Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:19, 26 December 2007

Sad sight

It is a sad sight to see this article being an attempt of Misplaced Pages editors to engage into this political campaigning on the bones of the victims of the famine. It is one thing when this is done by politicians who would exploit anything they can for the political benefit tripling and quadrupling number of victims or using 1921 pictures to illustrate 1933 events. It is expected and it will always happen. It is quite another thing when this campaigning perpetrates into the encyclopedia.

Starting from the very first sentence, this text is unacceptable. "Denial" is a claim that the famine did not happen. This opinion is such a fringe POV that the debate is out of the picture. Tottle is the only one to claim this.

However, disagreement on whether the term Genocide applies is a legitimate debate. Even the proposed law in Ukraine would not apply to the latter issue as it would prohibit to deny the famine itself, not its legal implications. There are plenty of respected scholars who don't see Genocide in the famine and Horlo's attempt to label them as denialists, also violates WP:BLP.

The article is a soapbox and should be deleted. I would welcome serious contributors to help in covering this topic on wikipedia but that kind of soapboxing is totally out of question, particularly disgusting is to see these games being played on the memories of the victims. Shame! --Irpen 16:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Not all of this is political campaigning. Denial did exist in Soviet Union, Duranty and Tottle. Those events should to be mentioned here or in the Holodomor article. The Holodomor denial bill could be mentioned also. The more modern stuff isn't really denial. Do you want this information moved to the Holodomor article? Ostap 19:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I want this cleaned from nonsense first. Not seeing the famine as Genocide is not denial of the famine. Depending on how much is left after this, we can decide whether a separate article is warranted. --Irpen 19:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. The title itself is an attempt to mimic the Holocaust denial, which is troubling. There is no basis for that. All of that can be mentioned at the Holodomor article, it doesn't warrant a separate article. If there is a vote, I support redirect to the main article. --Hillock65 (talk) 23:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Constructive help is most welcome

It is sad to see that some editors cannot accept differing opinions.

Please point out: A) which points are disputed B) which points are original research.

If you cannot, the tags will be removed. Just because you don't know something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Statements such as "campaigning on the bones of famine victims" are repulsive enough that editors making them should be summarily drummed out of Misplaced Pages.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I just called a spade a spade, Horlo. --Irpen 19:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Lets keep the "campaigning on the bones of famine victims" for the article. Sounds like something Duranty did. Ostap 19:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Duranty has been debunked and had the prestigious prize revoked. Do we really need a separate article to expose Tottle and Duranty? Are they worth it? --Irpen 19:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. But has his prize been revoked? I didn't think so. Ostap 19:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think I read that in the news. -Irpen 19:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I remove the "wikify" tag yet? Ostap 19:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Irpen 19:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, claiming that Holodomor denial does not exist is the same as claiming that Holocaust denial does not exist. Both statements are equally repugnant.

Once again, things you think are not what they are. (I'm referring to your idea that "Kiev" is more popular in English than "Kyiv", simply because some media uses it). Duranty's prize was not revoked. There were enough people claiming that the Holodomor never took place to get in the way of Duranty's suspension.

Now, Irpen, once again I say - if you have something constructive to add to the article, please do. Disputed tags are not constructive. If you cannot show what specifically is original research or what is disputed, I will simply be BOLD and remove them.

Thanks, 67.71.177.55 (talk) 20:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The term does exist outside Misplaced Pages and thus deserves an article

Holodomor denial gives several hundred hits including news sources such as BBC. If anybody wants to expand his knowledge about the subject he should have an opportunity to do so on Misplaced Pages with the proper article.--Molobo (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Motion to remove tags

Is there any serious argument against removing the "disputed" and "neutrality" tags? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

There is argument over keeping the article, and maybe actually re-writting this lump of information into an article for a start. Usually the size of the article drops noticibly and then we can consider on weather the amount of keeping there is worth a separate page in wikipedia. --Kuban Cossack 23:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Kuban Cossack, your constructive input is more than welcome. Please explain how information can be in a "lump", and what would separate that from an official Misplaced Pages "article". Also, how would re-writing (this is not an article about legalities, therefore there is no "writ") cause the size of an article to decrease? (How would you "drop" it?) Third, the weather here is great - a White Christmas - but that doesn't mean that the information presented here is disputable, or original research. Please see the extensive reference list at the bottom. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 23:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well from what I had to sample, and viewing how the edit history of the article went, we had complete paragraphs removed. I only touched the opening and the USSR part, and it was knee-deep in nonsense such as Kravchuk's nightmares. Now as ... interesting as that might be why do we need that in wikipedia at all? Just look at the section that was prior to my edit, and all that was left of it after I made the edit. True the volume of removed text was compensated by other additions, such as the 1937 census. Now that's one small section, I have not even read the rest of the article, but if it is just like the rest... This article needs a lot of work! --Kuban Cossack 00:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest this stuff merged into Holodomor article ASAP as this is becoming a new battle ground, where some people have come to re-write history. Just look at the intro, which claims that Holodomor was the result of a failed agricultural reform. This is beyond comment and needs to stop. There is no need to tag or untag anything, just redirect this into Holodomor article. At least let's limit edit wars to just one article. --Hillock65 (talk) 00:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Where do you see a battleground? There is universal consensus that the famine was caused by the collectivisation of the UkSSR, now weather its ricochet that led to the millions of death was intentional or genocidal is still one question which is disputed. I just re-wrote it to follow the status quo on main Holodomor article, which I trust is NPOV. --Kuban Cossack 00:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)