start|importance=low|pol=yes|hist=yes|sci=yes}} | {{WikiProject Russia|class=Start|importance=low|pol=yes|hist=yes|sci=yes}} | ||
{{WikiProject Alternative Views |
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=Mid}} | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{old move|date=26 May 2022|from=Denial of the Holodomor|destination=Holodomor denial|result=moved|link=Special:Permalink/1091182741#Requested move 26 May 2022}} | {{old move|date=26 May 2022|from=Denial of the Holodomor|destination=Holodomor denial|result=moved|link=Special:Permalink/1091182741#Requested move 26 May 2022}} | ||
Line 21: | Line 20: | ||
| minthreadsleft = 3 | | minthreadsleft = 3 | ||
}} | }} | ||
== More of SYNTH. == | |||
The first sentence is also SYNTH. It is the LOC definition, where additional references are added, which support some aspects taken separately, but not the sentence as a whole. Actually, the LOC definition is the only source that contains this definition. ] (]) 22:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
⚫ | : |
||
::The sources cited in the sentence (except LOC) are not using the term "Holodomor denial" at all. They say that Holodomor did take place, and that Soviet authorities attempted to suppress information about it (which is absolutely correct). However, they do not add nothing to the LOC "definition", and they do not support it. ] (]) 23:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
::Fixed. ] (]) 23:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::I undid, as it’s under discussion here and you hadn’t even described the problem yet. Please give us time to take this in. —''] ].'' 00:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::You’re out of line, removing sources from the defining lead sentence. The first, Dolot, is used to define what the Holodomor was, and on the cited page specifically describes Holodomor denial: “some ‘experts’ on the Soviet Union (‘Sovietologists’) here in the United States persistently adhere to the original Soviet denial of its existence.” Yet you indiscriminately wipe it out because it doesn’t use the exact phrase “Holodomor denial.” Please stop. —''] ].'' 00:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::: ] ] regardless of who is right on this specific topic raised by ], that is twice you try to shut down discussion in a manner which smacks of ]. It is not befitting of a Misplaced Pages admin discussing with good faith editors on how to improve an article according to policy. ] (]) 01:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::No, I reverted a change that doesn’t have consensus, and now we are discussing it per ]. According to policy. —''] ].'' 02:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::Endorse Michael Z revert. They reverted a change that doesn’t have consensus. <span style="font-family:Courier;"><b> // ] :: ] </b></span> 03:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::read ] —] 02:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::I’m willing to discuss this in good faith. The lead sentence may not need all of those references, but they look like potentially useful references for the article. I’m sorry I don’t have time to review them all immediately, but hopefully soon as they appear to be available on Open Library. | |||
::::I am opposed to what looks like an indiscriminate wipe-out of them, with the explanation that they don’t name the subject with a single specific exact phrasing. Sorry, this is not a dictionary entry about a particular term with a single correct spelling: it’s an article about a complex subject, and that edit with that rationale, performed mere minutes after proposing it in talk, doesn’t appear reasonable. —''] ].'' 03:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::First, per ], citations should be avoided in the lede. Even worse, they are used inappropriately. Dolot says ''nothing'' about a definition of the term "Holodomr denial", he even doesn't mention it (and none of other sources does). He says that Soviet authorities denied Holodomor, but he doesn't say that was called "Holocaust denial". The same can be said about Werth, Pipes, and others. | |||
::::Even worse, as I already explained, LOC's definition (the only true definition of "HD" doesn't mention genocide, and Serbyn doesn't mention HD. That is a classical ]. In other words, my edit removed an obvious synthesis, and your revert restored SYNTH. I don't need consensus to fix policy violations, and you are attempting to cover your policy violation by references to WP:CON. That is not productive. Please, undo your revert. ] (]) 03:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::: ] but how does your edit, which was reverted by ], improve the article though? ] (]) 10:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::: Also ] perhaps a better way to go about it would be to tag the sources failing verification rather than delete them. At least at this stage. ] ] I think I thought of a solution which you might agree with and avoid SYNTH issues. Rather than pretend there is a tangible and workeable definition of Holodomor Denialism, you can simply explain what this article covers in the lede and refer to the article on Genocide Question for what it doesn't cover. I don't think there is any policy against this and I have seen this done in a number of articles. ] (]) 10:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::{{yo|Qayqran}} It seems you are not familiar with our policy yet, so this is a good opportunity to learn. | |||
