| Revision as of 15:52, 3 April 2023 editMzajac (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users66,545 edits →More of SYNTH.: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:21, 4 April 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,067 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Holodomor denial/Archive 6) (bot |
| (63 intermediate revisions by 11 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|class=b|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Ukraine|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Soviet Union|class=B|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{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|class=B|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{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 15: |
Line 14: |
|
| algo = old(182d) |
|
| algo = old(182d) |
|
| archive = Talk:Holodomor denial/Archive %(counter)d |
|
| archive = Talk:Holodomor denial/Archive %(counter)d |
|
| counter = 5 |
|
| counter = 6 |
|
| maxarchivesize = 125K |
|
| maxarchivesize = 125K |
|
| archiveheader = {{Aan}} |
|
| archiveheader = {{Aan}} |
| Line 22: |
Line 21: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== OR in the lead == |
|
== Deletion of Douglas Tottle And Modern politics Sections == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@], you were the one that added the Serby source to the lead , and you reverted to restore it {{Strikethrough|three}} four times, against {{Strikethrough| 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. |
|
Douglas Tottle SHOULD have is own section in the ] page, but not in this one. |
|
|
On page 2, in the introduction of "Fraud, Famine and Fascism: The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitter to Harvard" Tottle states that: |
|
|
:: "However, while historians accept that famine occurred in Ukraine in 1932-1933 |
|
|
:: — as well as in other areas of the USSR — they are still debating the causes, extent and results. |
|
|
::My examination of the campaign and its charges of "Ukrainian genocide” |
|
|
::does not attempt to study the famine in any detailed way. |
|
|
His book advocates the thesis that the narrative surrounding the holodomor originates in nazi and anti-communist propaganda, that framing it as a genocide is based on false and fabricated evidence. But it isnt a "claim that the Holodomor, a large-scale, man-made famine in Soviet Ukraine from 1932–1933, did not occur" - as stated in the opening of this page. Being there a page about the denial of the ucranian famine, and another about its status as an genocide, Tottle book pertains only to the latter ] (]) 05:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.] (]) 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 ], a 1932–33 man-made ] that killed millions in ],<ref></ref> did not occur,<ref name="regime"></ref><ref name="Radzinsky"></ref><ref name="reflections"></ref> or (especially since evidence of its existence became public in the 1980s) the diminishment of its scale and significance,<ref>{{Cite web |last=The Library of Congress |title=Holodomor denial, LC Linked Data Service: Authorities and Vocabularies |url=https://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh2009005520.html |access-date=2023-01-16 |website=Library of Congress}}</ref><ref name= Dobczansky_2009>{{cite journal|title=Affirmation and Denial: Holodomor-related Resources Recently Acquired by the Library of Congress|last=Dobczansky|first=Jurij|journal=Holodomor Studies|volume=1|issue=2 |date=2009|pages=155–164|url= https://www.academia.edu/28799900}}</ref> including the ].<ref name="serbyn" ></ref> |
|
|
: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. <br /> Kobzar Publishing Company Limited <br /> 962 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M6H 1L6 <br /> ISSN 0049-5077 |
|
|
:I’d prefer to cite the original, but I don’t have access, and this is sufficient. —''] ].'' 16:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::@] 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.] (]) 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 ], like getting a ]. —''] ].'' 16:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::@] 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. ] (]) 09:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I don’t think that is how ], ], and ] 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. —''] ].'' 16:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::@] said in his revert : |
|
|
::::::{{Blockquote|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. ] (]) 02:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Since we’re canvassing, other editors previously discussing the definition of the subject or the mentioned sources: @], @], @], @], @], @], @], @], @]. —''] ].'' 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 ] (]) 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 ], "'' 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 {{yo|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: |
|
|
:::::::::{{tq|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. ] (]) 21:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::@], 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.] (]) 10:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
*I am not sure what you guys disagree about. If it is about using ] 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 ] 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. ] (]) 23:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
The same aplies to the Modern politics sections. The Background section states that "the Holodomor has been a point of contention between Russia and Ukraine", and that "The Russian government does not recognize the famine as an act of genocide". So, again it pertains to the genocide question, not denial. |
|
|
|
*:Yes, denial''ism'' 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. —''] ].'' 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). ] (]) 02:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
