Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jo0doe (talk | contribs) at 23:10, 2 January 2008 (→On WP:AGF). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ukraine B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Soviet Union Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:Notpropaganda

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 January 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

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)

Hello, Kuban Cossack, without getting too personal about this, it seems that you do not have an idea about the meaning of the term "genocide". Here, you claim that the forced starvation of a nation by a foreign government is an agricultural mistake, yet on your own user page you proudly proclaim that you went to defend the Russian population against a "genocidal" attack in Chechnya.

There is consensus about the Holodomor, and that is that it was a deliberate act by the Stalinist regime.

Perhaps this topic is too personal to you, and you might benefit from a break. Were you also so vocal in arguing against a "holocaust denial" article being created?

I still think that such discussion highlights that the issue of Holodomor Denial is necessary, as even a group of editors here think that it never really happened.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you taking it personal? Lets avoid conflict triggers such as "foreign" or "deliberate". Neither of those are appropriate, and as the Holodomor article states, there is no direct proof that the famine was "deliberate against Ukrainians". I am not questioning it being a famine, are you aware of the "black boards" used in the Don, Kuban and Terek? There was similar kind in the Kazakhstan and in Kurgan Oblast Cannibilism was noted. So there is no question that the Soviet policy on high grain quota, and then "punishment" for not meeting the quota was the result. Now just how much role did Stalin or any other member of the Soviet Government played is purely detail. Moreover its not in the scope of the article.--Kuban Cossack 01:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is about denying that the famine took place. However, some people claim that it did not. It did. Therefore, it is not original research, nor disputed. Therefore, the tags should be removed. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The tags were only put there to specifically antagonise the editors and to discredit the article. All the facts given pertaining to the article have been sourced and disputed claims stated. The article is too large (and growing) to condense it into the Holodomor article. The study of Holodomor denial, its workings and reasons, has been the subject of a number of seminars and conferences. The tags should be removed. Bandurist (talk) 02:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Kharkiv-> Kiev_Kiev-2007-12-26T00:27:00.000Z">

Here is a discussion thread highlighting the events, it includes a very intersting minute, I know forums are not refrences, but how can we use the sources that the users brought there here? .--Kuban Cossack 00:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)_Kiev"> _Kiev">

In 1987 I spent a few weeks living with Leonid Haydamaka in Amherst, New Hampshire. Haydamaka was a professor of domra and bandura at the Kharkov Music and drama Institute in the 20-30's He was also the conductor of the first orchestra of Ukrainian Folk instruments. I video taped him and took down 18 hours of interviews. What was interesting was that his wife was the legal secretary to Mykola Skrypnyk. She was one of 4 students who had completed studies at the Kharkiv University in Ukrainian Philology and as a result was in high demand during the period of Ukrainization in order to make and correct documents into literary Ukrainian. When the government offices moved from Kharkiv to Kyiv in the first half of 1934 she was supposed to move but declined because her husband's jobs and the fact that he directed 2 unique orchestras of Ukrainian folk instruments.

She later went to visit her co-workers who had moved to Kyiv and discovered their apartments sealed and the windows pasted with newspapers. They were gone. She also described in depth the haphazard manner in which documents were sent from Kharkiv to Kyiv and the fact that often they did not find the right address or were lost.

The manuscript of the book on Haydamaka has not been published yet (it is slated for 2010) so I guess this accounts for own research. Bandurist (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)_Kiev"> _Kiev">

Достеменно невідомі також ті фактори, які спричинили майже повну відсутність у Галузевому державному архіві СБ України наказів та розпоряджень ДПУ УСРР 1922–1933 рр. Можливо, тут далися взнаки ті самі обставини, що й у випадку з документами союзного Центру. Не виключено, що вони були втрачені під час Другої світової війни, коли архівні документи вивозилися з Києва до Казахстану. Могли бути на те й інші причини, документальних підтверджень яким немає. From the archives of the Ukrainian secret Service p.22 Bandurist (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)_Kiev"> _Kiev">

redirect and merge

I think the relevant information about denial of the famine itself, such as Soviet policy Duranty, and Tottle, should be added to the Holodomor article. Then have this be a redirect, perhaps to a denial section of the main Holodomor article. However, right now the tag says to merge with the Holodomor#Was the Holodomor genocide? section. I would not support this, as this article and topic has nothing to do with the use of the word genocide. Does anyone else agree? Ostap 01:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ostape, I still think that this issue is important enough to keep it as a separate article. In twenty four hours this article has stirred up such an amount of discussion. There are apparently those who still try to write it off as an "agricultural Oops".

Right now, the government of Ukraine is making Holodomor denial illegal. Do you know the latest on that?

There is a rather extensive (correctly so) article about Holocaust denial. I think that the Holodomor was at least as bad as the Holocaust.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 01:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess the use of word denial seems to be the core of the problem, as it subliminally attempts to pass a judgement whether it is right or wrong to deny Holodomor and in a way mimics the Holocaust denial. I think this is the wrong path to follow and it is wrong to pass judgement on people who deny Holodomor just as it is wrong to pass a judgement on people who do not believe that Jesus ever existed. The fact that the current government of Ukraine chose to move toward legal definition of Holodomor denial makes it even more troublesome. There have been and still are people, who deny that it ever existed - whatever they believe was the cause of this tragedy is beyond the point right now. In fact, there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of those who question this in Ukraine alone. While I disagree with that view, putting emphasis on denial is wrong. There are millions of people who deny that God ever existed, yet there is no God denial article. Neither should there be one about Holodomor denial. All this information can and should be mentioned in the Holodomor article. Creating an article about an issue as charged as this one will only flair up emotions and will lead to another edit war, which is already starting. Move info from this article to Holodomor and redirect this article there. --Hillock65 (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Hillock65, I think you hit the nail right on the head. There are many people who still deny the existence of the Holodomor, and many people are still uncomfortable talking about it. That's exactly what this article is about - not what caused the famine, nor the consequences. However, the Holodomor did happen, and there were (and still are) active attempts to prove that it did not. I think the scope of those actions - official and unofficial - warrants a separate article.