::::::] says: ] The sentence added says: | |||
:::::::''"Holodomor denial is the claim that the Holodomor, a 1932–33 man-made famine that killed millions in Soviet Ukraine, did not occur, or (especially since evidence of its existence became public in the 1980s) the diminishment of its scale and significance, including the claim that it was not a genocide.''" | |||
::::::Which source says that? The sentence cites seven sources, but none of them says this. First five sources do not discuss a definition of Holodomor denial at all. They present absolutely non-controversial fact about Holodomor and about its denial by Soviet authorities. The only definition of "Holodoor denial" is found in the source #6 (LOC), and this definition is as follows: | |||
:::::::"'' (HD is) the diminution of the scale and significance of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 or the assertion that it did not occur.''" | |||
::::::In addition, the last source (Serbyn) say about "famine-genocide deniers", but he does not say anything about the term "Holodomor denial" (and he doesn't use it in the article). | |||
::::::In other words, the sentence (before I fixed it) said: | |||
:::::::"''Holodomor denial is A (ref 1) and B (ref 1)''" | |||
::::::That is a pure and classical example of synthesis, which is explicitly prohibited by our policy. The user who restored this synthesis is an admin, which implies he is familiar with our core policies. That means he ''knows'' about WP:SYNTH (and I explained that in my edit summary). | |||
::::::Second, it was Michael who pointed my attention at ], which says that ] (He did that during the talk page discussion about ]). The only challengeable material in the lede is the definition of "Holodomor denial". The facts presented in the sources cited in that sentence are not challengeable: they say some basic and non-controversial information about Holodomor and its denial by Soviet authorities, but not about the term "Holodomor denial". They are added with a purpose of giving an undue weight to the LOC definition, and they must be removed, because a reader gets a wrong impression of a broad academic support of the LOC definition. | |||
::::::I think I was clear enough, and I am respectfully requesting Michael to self-revert, because his edit directly violated our policy and is inconsistent with MOS. ] (]) 13:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::] I understand your point and I agree with you that there are SYNTH issues. My point is that there may be a better solution. I.e. avoid citations altogether in the lead regarding definitions and just explain what the article covers based on an internal logic to the article obtained by consensus. Doesn't this avoid SYNTH? I also think that the lead of ] itself is far more problematic than this one. I opened a discussion on it in the talk page. ] (]) 14:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Wait a second. Am I reading correctly? Does the current definition of Holodomor denialism INCLUDE the claim that it was not a genocide??? I thought it EXCLUDED it? This is seriously problematic, then. ] (]) 15:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::You’re completely ignoring my point, indicating that this discussion isn’t likely to go anywhere. I’ll try to get it through to you one more time: this article is not about the ''term'' “Holodomor denial.” It is about the ''subject'' of denial of the Holodomor, however sources refer to it. —''] ].'' 15:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Please, do not derail the discussion. We are NOT discussing the article. We are discussing the opening sentence, which contains s "definition". As I convincingly demonstrated, it contains an obvious example of SYNTH, which I removed, but you restored (which means the responsibility for introduction of this policy violation is on you. | |||
::::::::I am not proposing to remove the references completely: they may be relevant to the resat of the article. However, in this concrete sentence, they were combined in such a way that they ]. | |||
::::::::I think I could not have been more clear. | |||
::::::::You are more than welcome to demonstrate that I am wrong, but if you fail to prove that the policy is not violated here, I'll revert you. ] (]) 19:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::No, the lead is not merely the definition of a term. It introduces the article’s subject and summarizes the article. | |||