Same with Blinova articles in Sputnik News. She follows the same thesis as Tottle: although there was a famine, it was not a genocide and that the narrative around it was wildly exagerated propaganda. <ref> and </ref>. |
|
|
|
::::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. —''] ].'' 18:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
To Mironin is also not atributed a claim of denial: "Sigizmund Mironin's "Holodomor in the Rus" argued that the cause of the famine was not Stalin's policies, but rather the chaos engendered by the New Economic Policy". The same with Tkachenko and Mukhin. Yury Mukhin is a notorious supporter of conspiracy theories, but that seems insufficient to estabilish a issue of "Modern politics" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{talk-refs}} |
|
Every topic up until 2.2 Discusses the denial and cover up of the famine. Sections 2.3 and 3. do not. |
|
|
|
|
|
If both of these belong in this article, "Denial of the Holodomor" should be better defined to encompass both topics. But since there are articles on the "genocide question" and "Holodomor in modern politics", the deletion of these topics (sections 2.3 to 3.2) Seems like thes best solution |
|
|
] (]) 16:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== RSN again == |
|
: The book attributed to Tottle is not a source on the Holodomor. It is an ''example'' of genocide propaganda, and part of the subject of this article. So is the above-linked article on Russian state website ''Sputnik International''. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Part of the above wasn’t settled, so I’ve posted another discussion specifically about the Dobczansky paper at ]. —''] ].'' 17:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
: An authoritative secondary source on bibliographic classification, the Library of Congress, uses Tottle as a definitive example for the subject heading “,” which contains “works that diminish the scale and significance of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 or assert that it did not occur.” This is distinct from the subject of “,” which is “the diminution of the scale and significance of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 or the assertion that it did not occur.” —''] ].'' 18:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::@] Its not relevant to my point wheter Tottle or Sputnik are credible sources or examples of propaganda. My point is that these are exemples of *denying the holodomor ''as a genocide''* not a denial that it happened. And again ''this very article we are discussing'' defines *Denial of the Holodomor* as "the claim that the Holodomor, a large-scale, man-made famine in Soviet Ukraine from 1932–1933, did not occur". These are different things, as evident in the first parts of this article, which deals with soviet cover-ups and denial of '''the famine itself'''. |
|
|
::There is another wikipedia article about the claim that the holomodor isnt a genocide - the claim that Tottle and Sputnik make. So I dont see how these sections arent misplaced. If the claim that holomodor isnt a genocide is, in itsel, "holomodor denial" then there isnt an "Holodomor genocide question", just holomodor denial |
|
|
::Also “Holodomor denial literature" are works that comit “Holodomor denial" so I really dont get what your are trying to say with this distinction ] (]) 05:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Trying to be as clear as possible in explaining my issue: |
|
|
::::: there are two diferent things: |
|
|
::::: '''A'''= Denial and cover-up of the famine |
|
|
::::: '''B'''= Denial that the Holomodor was intentional, or genocidal in nature |
|
|
:::This article defining claim that the Holodomor, a large-scale, man-made famine in Soviet Ukraine from 1932–1933, did not occur" |
|
|
:::There is an wikipedia article that deals with '''A''', this one, and another that deals with '''B''', the ] |
|
|
:::This article up until section 2.2 gives exemples and discuss cases of '''A'''. Then, from section 2.3 onwards it give examples of '''B''' |
|
|
:::If both '''A''' and '''B''' fall under the category of Holomodor Denial, and thus pertain to this article, or if Tottle is a fringe theorist and so a special case of '''B''' that constitute denialism, then that should be stated and explained, and so the latter parts and intro of this article should be extensively rewriten ] (]) 14:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Okay, I get what you’re saying. But a reliable secondary source classifies Tottle as Holodomor denial literature, because it comprises “the diminution of the scale and significance of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 or the assertion that it did not occur.” Your A’s and B’s are ]. —''] ].'' 18:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Revert == |
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi @]. 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. —''] ].'' 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 ]. Is this really so important, relevant, and reliable that it should be included in the lead?] (]) 15:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
== Obvious POV Fork of Holodomor Genocide Question == |
|
|
|
::Again, I did get support, at ]. |
|
I think its quite clear. No real need to argue the point. Whatever part of the article can be salvaged can be incorporated in ] then just redirect. ] (]) 21:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::What is your objection to this edit? —''] ].'' 16:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::What support? Show diffs. ] (]) 23:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
:Nonsense. They are two different topics: an academic debate that went on from the 1990s to the 2010s on the one hand, and ] denial epitomized by a genre of Soviet and Russian propaganda on the other, for which the Library of Congress created specific separate subject headings. There is no overlap in the article content. —''] ].'' 21:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::The comment by whatamIdoing showed general support, and the comment by GreenC specifically supported the paper. |