It is also true that this is a very emotionally charged issue, and it is sad that some editors cannot focus on just writing a good encyclopedia article, but that is something Misplaced Pages will probably never get away from.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

destruction of archives

На жаль, наявні в архівах України взагалі і у відомчому архіві Служби безпеки України зокрема нормативно�розпорядчі документи Об’єдна� ного державного політичного управління СРСР (рос.: Объеди� ненное государственное политическое управление, ОГПУ) є скоріш винятком, аніж правилом. Центральні органи радян� ських спецслужб за властивими їм законами діловодства намагалися не залишати у республіканських підрозділах документів щодо своєї спрямовуючої діяльності. За канонами секретності чимало документів підлягало поверненню відправ� никам або систематично знищувалось, оскільки існували терміни та суворий порядок обліку й зберігання конкретного виду документів. From a publication by the Ukrainian Secret Service p. 22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandurist (talk • contribs) 16:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Annoying tags

Now that this article has developed and changed with the help of many editors, can whoever added the tags say exactly what is wrong so that the other editors can work to correct the article and they can remove the tags? Ostap 05:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Tags removed

The tags were removed - no reasons were given for keeping them.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Motion to remove merge tag

I think that this tag should be removed for two reasons: first, it has grown too large, with the contribution of too many editors, to become part of another article.

Second, I think that it is important enough to keep as a separate article.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I will be bold and remove it because merging to the "was it genocide?" section is not even the correct subject. Ostap 08:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Support. It appears the concept is distinctive enough, and large enough, to deserve a subarticle.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

New sections

I feel that the article would benefit from a seperate section analysing the reasons for Holodomor denial and also possibly a section on Holodomor revisionism. Thoughts? Bandurist (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it also the denial that it was a genocide

Isn't Holodomor denial also a term for denying that it was a genocide ?--Molobo (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a point which confuses some editors. Personally, I think that the Holodomor was genocide. However, this article is not about that. Soviet - and other - authorities as well as many Soviet-friendly media & reporters tried to hide the fact that millions of people were slowly starving to death. That's the focus of this article. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe the response to this question is that since "scholars" still dispute whether the Holodomor was genocide or not, the term denial is biased towards the Holodomor-genocide camp since the term assumes for a given that it was genocide, and those who deny it must therefore deny the facts. But since "scholars" are still not sure, and it is not a settled question (the way gravity theory is) then it is not technically a denial since what is being denied has not been established to exist in the first place.

This is why the lead seems to make the scope of the entry clear from the get-go: the denial is about the existence of famine, period (which is an established/settled fact). Regards, --Riurik 06:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It would also be a BLP issue labeling a wide range of scholars from Conquest to Wheatcroft and Tauger as "denilaists". --Irpen

I think the current lead is clear regarding topic and scope. —PētersV (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Saying that "Holodomor denial is denying holodomor" is a tautology. The term is self-explanatory and does not have to be defined unless someone wants to expand the scope and label those who disagree with this being a genocide denialists as well. The latter is questionable.

I also removed the 7 mln pushed by Horlo as is an unquestionable fact. Not a single modern scholarly source published since opening of archival data, including the research by Ukrainian historians and demographers, gives a number higher than 3.5 million. This is already covered elsewhere and does not need to be forked here.

The lead needs to clearly address the commonality (lack of) of the view that the famine is a fantasy. It is a single most important point that debunks the denialists like Tottle outright that this view does not have any standing. Clearly should be stated prominently.

Finally, the see also section is bad style per MoS and should be avoided in developed articles. Important issues should be linked from the main body and the similar topics are grouped with this one independently. This is why we have categories. --Irpen 07:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this latter point: It's something very common to have, see e.g. Soviet Union (a former GA), with 18 items in the See also list. I can give dozens of other examples, upon request. I find it a useful feature, if used sparingly, and judiciously. Turgidson (talk) 07:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Irpen, you seem to be unclear about this article. Let me explain it to you.

Before we do that, however, please refrain from words like "pushed". They don't help anybody. I would also like to say that I am very impressed by the fact that you have read every single modern scholarly source published since the opening of archival data, including the research by Ukrainian historians and demographers.

This article is about Holodomor denial. There are some people who think that there was never a famine in Ukraine in the years 1932-1933. That's what this article addresses - there have been people who thought that in 1932, and people who think that today.

This is not an article claiming that Holodomor deniers are denying that the Holodomor was not genocide. Please remove that when you see it in the article.

Also, please avoid condescending language such as "should be avoided" and exclusionary language such as "that is why we have". That does not help anybody.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying I have "read every single modern scholarly source published since the opening of archival data". I am saying that I've read several important ones and none give 7 million. Please quote any scholarly sources to the contrary. As for the existence of "people who deny it to this day" the whole point is that those are marginal. Have you seen any serious source denying the famine? --Irpen 07:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen, you said "Not a single modern scholarly source published since opening of archival data, including the research by Ukrainian historians and demographers, gives a number higher than 3.5 million." How would you know that, if you had not read them?

As to the whole point that people deny this even today, the point is that they are the remnants of a deliberate policy by the Soviet Union to pretend the Holodomor never took place. That is the whole point of the article.

Please feel free to read through the article and find out just what happened.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

As for "how do I know", I know that WW2 was fought with Allied forces and Axis Powers even if I have not read all books published on the topic. Anyway, you can easily prove if I am wrong by producing the scholarly source to the contrary. I cited my sources elsewhere. Yes, there are people who deny famine. But this is now clearly an out-of-mainstream view not supported by any serious scholars. Again, I have not read them all but you can easily prove me wrong by showing any ref to the contrary. --Irpen 07:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, please don't try to confuse the issue more than it already is. This article is about Holodomor denial. I can teach you anything you like about world war 2 later.

There is an extensive reference list at the bottom of the article. Please feel free to follow any links there, and ask if there is anything unclear. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I repeat the question: "please produce a scholarly source published since the opening of the archives that would claim 7 million". --Irpen 07:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

He's right. What's out there, like Kulchitsky (in Den articles), Valinn (2002) and others from peer-reviewed journals all hover around the 3.5m figure. Maybe it's because they have to be conservative about making claims, since they have to back these up with evidence. It's possible that in time the number will shift, but for now the only place one finds the 7m-10m figures are in newspapers, and we know from Duranty's example how accurate those can be.--Riurik 07:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I looked at the writers that you mentioned. Interestingly, Kulchitsky wrote in a newspaper, and Valinn wrote in France. They may be peer-reviewed, but if you want to use newspaper and journals as evidence, then I can provide many which provide the number 7-10 million.

Again, please don't let that confuse the issue. I removed the number from the lead, and will remove the tag, also.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Then you should have noticed that Kulchytsky published not only in newspapers, but also in peer-reviewed journals. Where one publishes needs to be complemented with who one is; arguably, Kulchytsky's training and specialization places him above the "experts" at the Ukrainian Weekly, the New York Times, or BBC.