:::::::::Telling us you’re convincing is not convincing. —''] ].'' 23:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I also respectfully suggest that “I don't need consensus to fix policy violations” is not likely to serve you well on a project whose ] say “seek consensus” and “no firm rules.” —''] ].'' 15:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::: So we have an article which says Holodomor Denial includes the denial of its status as a genocide, mentioning it is a crime in various states. It omits, however, that the majority of academics who specialize in this event deny its status as a genocide and are presumably not just liars but criminals. Do you think this is normal for a Misplaced Pages article, ]? I mean, regardless of your own personal views on the matter. Do you not see this is a rather elaborate attempt to deceive readers? Because I can't see any other possible conclusion looking at this rationally. Again, I'm assuming good faith with everyone here, especially from someone who has been an admin since 2005 and I'm sure values this project enormously. But what happened with the lead of ] is seriously concerning. I'm dismayed at how all of this could happen under the watch of such a veteran admin. Perhaps we should all take some time for this all to sink in and try to find a solution together. ] (]) 16:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::“Are presumably not just liars but criminals” is your contribution. I thought previous discussion and sources cited had clarified this question by example for anyone paying attention. —''] ].'' 16:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::] Both Qayqran and Siebert raise important points and I support their positions. Please consider your potential biases. You'll need to provide more substance if you want to continue to dismiss their comments. You were not clear enough and yes, we are paying attention. ] (]) 11:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
*Well, PS cited above one of the sources as follows: ''"(HD is) the diminution of the scale and significance of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 or the assertion that it did not occur."''. OK. This is exactly what we say on this page; we only make a rephrase. Should it be closer to the source? If so, everyone is welcome to fix it to make a closer to the source. ] (]) 22:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Opening Paragraph Not NPOV == | |||
This article is about historical negation of the famines in the Ukraine, a well supported fact that they occured, correctly listing the USSR's denial of famine as an example. However opening paragraph defines it as also including diminishing its significance or denial that it is a genocide. However, as is shown on the Holodomor Question article, this is a point of serious academic debate. | |||
Therefore, I do not think this is NPOV given the scholarly plurity from reliable sources on the subject. ] (]) 01:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
:The issues is 'genocide' tends to mean 'crimes against humanity' in general in non-technical contexts and be a very specific crime against humanity in technical ones. It's not often clear which on is meant in this article. | |||
The academic debate is entirely focused on the question of soviet leaders intention and therefor meeting the technical definition of genocide the actual events are agreed upon—] 14:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
:I disagree as as shown I nthe relevant article a strong position among many scholars is that it does not constitute genocide. And please note that something may be crimes against humanity while not being genocide. | |||
:I would argue there is scholarly consensus for crimes against humanity but not for genocide. ] (]) 14:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
::sorry for not being clear but it seems we are in agreement—] 13:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
:Denial has included a large range of kinds of statements, and has changed over time as information has come to light. For example, credible denial of the existence of the famine became impossible in the 1980s, and denial of its man-made nature shortly thereafter. Denial also includes the labelling of the Holodomor as a Nazi/CIA/Harvard University plot (e.g., Tottle). It has included denial that Ukraine and Ukrainian-inhabited regions were treated differently than the rest of the USSR, which is not credible to anyone with access to the facts about Stalin’s orders, restrictions on movement, confiscation of food and grain, selective famine relief, and the concurrent attacks on Ukrainian nationality. The latter is intended to sway any remaining debates and prevent acknowledgment of the Holodomor as genocide. And of course, in conspiratorial circles and under the influence of Russian war propaganda, every silly and incredible argument is still circulated today. —''] ].'' 14:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
::I think you are mixing true and untrue things here. Please provide citations that Stalin provided orders that specifically targeted the Ukraine with hunger. | |||
::I think you are mixing true and untrue things here. Please provide citations that Stalin provided orders that specifically targeted the Ukraine with hunger. Restrictions on movement was widespresd and grain confiscation was the USSR's policy. | |||
::I agree with most of what you said but I have not seen any evidence from the archives regarding that specific claim. ] (]) 14:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
== OR in the lead == | == OR in the lead == | ||
Line 139: | Line 76: | ||
{{talk-refs}} | {{talk-refs}} | ||
== Discussions on ] == | |||
Sources for this article are being discussed here: | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
—''] ].'' 16:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
== RSN again == | == RSN again == | ||
Line 169: | Line 99: | ||
::::::::@]Does the Reliable Source noticeboard ruling that academia.edu isn't reliable mean nothing?] (]) 09:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC) | ::::::::@]Does the Reliable Source noticeboard ruling that academia.edu isn't reliable mean nothing?] (]) 09:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC) | ||