|
:The only thing correct in the OP is no real need to argue the point. <span style="font-family:Courier;"><b> // ] :: ] </b></span> 21:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::You haven’t said why you oppose this source or the cited statement. I guess you just don’t want it. —''] ].'' 13:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
:it's clear they're two different things—] 23:54, 30 March 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. |
|
:: They are not two different things. One article discusses different views on whether the Holodomor can be considered a genocide (most scholars think it wasn't, some argue it was even just the result of crop failure), the other one is a POV fork which aims to delegitimize any questioning of the genocide narrative equating it to Holocaust "denialism". Denialism is a deeply loaded word which implies the Holodomor as genocide is fact and those who scholars who argue against it (the majority) are borderline genocide apologists and are basically lying. This article is just a POV fork created for propaganda purposes. Delete and redirect. ] (]) 15:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::::My issues with this is that it's a ]. 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. |
|
::: ] You are an administrator on Misplaced Pages. I see you hold strong views on the topic of Ukrainian history and Ukraine in general for which I would ask you to consider abstaining from this topic. Denial of the Holodomor as genocide is not "Soviet propaganda" or "Russian propaganda" it is a mainstream academic current held in the Western world, held by ], ], ], Hiroaki Kuromiya, Robert Conquest, ], ] and of course Mark Tauger, among others. ] (]) 15:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::::Per , academia.edu isn't a reliable source. Do you not have a DOI or link to the original?? Thanks.] (]) 12:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
:::: Did you get blocked under another user name, that you show up here with just over a dozen edits to make such specific claims and personal accusations? I suggest we stick to writing about the topic and not about other editors. ] is not an article under discussion. —''] ].'' 15:23, 1 April 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. —''] ].'' 13:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
::::: ] ], no I didn't, but I admit that is a valid point you just made right now. I hadn't fully read the article. ] (]) 15:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::::::Yes, can you please include a doi or some way of linking to the actual article. Thanks. ] (]) 14:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
:::The claim that 'most scholars think it wasn't ' is patently false. This article is not about the scholarly debate of the Holodomor but about the ] position that it didn't happen at all{{emdash}}either that there wasn't a famine or it wasn't man made{{emdash}}as the article itself puts it 'Negationism of the Holodomor is distinct from the argument that it did not constitute a genocide'. You need to have a better argument that simply asserting your POV—] 15:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::::::{{Reply to|Mzajac}} I support including the source in the article. I'll ]ly re-add it, at least for now. ] (]) 07:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
::::I have to supplement that for clarity. The Library of Congress Subject Heading gives perhaps the best concise definition of Holodomor denial, as “the diminution of the scale and significance of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 or the assertion that it did not occur.” Diminishment of its significance can include the denial that it is a genocide, especially in countries where the Holodomor is recognized as a genocide and where denial of atrocities such as genocides is illegal (e.g., Germany). But such denialism is distinct from the academic debates on what constitutes a genocide. As far as I can see there is little or no overlap between the two, and this proposal we’re discussing by someone that hasn’t bothered to read the articles is spurious. —''] ].'' 15:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::::::@]Does the Reliable Source noticeboard ruling that academia.edu isn't reliable mean nothing?] (]) 09:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
:::::Thank you. Sorry for not being as clear as i could be in my reply—] 16:04, 1 April 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) |
|
::::::Nothing to apologize for and you were absolutely right. I just want to be clear and open on all of this, because some of these important facts related to the definitions of these subjects have been disputed previously. —''] ].'' 16:29, 1 April 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. |
|
:::::::One question I do have: What about academic positions such as those of Tauger which argue that it was predominantly caused by crop failure? The concept of "Holodomor denial" is certainly a slippery one, considering the definition given to the concept as a man-made and intentional starvation targeting a specific ethnic group. Even though this article excludes the academic debate on this issue, Tauger is technically engaging in Holodomor denial since he denies practically every element which defines the term. In this sense I still see this article as problematic. Wouldn't it just be better to have it as a free standing sub-section of another article?] (]) 11:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::::::::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. |
|