What does writing in France have to do with verifiability criteria as specified in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability? The Valline (2002) article is from Population Studies - a journal published by London School of Economics, UK.

My take on the issue is that we should be focusing against fighting attacks from Stalin's apologists who are trying to excuse the famine on anything, but the government. The sources out there back this position, and it is the responsibility of every editor who cares about this issue that the Holodomor entry is well sourced, balanced, and monitored against these trolls.--Riurik 02:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, before this gets too far, I think that we are getting away from the focus of this article. I think that this should focus on everything and everybody who claimed or claims that there was no Holodomor.

People died. Horribly. yet some claim that they did not.

The reason I removed the tags is that everything in the article is sourced, quoted, and balanced. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It was a criminal offense to mention the famine in any way

Probably needs to be changed. There was no direct article in the criminal code. Probably another article, like "anti-Soviet propaganda" was justified to suppress any mention of the famine. What does book say. Can we get a quote? --Irpen 07:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Irpen again I am impressed by your knowledge. Now, you know everything about the Soviet Criminal Code throughout history. However, please refer to the section "destruction of archives" above to see why you may not see things in print anymore. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

One of them is obviously Article 58 (RSFSR Penal Code). There were many other articles.Biophys (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Modern criminalizing

Can we get a ref that it is already a criminal offense in Ukraine. Last time I checked, it was still a proposal. TIA, --Irpen 07:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think it has come into law yet. The draft was submitted to the parliament a couple of months ago, but I doubt even Tymoshenko's Rada is that fast. And that is one big fine.

By the way everyone, congratulations for making Top20 on WikiRage.--Riurik 07:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Feels good to be part of something big, no? Horlo (talk) 07:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Above was partially sarcasm, not an accolade. I've yet to make one edit to the actual entry.--Riurik 07:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I was also being sarcastic. I have made a few edits. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, how about proposing the article for DYK, before it's too late? Since Horlo started it (on Christmas Day), maybe he wants to do the nomination? Turgidson (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This excellent article was already proposed for DYK on the 25th. Good work guys! Martintg (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info—I had no idea. Have a Gueuze! Turgidson (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that currently the dyk suggestion is factually incorrect; to my knowledge, the act has not passed yet. Also, it needs to be referenced whatever the new suggestion turns out to be.--Riurik 03:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Alternative dyk

• ...that Walter Duranty, a New York Times journalist, helped Stalin's Soviet Union deny the existence of the artificial famine during the 1930s?

The above is a suggestion that can be adjusted, and has to be referenced in the article. Comments or alternative versions below.--Riurik 03:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Why would we want to single out this person? PS. I am ok with this hook. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

A DYK on this specific topic should not single out one lying reporter such as Duranty. Focusing on the implications of the inaccuracies and denial published by the New York Times is more relevant.

Something like:

The publication in prominent Western newspapers such as the "New York Times" and "The Nation" of inaccurate reports based on Soviet Propaganda denying the terror famine known as the Holodomor in Ukraine in 1932-33 retarded the collection and dispatch of food relief and aid to the starving millions there, which ultimately contributed to the demographic losses.

It may be a bit strong, but it leaves a message that such reports need to be accurate. I think it needs to be condenced however. Bandurist (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the hook has to be "representative" of the entire article. It's supposed to hook a reader to read the entry, hence the choice, but I am by no means glued to it. Bandurist's hook can work, but it is double the size. The hook needs to be under 200characters with spaces included, and the facts mentioned in it need to be referenced. Other alternatives?--Riurik 19:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

How about: DYK Reports that denied the existence of an famine retarded relief efforts and contributed to the death of millions of people from starvation in the the "bread-basket" of Europe. Bandurist (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It's better, but I don't know how to phrase it for the Did you know "that reports that denied the existence"? Plus which reports/reporters?

• ...that the 1932-33 famine in Ukraine was denied by the Soviet Union until 1980s?--Riurik 00:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Bandurist, we are having an unnecessary discussion. There are alternatives available already under the Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_December_25.--Riurik 00:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I personally liked better the emphasis on the recent laws in Ukraine (either passed, or proposed), since I think it's easier to grab people's attention with something in the news, but I could be wrong. Focussing too much on Duranty could be a bit inappropriate, since after all, this is not an article about him (even though he had a considerable role in shaping Western opinion and reaction to the catastrophe, at least initially). So it's a balancing act -- this latest idea of Bandurist sounds promising. I like especially the mention of "bread-basket" of Europe: good hook -- but this angle should then be developed more in the article, too. (Though, incidentally, I think the Wallachian Plain used to compete for the title, and in fact was the bread-basket of Europe in the 1930s.) But "retarded" doesn't sound too good here. Maybe something like: "... reports denying the existence of a terrible famine in Ukraine, the "bread-basket of Europe", delayed relief efforts, and contributed to the death of millions from starvation?" Turgidson (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with either one. The Duranty hook was just a starter; let's scrap that, and go with the "bread-basket" version or the "proposed law" hook.--Riurik 04:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I definitely think we should not be using this article for a DYK, see my comments below. Gatoclass (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever it is we are discussing about denying, for the purposes of this article it is the famine, not "artificial famine". Artificial or not is another topic. (Going back to top of section, catching up.) While I agree with Turgidson's synopsis, I'm really not sure that this is a topic for DYK, it's an open invitation for soapboxing. Better to stick to the topic and develop appropriately. —PētersV (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Duranty section

I have placed a POV notice on the Duranty section. It contains numerous unsourced POV statements, such as that "Duranty acted more like a spokesman for the Soviet government than an independent reporter for a Western newspaper." It misrepresents an (alleged) statement by Duranty that the population of Ukraine/North Caucasus had decreased by seven million by claiming he said that seven million had died from the famine. I also have a problem with journalists being described as "Holodomor deniers". This strikes me as a neologism with an obvious and odious comparison to "Holocaust denier". So the whole section has substantial POV problems in my view. Gatoclass (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact when I think about it, the name of the article itself "Holodomor denial" is POV.