:::::::::It's not published or self-published on academia.edu merely hosted there. If you like you can remove the URL—] 16:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC) | :::::::::It's not published or self-published on academia.edu merely hosted there. If you like you can remove the URL—] 16:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC) | ||
:::::::::Firstly, the article has been cited here for seven years, so please demonstrate consensus to remove it before doing so. There is no objection to it. Even Stix1776 hasn’t made any concrete objection to it, but merely tried to remove it because they don’t like the facts it supports. | |||
:::::::::Secondly, the source is not academia.edu, but ''Holodomor Studies''. There is a ] to Academia, and it was posted there by the author and presumably copyright holder, so please do not remove it without justification either. | |||
⚫ | :::::::::These objections without any basis are obstruction and they are getting disruptive. —''] ].'' 22:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 17:21, 4 April 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Holodomor denial article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 6 months |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 26 May 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Denial of the Holodomor to Holodomor denial. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Archives | ||||||
|
||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 182 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
OR in the lead
@Mzajac, you were the one that added the Serby source to the lead , and you reverted to restore it three four times, against three four different editors . It seems especially unfair that editors need to go through this effort when you should be the one defending your addition to the lead in the talk, not us having to go to the talk to remove your edit.
Also please add a quote to the source on how it says "Holodomor denialis the claim that the Holodomor, a 1932–33 man-made famine that killed millions in Soviet Ukraine, did not occur or diminishing its scale and significance". Because, as I put in the edit, such a sentence is not there. Thank you.Stix1776 (talk) 07:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi. Your first link is broken. If you want to talk about the procedure, then it would be helpful to collect the diffs with edit summaries of the deletions that I reverted, and links to any discussions that followed.
- But it might be more useful to talk about the lead.
- I apologize for the cursory revert. I should have looked more closely at the text, which had been changed from my version. I think the text can be improved instead.
- You summarized your removal with: “This source test, in its entirety, is a general review of Douglas Tottle's book Fraud, Famine and Fascism. It is not an effort to describe general Holodomor denial. It's not helped by being reprinted by a blog.”
- You’re right that the source and statement don’t go together well. I don’t believe this was what I originally wrote in the article either. I believe this is my preferred edit and version (after a quick search of the history):
- Holodomor denial ( . . . ) is the claim that the Holodomor, a 1932–33 man-made famine that killed millions in Soviet Ukraine,Cite error: There are
<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). did not occur, or (especially since evidence of its existence became public in the 1980s) the diminishment of its scale and significance, including the claim that it was not a genocide.
- Holodomor denial ( . . . ) is the claim that the Holodomor, a 1932–33 man-made famine that killed millions in Soviet Ukraine,Cite error: There are
- I think the last three sources directly support the statements. The LOC gives the definition of Holodomor denial, and the Dobczansky paper discusses it in a secondary source. The Serbyn article discusses denial of the genocidal nature. These should be satisfactory at least to support the text. If you insist on more sources, I can try to find them.
- I think this is necessary, because without this the definition “ Holodomor denial . . . is the claim that the Holodomor . . . did not occur” is completely inadequate and compromises the article. Deniers have stopped claiming that no famine occurred since the 1980s. But they continue to be active and there is so much written by them and about them that LOC created two new subject headings in 2009. So our definition should not leave this out.
- Regarding “It's not helped by being reprinted by a blog”: the source is not a blog entry. It’s a republished text that’s cited at the bottom:
- Reprinted from The Ukrainian Canadian February 1989, pages 7-10, 14.
Kobzar Publishing Company Limited
962 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M6H 1L6
ISSN 0049-5077
- Reprinted from The Ukrainian Canadian February 1989, pages 7-10, 14.
- I’d prefer to cite the original, but I don’t have access, and this is sufficient. —Michael Z. 16:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Mzajac I fixed the link. I asked for a quote from the Serby to back up the the text and the lead from you, and I didn't get it. No one is able to judge the OR claims, as you're claiming an entire article.