::::::::*'''2 cents''': Misplaced Pages editors shouldn't be performing OR / SYNTH on academic positions (or anything else). If there is SIGCOV of a position in IS RS, then it can be '''considered''' for inclusion based on CONSENSUS and criteria such as WEIGHT, but it is important to consider what IS RS state, not what editors think. There can be grey areas, and in contentious subjects I think editors should be all the more careful to let sources speak for themselves, NPOV, and not presented/interpreted in Wikivoice. You have a half penny change coming. <span style="font-family:Courier;"><b> // ] :: ] </b></span> 11:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::::::::These objections without any basis are obstruction and they are getting disruptive. —''] ].'' 22:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
::::::::This article does not accuses Tauger of Holodomor denial. This is a question of ] Tauger's position is a minor one in Holodomor scholarship and as such is ]—] 15:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::It is very important to point out that the fringe position is that the famine had natural causes. Tauger at no point talks about what caused the crop failure{{emdash}}other scholarship agrees it was caused by collectivization. It seems that you are misunderstanding what type of crop failure he is talking about—] 17:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::I think the criticism of Tauger is more about his wilfully ignoring the confiscation, denial of seed grain, and forcible isolation that Stalin chose to impose on Ukrainians after a low harvest in fall of 1932, leading to a disaster the following year including the next harvest. Everyone could have been fed, but Stalin knowingly caused the deaths of millions in specific regions. See a letter to the editor by James Mace, esp. the paragraphs following “The work of Mark Tauger began . . . ” —''] ].'' 17:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::In another email posted on the same page, ] also distinguishes academic research from denialism: “Mark Tauger has focused on primary source materials in Ukraine and his opinions--whether or not one agrees with them--deserve respect. The same cannot be said of the writings of Coplon, Tottle, and others that are based more on Ukrainophobia and polemics than a quest for objective answers.” —''] ].'' 18:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::I know, but i'm just talking about that one '91 paper of his here not the responses to it. The key point is he never claims the crop failure or famine had natural causes—] 20:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Reliable sources answer your question. Do they name Tauger’s arguments as Holodomor denial? I think no, but if you find other evidence, then we can update these articles. |
|
|
::::::::Your “technically” is an example of ], and, I think it’s wrong. Holodomor denialism is denial ''despite'' the evidence, not good-faith attempts, sound or unsound, to interpret the evidence with academic grounding. —''] ].'' 15:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::In terms of the LOC definition I quoted above, Tauger is not trying to diminish the scale of the Holodomor, he’s trying to determine its scale. That said, there’s a point where academics can be criticized by others for ignoring facts and taking a POV or ] position. I think Tauger may be near the borderline in this way. —''] ].'' 16:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::] ] Thank you for your response. I am still troubled by it however since we could turn your argument around in its head to further highlight the problems with this article. You have provided me with a reasonable "definition" of Holodomor denial which excludes academia: Denial is in "bad faith" and is not good faith academic research into the topic. You consider Tauger does not engage in denialism due to him being a good faith bona fide academic even though he concludes there was effectively no "Holodomor" but simply a Soviet famine caused by crop failure. My follow.up question is as follows: Is not your definition of "Holodomor denial" ] and ] created ad hoc for this article? Where are the sources on the basis of which you establish these criteria for inclusion and exclusion?] (]) 19:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::I was relating and summarizing what the reliable sources say, the ones you can follow because I cited them directly and the ones cited in these articles. I don’t have anything to add. —''] ].'' 19:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::So do we have a single coherent definition of Holodomor denial? Or do we have various sourced definitions? If it involves "diminishing the scale" of the Holodomor, diminishing it from what? From a predefined number of dead? Is an academic questioning intentionality of the Holodomor, as so many do, "denialism"? Is Holodomor Denial a defineable tangible fact or is it something more diffuse anyone can be accused of? I find all this very difficult to hold together from a policy perspective. ] (]) 20:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::What we have is no consensus to merge these articles. |
|
|
:::::::::::::I think its quite clear. No real need to argue the point. —''] ].'' 20:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::I would say, the Library of Congress Subject Heading gives arguably ''the only'' definition of "Holodomor denial". This term is found in scholarly literature (just compare it with . |
|
|
:::::::::::::Most sources use "Holodomor denial" not as some specific term, they use it to describe a trivial denial of the fact that Holodomor had ever occurred (the POV that is shared by a negligible minority). |
|
|
:::::::::::::As I already explained previously, the difference between "Holocaust denial" and "Holodomor denial" is immense: the Holocaust is a pretty well studied topic, which means we perfectly know the following: |
|
|
:::::::::::::* Who were the victims; |
|
|
:::::::::::::* How many people were victims; |
|
|
:::::::::::::* What was the cause; |
|
|
:::::::::::::* That it was a genocide; |
|
|
:::::::::::::* Who was a perpetrator. |
|
|
:::::::::::::That means any attempt to question the fact that: |
|
|