The article also has numerous unsourced or POV statements, so I'm moving the POV template to the top of the article. Gatoclass (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying Walter Duranty was not a Soviet propagandist? I refer you to Walter Duranty#Criticisms for some references to that effect, eg:

The New York Times hired a professor of Russian history to review Duranty's work. That professor, Mark Von Hagen of Columbia University, concluded Mr. Duranty's reports to be unbalanced and uncritical, and they far too often gave voice to Stalinist propaganda. He also said in comments to the press, "For the sake of The New York Times' honor, they should take the prize away". N.Y. Times urged to rescind 1932 Pulitzer

Also note that, in a August 24, 1933 article in NYT, Duranty claimed "any report of a famine is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda", but admitted privately to William Strang (in the British Embassy in Moscow on September 26, 1933) that "it is quite possible that as many as ten million people may have died directly or indirectly from lack of food in the Soviet Union during the past year." At any rate, before jumping to the defense of Walter Duranty, and his role in attempting to cover up (and deny) the Holodomor, I urge you to better familiarize yourself with what happened. Turgidson (talk) 05:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That Duranty was a Soviet propagandist is a sourced statement, and certainly not POV. Ostap 05:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sourced to whom? There is a world of difference between making absolutist statements about somebody, and attributing them to an reliable source. What reliable source has denounced Duranty, specifically, as a "Holodomor denier"? Since the coining of the term itself appears to be very recent (and it seems, by a political faction in Ukraine itself), retrospectively applying the term to journalists from an earlier era is problematic to say the least. If the term is to be applied to figures like Duranty at all, then it must be properly attributed to a reliable source and not made as an absolutist statement in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 05:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In this case, his own record speaks for itself: just read the articles he wrote for the NYT, in which he denied there was a famine in Ukraine at the time. In other words, Duranty (and his own publications in the NYT) provide a reliable source. Or am I missing on Logic 101? Turgidson (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

But, just in case, here's yet another source that confirms all this: "Ukraine: Famine Anniversary Marked Amid Denials":

Ivan Lozovy, a Ukrainian-based political analyst, organized a march in central Kyiv on November 21 to call for Duranty's Pulitzer to be revoked. The Pulitzer committee has ruled it will not revoke the prize, arguing it was awarded for pieces not directly related to the famine. Lozovy and others say Duranty, who openly admired Stalin, helped cover up and perhaps deepen the effects of the Great Famine by failing to report on it. Lozovy says he hopes his campaign will highlight the role that Westerners like Duranty played in allowing the famine to continue unchecked.

I'd say, the case is open-and-shut on Duranty. To the extent that the "NPOV" tag is based on the contention that he was not a Holodomor denier, I think it needs to go — there is absolutely no reason for it, except for WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is no reason to have such a tag. Turgidson (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, what "you'd say" is irrelevant. It's what reliable sources have to say. The fact that the Pulitzer Prize committee has not revoked his Pulitzer is evidence in itself that this is not simply "an open-and-shut" case. Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you bother to read any of those reliable sources you keep incantating about? I do. And here is the NYT's statement about Duranty:

Taking Soviet propaganda at face value this way was completely misleading, as talking with ordinary Russians might have revealed even at the time. Duranty's prize-winning articles quoted not a single one - only Stalin, who forced farmers all over the Soviet Union into collective farms and sent those who resisted to concentration camps. Collectivization was the main cause of a famine that killed millions of people in Ukraine, the Soviet breadbasket, in 1932 and 1933 - two years after Duranty won his prize.

Even then, Duranty dismissed more diligent writers' reports that people were starving. "Conditions are bad, but there is no famine," he wrote in a dispatch from Moscow in March of 1933 describing the "mess" of collectivization. "But - to put it brutally - you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs."

Some of Duranty's editors criticized his reporting as tendentious, but The Times kept him as a correspondent until 1941. Since the 1980's, the paper has been publicly acknowledging his failures.

Why don't you meditate on that a bit, before going on and on rationalizing the actions of this man? And please stop saying I don't bring sources--I brought a whole bunch to this article, and also to this talk page, whereas you brought--zilch, nada, zip. Turgidson (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Conquest and Taylor, whose works are both published by Oxford University Press, both are scholarly sources for him being a denier and propagandist (and yes, the phrase "denying the famine" is used). And the above review of his work says that he "too often gave voice to Stalinist propaganda" ). Ostap 06:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to be on the safe side, though, I agree that we should have more refs on Duranty in that section. If nothing else, because on the article on him, the inline refs are not well done, and some of the links there are actually dead links (I just checked). We should be able to do better in this section here, and then go to the article on Duranty and fix the mess with references there, too, if anyone has the willpower to do it. (I may do it, but not right now, I'm running out of steam with this and some related articles, I need a break...) Turgidson (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are missing on "Logic 101", in all sorts of ways. "Holodomor denier" appears to be a political epithet recently coined by a particular Ukrainian political party. It invites obvious and odious comparison with "Holocaust denier". So it's anything but a neutral term.

Furthermore, the phrase has been termed to apply to Ukrainians denying the holodomor today, when there is an abundance of evidence available for the famine. Applying the phrase retrospectively to journalists reporting 80 years ago is obviously therefore problematic, because it assumes they were in possession of all the same information that is available today and able to see things from a modern perspective.

You say Duranty's own words prove he was a "Holodomor denier" but that is just your opinion. You cannot make an unequivocal statement in an article based on just your opinion. It has to be attributed to reliable source. So if a reliable source has called Duranty a "holodomor denier" you can use that, but the statement must be attributed. If there is no such source, you should not label him as such. At best, the public controversy surrounding Duranty's work should be reproduced here, in an NPOV way, which means not taking sides but just reporting the controversy.

Quite frankly though, I have a problem with Duranty, Fisher et al being referred to at all in this article. The whole article smacks to me of a POV fork, I think at best it should probably confine itself to uses and meaning of the term and leave it at that. Gatoclass (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, OK, it's your problem. As I said, "I don't like it" is not a reason for slapping POV tags. Your interpretation of current Ukrainian politics is not very relevant, or of much interest to me, or to WP. Duranty and other Soviet fellow travellers were recognized at such in the 1930s, no need to wait for the 2000s for that (and, by the way, the Holodomor occurred about 75 years ago, not 80.) And, there is not much controversy left about Duranty, except perhaps on some fringe blogs and such: it is a well-established, documented, and cited fact that he was a Soviet propagandist. Period. You got a problem with that designation? Turgidson (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There are so many sources about Duranty, and all of them tell exactly the same: he knowingly lied in his public presentations/publications, although he knew very well what is going on (as follows from his private/secret statements). If one thinks there are POV problems, please provide any sources that tell something different. If you can not, there are no reasons for POV label.Biophys (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary Russian diplomats and Holodomor denial

I do not understand the relevance of the above section. Where in this interview Viktor Chernomirdin deny the existence of the Holodomor? Bogdan 06:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a point that needs to be addressed. I don't quite know what to say right now -- I did not add that paragraph, but it sounds relevant, though perhaps not directly. (In the meantime, I added another ref, from the BBC, to be on the safe side with backing up this.) Unless a direct quote can be found saying that Chernomirdin denies the Holodomor occurred, I think the section header should be modified. As Roman Serbyn, professor of history and a Ukrainian expert at the University of Quebec in Montreal, says in that BBC article:

Russia opposes designation as genocide, and "the biggest reason is national pride. But also the political and economic consequences... if you recognise a crime you might have to pay compensation".