- Given that I showed that you're reverting to return your edit against 4 editors, you really should just remove Serby and try to build consensus for lead changes in the talk. Your edits are very edit wary. Please show some consideration for other editors and not continuously revert to defend your own edits.
- I'm not relitigating the LOC source. It was three editors against Mzajac. Bring up an RfC if you wish to push this issue.Stix1776 (talk) 12:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Understanding might require reading the source, but here are some key parts of the Serbyn article:
- Tottle is a self-confessed famine-genocide denier. No longer able to negate the famine as such, Tottle questions its genocidal character. Traditional famine-denial has been updated to famine-genocide denial, but the essence of the ideological trappings is the same. Today’s famine-genocide deniers are the spiritual heirs of the first famine negators, Stalin and those who helped him carry out the most heinous of crimes against the Ukrainian nation or to deny its existence.
- Most of the rest of the article discusses the Tottle denialism, and is too specific for the lead, but of course it is directly relevan, too. Tottle’s Soviet-funded and -authored work represents the exact crux when Moscow’s campaign of denialism shifted from famine denial, quickly to denial of man-made causes, denial of genocidal intent, and denial of genocide.
- And the last few paragraphs of Serbyn’s 1989 article also discuss the historiographical change of the time: the newly open legitimate debate of the famine as genocide, contrasted with the new character of denial. He refers not only to Tottle but to contemporary Holodomor deniers in general. His summary:
- In the light of all the evidence we now possess on the famine, how bleak and ignoble appear the statements of genocide deniers of the Stalin era (unscrupulous journalists like Walter Duranty of the New York Times, credulous and dishonest intellectuals like the British writer Bernard Shaw, the French politician Edouard Herriot). It took fifty years to debunk their big lie; how long will it take the defenders of truth to dispose of the big lie promoted by Tottle and his supporters? The challenge is before the Ukrainian community. Will The Ukrainian Canadian, for one, have the courage to take it up and make the last stand of the famine-genocide deniers a short one?
- The big lie has shifted from denying famine to denying genocide. Holodomor genocide denial is Holodomor denial.
- If you refuse to see this source’s relevance to the definition of the subject, then we appear to be at an impasse, and I suggest you proceed with WP:DR, like getting a WP:3O. —Michael Z. 16:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Mzajac You're completely ignoring that you've reverted to return your edit 4 times against 4 editors. It's not up to me to prove that your source isn't relevant for the lead, it's for you to make consensus for your edit in the Talk. I wish you'd show some consideration for the editors and administrators that need to deal with this edit warring. Honestly I wouldn't put you through this. Thanks. Stix1776 (talk) 09:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don’t think that is how WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:DR work. You can’t just name three other editors who aren’t here and claim to speak for them making you a one-person majority. I’ve replied to this further in your separate thread on my talk page. —Michael Z. 16:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Paul Siebert said in his revert :
SYNTH removed. The refs do not use the term "Holodomor denial" as a separate term. LOC says nothing about genocide. Serbin does not use the term "Holodomoir denial"
- This mirrors what I said about your source. I would never put another editor through this tedium. Stix1776 (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Since we’re canvassing, other editors previously discussing the definition of the subject or the mentioned sources: @AevumNova, @Blindlynx, @Cloud200, @Davide King, @K.e.coffman, @My very best wishes, @Paul Siebert, @Qayqran, @TimothyBlue. —Michael Z. 18:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Michael you keep showing POV here as well as Synth.
- Trying to use sources that refer to Holodomor as either a broad Ukrainian cultural Genocide, a deliberate famine on the Ukraine, or as a famine not intentionally caused and then using that to claim scholarly consensus on the definition that best suits your POV is Righting Great Wrongs.
- Additionally in these arguments you make arguments against sources that you believe may have USSR or Russian ties while also arguing explicitly for sources from Ukrainian ties.
- Additionally you explicitly call that dertain things should or shouldn't be included in the article based on combating the "big lie".
- Misplaced Pages is NOT for righting great wrongs. And the disrespect for wikipedia's policy and violation of the revision rules really shows that you aren't keeping NPOV.