:::::::::::::* the Holocaust had ever occurred (e.g. that gas chambers were just intended for anti-lice treatment), or, |
|
|
:::::::::::::* the number of victims was significantly different from universally accepted figures (e.g., "only" 2 million), or |
|
|
:::::::::::::* the causes of the Holocaust were different from what is universally accepted (e.g. Jews were murdered because they were Communist collaborators); |
|
|
:::::::::::::* the Holocaust was not a genocide; |
|
|
:::::::::::::* some of known perpetrators (e.g. the member of UPA) never participated in the Holocaust, |
|
|
:::::::::::::fit the definition of the Holocaust denial (which includes trivialization or obfuscation). |
|
|
:::::::::::::In contrast, we still have no consensus about Holodomor. Thus, there is still no consensus on: |
|
|
:::::::::::::* Who were the victims (some sources say only Ukrainians, other sources include other ethnic groups) |
|
|
:::::::::::::* How many people should be considered the victims (the estimates vary significantly, because the figures are imprecise, and because there is no agreement on who is considered a victim), |
|
|
:::::::::::::* The cause (some authors claim that was a planned genocide, others believe it was a result of strategic blunders, etc) |
|
|
:::::::::::::* if Holodomor was a genocide |
|
|
:::::::::::::* who was a main culprit. |
|
|
:::::::::::::That means if we introduce the term "Holodomor denial" that mirrors "Holocaust denial", than any normal scholarly debates about Holodomor would become impossible. |
|
|
:::::::::::::Imagine you are living in 1947, when little was known about the Holocaust. If the "holocaust denial" term (in its modern form) had been introduced in 1947, that would make any Holocaust study impossible. Only after the Holocaust had become a well studied topic, the introduction of the Holocaust denial term became possible. |
|
|
:::::::::::::Holodomor studies, in contrast to the Holocaust, are at the early stage, and introducuon of the "Holodomor denial" term would have a detrimental effect. |
|
|
:::::::::::::That is why it has not been used by majority of scholarly sources. ] (]) 20:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::Except in 1947 genocide studies wasn’t a subject with decades of scholarship and I suspect the modern concept of historical negationism was yet to be formulated. I agree the Holodomor has been under-studied during these decades, but that is changing. Variations on ''Holodomor denial'' return 12 pages of results in scholar. —''] ].'' 21:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::LOC definition (the only definition I am aware of) says that HD inluudes: |
|
|
:::::::::::::::* the diminution of the scale of H. That means a discussion of the scale fits a definition of HD. However, the scale of Holodomor is sill a subject of debates. Does in mean participants of these discussions are deniers? |
|
|
:::::::::::::::* the diminution significance of H. There if still no agreement about its significance. How can we speak about "diminution" of something which has no commonly accepted significance? |
|
|
:::::::::::::::* the assertion that it did not occur. This assertion is currently being made only by a small group of fringe Russian government sponsored sources, which are obviously fringe. Nobody else shares these views, which hardly fit notability criteria. |
|
|
:::::::::::::::] (]) 21:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::In connection to that, the second sentence is the lede ("''Negationism of the Holodomor is distinct from the argument that it did not constitute a genocide, a claim which has been put forward by many prominent historians of the famine, such as Stephen G. Wheatcroft, Michael Ellman, and Hiroaki Kuromiya.''") is a pure OR. This statement is not found in any sources cited in the article. |
|
|
:::::::::::::In connection to that, I would like to see the sources that discuss applicability of the LOC definition ("''that discuss the diminution of the scale and significance of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 or the assertion that it did not occur.''") to the works of prominent Holodomor scholars (Wheatcroft, Graziosi, Ellman etc). If no sources will be provided, I am going to delete this sentence per WP:NOR. ] (]) 21:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::. I vote to undo it immediately. —''] ].'' 21:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::It think this edit should be removed, along with teh major part of the article's content. The rest should be merged with Holodomor, H. genocide question and H in modern politics article. |
|
|
:::::::::::::::Besides Russian sponsored mass-media and some ultranationalist SPS, noone shares a view that H never occurred. These views deserve no separate article, just a small section in already existing articles. And, "diminution" of the scale of something for which no commonly accepted scale is known is a nonsense. ] (]) 21:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::If you disagree with me, please, name a figure similar to Irwing who claimed that H never occurred. These claims come exclusively from Russia, and exclusively from a very specific category of government-sponsored sources. ] (]) 21:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::Actually, the only analog of Irwing is Douglas Tottle, but his book is too old, and iot has mostly a historical value. ] (]) 22:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
Alternatively, we can rename the article to "Denial of Holodomor in the Soviet Union and Russia", because it is not about some "Holodomor denial" as a separate phenomenon, but just a denial of some concrete fact by some concrete people or institutions.--] (]) 22:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
:What part of it is unsupported? —''] ].'' 22:45, 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) |
|
|
:::::::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) |
|
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)
.svg){kind=small}