So how about following this (sourced) tack, instead, and having as section title: "Russian opposition to designation of Holodomor as genocide", as explain more the reasons for that? Turgidson (talk) 06:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Turgidson, although your points are, at best, topical, they do not fall under the scope of "Holodomor Denial is stating that the Holodomor, the great famine of 1932–1933 in Ukraine...never took place". As Horlo put it below, this article is not about labeling the Holodomor as genocide. But instead, about denying that it took place. Which leads me to think, was Viktor Chernomirdin was asked the question "was there a famine in 1932-33?"? If not, then the section is utterly irrelevant. Bogdan 16:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Bogdan -- again, I did not introduce that sub-section, I've just edited it, the best I could, and I am trying to be helpful in addressing your reasonable query. Not more, not less. As to what ultimately happens to this section, why put the burden on me? I say, let's hear more opinions, from the many other editors who worked hard on this article, and then proceed according to consensus. Isn't this how WP is supposed to work? Turgidson (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Another major problem

I note that the final paragraph of the article says the Ukrainian parliament's draft bill proposes to make denial of the famine as an act of genocide an illegal act. So what is holodomor denial exactly - denial of the famine, or denial of the famine as "an act of genocide"? We don't even have a clear definition of the term, let alone a source to attribute it to! This article is IMO nothing more than a POV fork based on a political epithet of uncertain origins. Gatoclass (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The people who deny the famine as an act of genocide try (or may try) to misrepresent the events, to deny the significant number of victims or some other details, etc. Therefore, such material does belong to the article.Biophys (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read before declaring major problems

Hello,

It seems that many editors simply scan parts of the article and imagine problems.

This is an article about denying the fact that the holodomor took place. It is clearly stated in the lead. This is not a term invented by me, Misplaced Pages, but a term that is found here ], here ], here ], and here ].

Many people DID deny that it was happening. A prime example of this was Duranty, who said that there was no famine. If he did not have access to any facts about it, he should not have made any statements about it.

Today, some people still deny it. Please see the section on Tottle. Today, some governments deny it. Please see the section on "modern denial by Russian authorities".

This article clearly states that holodomor denial means denying that there was a famine. THE ARTICLE DOES NOT STATE THAT IT WAS GENOCIDE. That is another issue. The government of Ukraine has passed a law stating that it is now (finally) illegal to state that it wasn't. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT. There is a great link to an article in the Village Voice by some nutcase claiming that the famine was a complete fabrication. THAT IS WHAT THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT.

Please let me know if there is any further reason not to remove the tags. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This article clearly states that holodomor denial means denying that there was a famine.

The problem is that this is your definition, not a definition from a reliable source. I've googled "holodomor denial" and it only comes up with 450 hits, almost all of them it appears basing themselves on Yushchenko's use of the term to describe his new and proposed laws. But Yushchenko is using the term to mean those who deny the holodomor was a genocide, not those who simply deny a famine took place. So the very definition that this article is based upon, is incorrect and qualifies as original research.

Furthermore, since "holodomor denial" appears to refer to genocide deniers, that is clearly a highly controversial take on the events in question that is hotly debated even today. Yet this article is denouncing "holodomor deniers" from 70 years past when the notion itself is not even firmly established as a fact in 2007!

The more I review this debate, the more persuaded I am that this article is nothing more than a POV fork and should be deleted as such. At best, I think it could be renamed "Ukrainian holodomor denial laws" or some such, but then I see little reason why we need a page for that subject alone when last time I looked these issues were already covered at Holodomor. Gatoclass (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Gatoclass did I get it right, you're suggesting Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity published by MacMillan Reference Books is not a reliable source? please read the refs and the notes in the article, the Encyclopedia clearly says on Page 1055 The famine is called "holodomor," which means extermination by starvation, The Soviet Union dismissed all references to the famine as anti-Soviet propaganda. Denial of the famine declined after the Communist Party lost power. But please feel free to list the article for deletion in case you think it is going to make the world a better place. I personally am going to oppose the deletion on the basis of factual notability and being a separate subject from the fact of Holodomor. thanks!--Termer (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The issue is the meaning of the specific term "holodomor denial". This article has been constructed based on the notion that "holodomor denial" means "denial the famine took place". But no reference has been provided to demonstrate the validity of that definition, and in fact a google search indicates the term was first coined by Yushchenko to mean "denial that the famine constituted a genocide," and that that is the meaning of the term. I suggest you read my previous comments again in order to better acquaint yourself with the point at issue here. Gatoclass (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant? Thanks for sharing your opinions Gatoclass. Instead of using and relying on google for reference, may I suggest getting the book called Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity ISBN 0028658493 and taking a closer look what it has to say about the "denial the famine took place". Not that I'm hoping to change your opinion since it seems is predetermined. Just that, so is mine. The only thing, my opinion is backed up with a book, an Encyclopedia actually, yours with googling. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm not going to respond to this, because it's clear you have not understood the points I have already made. I suggest you go and re-read what I posted to Horlo above, carefully. Then perhaps you will be able to address the actual issues here, instead of raising red herrings. Gatoclass (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have read Gatoclass what you had to say and I have nothing to add to my previous response to you either.--Termer (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Tranlation from Soviet archive:

Addendum to the minutes of Politburo No. 93.

RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF PEOPLE'S COMMISSARS OF THE UKRAINIAN SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC AND OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY (BOLSHEVIK) OF UKRAINE ON BLACKLISTING VILLAGES THAT MALICIOUSLY SABOTAGE THE COLLECTION OF GRAIN.