- We all have biases but we need to have the introspection and self control to look inwards at our biases and converse with peers to try to be as little influenced by our biases as possible on this site AevumNova (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Please, correct me if I am wrong, but the accusation of canvassing is a pure personal attack. First, per WP:CANVASS, " it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion". In addition, keeping in mind that I am a former participant of this discussion, pinging me is totally in agreement with our guidelines. Second, Stix1776 pinged me in a response to @Mzajac: words: "You can’t just name three other editors who aren’t here and claim to speak for them making you a one-person majority." Therefore, it would be quite correct to bring some of those users here. That is exactly what Stix1776 did.
- Michael is an admin, which imply some above-average familiarity with our behavioral rules. And he is expected to know know that false accusation of canvassing is a personal attack. Therefore, I think Michael should strike his accusation and explicitly apologize for knowingly violating our behavioral rules.
- And, as soon as my attention has been drawn to this topic, let me explain that not only Serbyn, but all other sources, except LOC have been used incorrectly in the lede. Indeed, all of them just confirm that the very fact of Holodomor was denied by Soviet authorities and by some authors. However, they do not speak about that fact as about some separate phenomenon called "denial of Holodomor".
- In reality, not such topic (outside of the LOC catalogue) exists in literature.
- If some fact X was denied by some authors, and that fact is verifiably described by sources A, B, and C, that does not allow use the sources A,B, and C for the statement like:
Denial of X is the claims that X never occurred (ref A, B, C).
- That is a chemically pure example of synthesis. And, frankly speaking, the whole article is a synthesis. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Mzajac, an apology for tedious editing would be appreciated, for no other reason that I'd like not to have to go through this again. I would not bring another editor through this hassle, and it's unfair for you to bring us through it.Stix1776 (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Since we’re canvassing, other editors previously discussing the definition of the subject or the mentioned sources: @AevumNova, @Blindlynx, @Cloud200, @Davide King, @K.e.coffman, @My very best wishes, @Paul Siebert, @Qayqran, @TimothyBlue. —Michael Z. 18:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- I don’t think that is how WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:DR work. You can’t just name three other editors who aren’t here and claim to speak for them making you a one-person majority. I’ve replied to this further in your separate thread on my talk page. —Michael Z. 16:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Mzajac You're completely ignoring that you've reverted to return your edit 4 times against 4 editors. It's not up to me to prove that your source isn't relevant for the lead, it's for you to make consensus for your edit in the Talk. I wish you'd show some consideration for the editors and administrators that need to deal with this edit warring. Honestly I wouldn't put you through this. Thanks. Stix1776 (talk) 09:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- Understanding might require reading the source, but here are some key parts of the Serbyn article:
- I am not sure what you guys disagree about. If it is about using Roman Serbyn for referencing, I think we can cite him. If it is about what constitutes "denial" in this case, I think one should follow the definition what "denialism" is. Our Denialism page provides a sourced explanation. This is the rejection of basic facts and concepts that are undisputed, well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a subject. Based on that, Duranty and Tottle were indeed historical denialists with regard to Holodomor, and they have been described as such in sources. Just to clarify, there is a general consensus that the famine was "man-made" . Someone denying this like Tottle is a denialist. However, the question if it was a genocide would be a more legitimate dispute, and we have a separate page about it. My very best wishes (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, denialism is key. Serbyn 1989 makes it clear that Holodomor denial includes denial that it is genocide. Dobczansky 2009 makes it clear that there is no confusion between academic debate about the determination of the Holodomor as genocide and Holodomor denial. —Michael Z. 03:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- "Holodomor denial includes denial that it is genocide". Yes, it would be the case for Armenian genocide, but debatable here per sources (personally, I do agree it was a genocide). My very best wishes (talk) 02:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Well, perhaps that aspect is not necessarily defining but part of diminishment. Certainly Holodomor denial literature does deny its genocidal nature without allowing for academic debate on the question. —Michael Z. 18:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- "Holodomor denial includes denial that it is genocide". Yes, it would be the case for Armenian genocide, but debatable here per sources (personally, I do agree it was a genocide). My very best wishes (talk) 02:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
References
- The Library of Congress. "Holodomor denial, LC Linked Data Service: Authorities and Vocabularies". Library of Congress. Retrieved 2023-01-16.