In view of the shameful collapse of grain collection in the more remote regions of Ukraine, the Council of People's Commissars and the Central Committee call upon the oblast executive committees and the oblast committees as well as the raion executive committees and the raion committees: to break up the sabotage of grain collection, which has been organized by kulak and counterrevolutionary elements; to liquidate the resistance of some of the rural communists, who in fact have become the leaders of the sabotage; to eliminate the passivity and complacency toward the saboteurs, incompatible with being a party member; and to ensure, with maximum speed, full and absolute compliance with the plan for grain collection.

The Council of People's Commissars and the Central Committee resolve:

To place the following villages on the black list for overt disruption of the grain collection plan and for malicious sabotage, organized by kulak and counterrevolutionary elements:

1. village of Verbka in Pavlograd raion, Dnepropetrovsk oblast.

...

5. village of Sviatotroitskoe in Troitsk raion, Odessa oblast.

6. village of Peski in Bashtan raion, Odessa oblast.

The following measures should be undertaken with respect to these villages :

1. Immediate cessation of delivery of goods, complete suspension of cooperative and state trade in the villages, and removal of all available goods from cooperative and state stores.

2. Full prohibition of collective farm trade for both collective farms and collective farmers, and for private farmers.

3. Cessation of any sort of credit and demand for early repayment of credit and other financial obligations.

4. Investigation and purge of all sorts of foreign and hostile elements from cooperative and state institutions, to be carried out by organs of the Workers and Peasants Inspectorate.

5. Investigation and purge of collective farms in these villages, with removal of counterrevolutionary elements and organizers of grain collection disruption.

The Council of People's Commissars and the Central Committee call upon all collective and private farmers who are honest and dedicated to Soviet rule to organize all their efforts for a merciless struggle against kulaks and their accomplices in order to: defeat in their villages the kulak sabotage of grain collection; fulfill honestly and conscientiously their grain collection obligations to the Soviet authorities; and strengthen collective farms.

CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNCIL OF PEOPLE'S COMMISSARS OF THE UKRAINIAN SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC - V. CHUBAR'.

SECRETARY OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY (BOLSHEVIK) OF UKRAINE - S. KOSIOR.

6 December 1932.

Bobanni (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

A History of Holodomor Denial

I feel that the placement of the POV notice is a provocation. The article is a brief history of the denial of the Holodomor and related callous comments thrown in this direction. Each paragraph is a condensed snippet of articles dealing with aspects of Holodomor denial. Each paragraph is referenced, giving (primarilly internet) sources for materials from where the paragraph came from.

The term Holodomor denial can be considered an anachronism when applied to these reports, as the term was not in use at that time. Need-less-to say, it is a term that has a specific meaning and as such applies to these sources. The term Holodomor is one of recent derivation (by a writer in Ukraine from the early 90's if I remember correctly). The use of the term denial is also of quite recent usage, as Holodomor studies continue to become more sophisticated and branch out.

As a term of fairly recent creation, and one that was created in another language culture and later ported into English, it is obvious that if you Google it you will only find some 400 or so references. Rest assured within a month or a year it will grow as this whole year has been specifically marked for continual memory of Holomodor victims. This is however, IMHO, on of the strengths of Misplaced Pages, in that topics that are current can be posted and discussed. It should not be a reason for the removal of materials. Most terms are coined after the fact. In this particular case there was a 50-60 year gap.

I do not see a POV in using these terms as there is no misrepresentation of an (alleged) statement.

Gatoclass you state that there are numerous unsourced or POV statements floating around the article. If you could provide a specific list, I will try to sourceeach of them for you.

What is interesting for me in particular is how the process of Holodomore denial has developed, and the methods employed, and by whom and why over the history of the subject to discredit not only the topic but also all those associated with it. Starting with the wholesale denial of the Holodomor period, to the government acknowledgement of the act, then the revisionism associated with the accuracy of number of victims, sources of photographs, and discussion of the territories and ethnic composition, and in more recent times the discussion regarding whether the tragedy accurately or neatly fits the category of genocide (which is also an anachronism because it was coined much later than the Holodomor) and the intentional mixing up of the term genocide denial with holodomor denial.

Maybe a subsection about this would make a worthy addition to the article in the future.

To me what is interesting also is the process and the manner in which we are discussing these specifics and the methods used to supress the message.

What is the future? I read in the Ukrainian newspaper last night that here at the University of Toronto that 2 weeks ago there was another conference about the Holodomor and denial and its mechanisms was one of the sections discussed. Whereas, scholars may debate details over how many died, where they died, implications etc. I feel that the study of the mechanisms of denial and its consequences are more interesting and are more pertinent to the future of society.

The cat is out of the bag. Now comes the process of minimizing the damage - the process of revisionism and the argument of specific minor details. This can only be expected and can be seen in the current statements from the Russian Duma which is deflecting and attacking Holodomor scholarship, minimizing it, while at the same time sirring up IMO hate by such groups as the Eurasian youth union which reportedly threw smoke bombs at the Ukrainian embassy in Moscow in protest against the Holodomor law.

Even this process is important, as it is a process which is defining the Ukrainian people as a separate entity from Russia after many years of being yes men.

The Ukrainian government now officially supports the study of the Holodomor. As a result it has become a hot topic with many studies being written and published. I can envision numerous comparative studies between it and other methods of suppression of Ukrainian culture in particular the termination of Ukrainianization which happened at this time, particularly the brutal manner in which it was done in Russia as described by Serhiychuk. The implications of these terminated policies on Ukrainian art and culture are significant. Bandurist (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Gatoclass, and I quote "What you'd say is irrelevant". The term exists outside Misplaced Pages, and you have not provided any reason to show that this is POV or not neutral. You have stated that you think it's not good.

Therefore, I will be bold and remove the tag. If you can provide evidence that Duranty did not deny the existence of the Holodomor, that the communist party of the Soviet Union did not deny the existence of the Holodomor, or that even today some crazy authors do not deny the existence of the Holodomor, please state that here.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Horlo: that tag is not justified. Gatoclass has not provided any reasonable justification for slapping that POV tag, except his own POV, and lots of hot air, but no references and no sources to back it up, and has shown no willingness to listen to counter-arguments, engage in constructive dialog, or try to build consensus, just WP:IDONTLIKEIT type of stuff, which is not the way WP is supposed to operate, or is it? Turgidson (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

See my reply to Horlo below. Gatoclass (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Horlo, I have provided you with reasons and with specific instances of blatant POV statements. You and your friends have chosen to ignore them.

But for your benefit, I am going to repeat again what I believe is the primary problem with this page. The article begins by defining Holodomor denial thusly:

Holodomor Denial is stating that the Holodomor, the great famine of 1932–1933 in Ukraine (at the time, the Ukrainian SSR, in the Soviet Union), which claimed millions of lives, never took place.

You have not provided a source for this statement - a statement on which the entire existence of the article relies. But if one does a search on Google, one finds a mere 450 hits, almost all of them it seems relating back to statements of Ukrainian PM Yushchenko where it is clear that he uses the term to mean, not denial that the famine occurred (since there is almost no-one who makes such a denial anymore) but denial that the famine constituted a genocide. That is the definition of the term one finds - insofar as a definition of this apparent neologism exists at all.

So, the first problem you have is that you have no source for the leading statement of the article, which is the premise for all the rest of it. In other words, you are proposing an original research definition for your main premise.

The second problem is that if "holodomor denial" really means "denial that the holodomor constituted a genocide", then you have a second very major problem, which is that this is a highly contentious, controversial subject. You not only have Russian parliamentarians denying the holodomor was a genocide, but you also have a split in the academic community about it, with some saying it was and others saying it wasn't.

In other words, the claim that the holodomor was a genocide is far from an established and generally accepted fact. But if one accepts the definition of "holodomor denial" given by Yuschenko and Ukrainian government spokesmen, then the bulk of this article is taken up with absolutist statements about x and y being "holodomor deniers" - that is, genocide deniers - when in fact it's yet to even be generally accepted that a genocide took place! So obviously this entire article has very serious problems, based as it appears to be on an unexamined assumption about the meaning of the term "holodomor denial" at the outset. Gatoclass (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about "holodomor denial"="genocide denial" but about "holodomor denial"="famine denial". Please take your time and read the article and the sources attached to it. Thanks.--Termer (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm perfectly well aware of what the article is about, and that is the whole problem! It's about a definition of the term "holodomor denial" which is contradicted by the available sources. Gatoclass (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Holodomor denial is currently a hot topic in Ukraine. The terms Holodomor denial in Ukrainian is Голодомор заперечення. I put that into Google and got 16,800 hits. Результати 1 – 10 з приблизно 16,800 на запит Голодомор заперечення. In Russian it is "отрицание Голодомора" which will give you 213 ,000 hits. Результати 1 – 10 з приблизно 213,000

Regarding the introduction of the term, the first use is dated back to 2002 in aticles penned by James Mace. Голодомор: заперечення історії. from what I understand he first used the term in 1985 in materials dealing with Stephen Whitcroft from the Australian National University and Mark Trauer. Bandurist (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about a definition, and it is not about a term. It is about a phenomenon of Holodomor denial, as defined by sources. If someone writes an article about Exotoxin, this is article about a protein called "Exotoxin", much less about term "Exotoxin". Same is here.Biophys (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right about that. But where are the sources defining the term? None have been provided. On the other hand, I can provide plenty of sources indicating, as I've said repeatedly above, that the term "holodomor denial" means "denial the famine was a genocide" rather than "denial there was a famine". I would argue however, that once the term is redefined to be consistent with available sources, most of this article becomes redundant because it isn't specifically about genocide deniers. So it would either need to be completely rewritten, or merged into other articles or deleted. Personally I would probably be in favour of a merger with Holodomor, because IMO there won't be much left of this article once the redundant material is removed. Gatoclass (talk) 06:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

In case Gatoclass you think there are or you can cite from published sources any other definitions for the term "holodomor denial", please feel free to add these alternative interpretations to the article. currently the article defines "holodomor denial" according to the encyclopedia listed in the refs as the Denial of the famine.--Termer (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately that supposed citation does not give a definition of the term "Holodomor denial" at all. Gatoclass (talk) 06:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course it does give a definition of the term "Holodomor denial": Page 1055 The famine is called "holodomor" ...The Soviet Union dismissed all references to the famine as anti-Soviet propaganda. Denial of the famine declined after the Communist Party lost power. It can't get more straight forward than that.--Termer (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

PS. or are you suggesting the article should be reamed to "The famine called holodomor denial"?--Termer (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

here is another one for you, according to the resolution of the Communist Party of Ukraine.

After over half a century of denial, in January 1990 the Communist Party of Ukraine adopted a special resolution admitting that the Ukrainian Famine had indeed occurred, cost millions of lives... Century of Genocide: Critical Essays and Eyewitness Accounts - Page 93 ISBN 0415944295.

Now, since you're after "holodomor denial=genocide denial", this suggestion would be only relevant in the countries that have recognized Holodomor as a genocide. I think it's about 15 countries including the US that have passed bills acknowledging Holodomor as an act of genocide. Since the UN or any international organization have not done so, defined holodomor as a genocide, your idea here "holodomor denial=genocide denial" could be pointed out perhaps that in those 15 countries "holodomor denial" would mean genocide denial; internationally and in the rest of the countries it would mean the denial of the famine as such. In case you really would like to be technical about the issue.--Termer (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Termer, but you are making the same fallacious assumption as the creator of this page. You are assuming that since the holodomor was a famine, then holodomor denial must simply mean denial that there was a famine. But unfortunately that is not the case, because it's clear that the term is used to express an entirely different concept, namely denial that the famine constituted a genocide.

The point is, we are not entitled to make assumptions about the meanings of terms on our own cognizance and then write articles based on those assumptions, no matter how self evident those assumptions may appear. We have to stick to what reliable sources say. And since the term's current meaning in public discourse, as employed by the Ukrainian government, is "denial that the famine was a genocide", then that is the definition we should be using. Otherwise, Wiki's definition of the term ends up being at odds with the real world use of the term, and that creates obvious problems of credibility for the encyclopedia as well as doing a disservice to our readership. Gatoclass (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Gatoclass, please don't play that game - everybody is here to create a great encyclopedia and provide information for our readership. The term is used outside the Ukrainian government - I offered four separate examples above, and user:Termer provided a book example above for you.

I agree that there should be another article about the Holodomor being genocide, and its denial as such, but the lead clearly states that Holodomor denial is denying the famine took place. Please read the article, and you will find that to be true, and even examples when it is happening now. Please feel free to remove any references that this states that the Holodomor was genocide, as there is disagreement among some scholars about this, even now.