- Dobczansky, Jurij (2009). "Affirmation and Denial: Holodomor-related Resources Recently Acquired by the Library of Congress". Holodomor Studies. 1 (2 ): 155–164.
RSN again
Part of the above wasn’t settled, so I’ve posted another discussion specifically about the Dobczansky paper at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Source for “Holodomor denial”. —Michael Z. 17:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Revert
Hi @Stix1776. Why did you revert me with “Reverting the last addition. It seems a bit much to include this in the lead after two posts to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Please gain consensus of other editors in the talk page before adding. Thanks”? This is not a reason. There was no objection and positive remarks about this source at the RSN. —Michael Z. 15:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm on mobile this very second, so I didn't write as eloquently as I wished I did. I meant that you hadn't gotten one supportive second editor, despite two posts to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and adding a paragraph to the lead really should get consensus of other editors per WP:LEADCREATE. Is this really so important, relevant, and reliable that it should be included in the lead?Stix1776 (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Again, I did get support, at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 417#Is the Library of Congress Subject Headings a reliable source on defining “Holodomor denial”.
- What is your objection to this edit? —Michael Z. 16:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- What support? Show diffs. Stix1776 (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- The comment by whatamIdoing showed general support, and the comment by GreenC specifically supported the paper.
- You haven’t said why you oppose this source or the cited statement. I guess you just don’t want it. —Michael Z. 13:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Neither of them did, although GreenC's comment was a bit more supportive that others should "read it". No one said it was reliable. Your second post got zero replies, so instead of dropping it, you reinsert a paragraph back into the lead.
- My issues with this is that it's a WP:LEADBOMB. It's dropping a huge chunk of new info, not in the article, but in the lead. The lead should be a summary of article. And you're the only editor pushing this.
- Per , academia.edu isn't a reliable source. Do you not have a DOI or link to the original?? Thanks.Stix1776 (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- The source is already cited in the article. Since you object to it in the lead, I’ll put it in the body. Since you object to a link to an online version, I’ll just cite the source. I think your baseless obstruction is making the article worse than it would be otherwise. —Michael Z. 13:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, can you please include a doi or some way of linking to the actual article. Thanks. Stix1776 (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Mzajac: I support including the source in the article. I'll WP:BOLDly re-add it, at least for now. CJ-Moki (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- @CJ-MokiDoes the Reliable Source noticeboard ruling that academia.edu isn't reliable mean nothing?Stix1776 (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- It's not published or self-published on academia.edu merely hosted there. If you like you can remove the URL—blindlynx 16:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- Firstly, the article has been cited here for seven years, so please demonstrate consensus to remove it before doing so. There is no objection to it. Even Stix1776 hasn’t made any concrete objection to it, but merely tried to remove it because they don’t like the facts it supports.
- Secondly, the source is not academia.edu, but Holodomor Studies. There is a WP:CONLINK to Academia, and it was posted there by the author and presumably copyright holder, so please do not remove it without justification either.
- These objections without any basis are obstruction and they are getting disruptive. —Michael Z. 22:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- @CJ-MokiDoes the Reliable Source noticeboard ruling that academia.edu isn't reliable mean nothing?Stix1776 (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- The source is already cited in the article. Since you object to it in the lead, I’ll put it in the body. Since you object to a link to an online version, I’ll just cite the source. I think your baseless obstruction is making the article worse than it would be otherwise. —Michael Z. 13:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- What support? Show diffs. Stix1776 (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- B-Class Ukraine articles
- Mid-importance Ukraine articles
- WikiProject Ukraine articles
- B-Class Soviet Union articles
- Mid-importance Soviet Union articles
- WikiProject Soviet Union articles
- Start-Class articles with conflicting quality ratings
- Start-Class Russia articles
- Low-importance Russia articles
- Low-importance Start-Class Russia articles
- Start-Class Russia (science and education) articles
- Science and education in Russia task force articles
- Start-Class Russia (history) articles
- History of Russia task force articles
- Start-Class Russia (politics and law) articles
- Politics and law of Russia task force articles
- WikiProject Russia articles
- B-Class Alternative views articles
- Mid-importance Alternative views articles
- WikiProject Alternative views articles