Thanks, 67.71.177.55 (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Once the point is, we are not entitled to make assumptions about the meanings of terms, why do you keep doing it? Please just stick with the meaning according to the refs in the article or feel free to introduce any other meanings according to any other sources you might be able to come up with. --Termer (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is clear on terminology and scope. If the original article continues to expand and there's a need to separate out further discussion of whether the Holodomor was intentional (genocide), that's not "Holodomor denial" (denial of the existence of the famine), that's "Holodomor as genocide" (discussion of the famine as intentional or once underway, intentionally managed to focus and maximize its killing impact--and therefore genocide). —PētersV (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Application of Tags

Hello,

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the application of tags on Misplaced Pages. According to Misplaced Pages guidelines:

Tags should only be applied as a last resort, after discussion on an article's talk page.

Also, the guideline encourages improvement of the article. Positive contributions which would improve the article.

Also, the guideline encourages editors to include a variety of sources, not just opinions.

The guideline defines "POV pushing" as "the aggressive pushing of ... minor or fringe views".

Please keep these guidelines in mind when trying to apply tags. The discussion does not show an active debate, it shows one editor who doesn't like what this article is about.

If there are no serious arguments against, I will remove the tags again.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed! The facts are clear, the denial of the famine by the Soviet authorities lasted until 1990 when the Communist Party of Ukraine adopted the resolution admitting that the Ukrainian Famine had indeed occurred. There is nothing unneutral about that. the fact that 15 countries have defined Holodomor as genocide and the rest have not. Meaning where, in what countries exactly Holodomor denial would be "genocide denial" is a separate issue that could be addressed in article more in detail perhaps but again, it's not going to make the article any more or less neutral.--Termer (talk) 07:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. Good analysis of the guidelines, Horlo. Too many times I hear the words "POV pushing" bandyed about, with not much justification, or logic, or backup with references — merely as an "I don't like it" put in other words, but in such a fashion as to cast doubt on the work of other editors (in this case, the ones backed up by sources and references!). If you want to learn more about this phenomenon, I recommend the essay Misplaced Pages:The Truth—it's quite good, I think. Turgidson (talk) 07:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't play this game. You know very well there is a dispute going on here, that is not simply related to minor fixes. WP:NPOVD says (I quote):

Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed.

It is bad form, and discourteous, to remove disputed tags as though the opinion of the disputer(s) was of no consequence. There may be times when removal of a disputed tag is appropriate - for example when you have an unreasonable editor who clearly is not trying to resolve issues on the talk page - but that is clearly not the case here. So please, don't do it. Gatoclass (talk) 11:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is a consensus here. All people who really worked with that article including me believe that POV tag with regard to Duranty is not justified.Biophys (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I support the removal of the tag. The arguments for placing it there are IMO not supported. Bandurist (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it quite remarkable that so many editors are apparently obsessed with removal of the tag rather than trying to resolve the issues that led to the placement of the tag in the first place. Your proposal for removal of the tag is tantamount to asserting that my arguments have no substance, and yet most of you haven't even attempted a response to the arguments I have raised, and you still aren't responding to them. I'm afraid this looks very much like a bunch of editors using their numbers to get their way, without first engaging in the very processes that are intended to be used to reach consensus. So I'm afraid these arguments that a "consensus" has been reached ring rather hollow, and will continue to do so until you actually start discussing the issues. Gatoclass (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Gatoclass, it seems that there is a consensus here. You repeatedly add a tag - which was originally even for one section, and then you decided that the entire article was bad - and don't offer any reason besides "this smacks to me of a POV fork". Please read the article and see what it is about, don't assume that you know what it is about. Everybody besides you thinks that the tag should be removed. So it will be removed. Thanks, 67.71.177.55 (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If you think the only argument I have raised here is "this smacks to me of a POV fork" then I'm afraid you haven't been paying attention. But then, that seems to be par for the course around here. Gatoclass (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the argument that you have put forth is that the term "holodomor denial" either means "the holodomor wasn't genocide" or "you invented the term holodomor denial". Neither of these statements are true, but you seem to be ignoring all of the information, put forth by various editors. Those two points have been addressed, and the article focusses on the fact that for a very long time, the soviet government said that there was no famine. Duranty said that there was no famine. Even today, some crazy people say that there was no famine. User:Bandurist gave you a reference dating back to 2002 when the term was already used in published academic literature, which stated that the term was used as far back as 1985.

Now I see what you mean that not paying attention is par for the course in this discussion.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, for a long time the Soviet Union said there was no famine. No-one is disputing that. The problem is that you are trying to label this denial, and denial by various other individuals and institutions, as holodomor denial when the term does not mean "denial of the holodomor famine". It means denial that the famine was a genocide, according to PM Yuschenko and the Ukrainian government who are the prime promotors of this term.

Furthermore, you should understand that "Holodomor denial" is not a neutral term. To begin with, it invites an obvious and odious comparison to Holocaust denial which is clearly intended by the originators.

And then, as the Misplaced Pages article on Denialism states, Denialism describes the position of governments, business groups, interest groups, or individuals who reject propositions that are strongly supported by scientific or historical evidence...The terms "denialism", "denialist" and "denier" are generally viewed by those so labeled as pejorative since they carry the implication that the person or group denies scientific or historical truths.

So you see "holodomor denial" is a heavily loaded term, implying not only that a Soviet genocide of Ukrainians in the famine is an established "historical truth", but also that those who deny that it is an established historical truth are discreditable individuals tantamount to holocaust deniers. I mean, you could scarcely get more heavily loaded than that! Which means not only that the content of this article is barely if at all related to the actual meaning of the term, but that the name of the article itself blatantly violates WP:NPOV/Article naming, which states that article names must be neutral and not imply "a viewpoint either for or against a particular issue", which is exactly what this title does, in spades. Gatoclass (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Gatoclass "holodomor denial" is a heavily loaded term, implying not only that a Soviet genocide of Ukrainians... is your opinion. The fact is, holodomor has not been recognized as a Soviet genocide by the most of the coutnries and international organizations in the World. Therefor your construct here it invites an obvious and odious comparison to Holocaust denial has no basis whatsoever.--Termer (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Horlo has taken the words right out from my mouth. The only one who has not paying attention to the facts here as far as I'm concerned is you Gatoclass. I must admit I'm not even getting it what might motivate your strange agenda that could be summed up with "denial of the holodomor denial". Once again, in case you can cite any conflictive perspectives on the subject, please feel free to add these facts to the article according to any published sources out there.--Termer (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

To quote from WP:TRUTH:

However, not everyone is willing to understand The Truth. There are some who will oppose The Truth eternally, and you must be aware of things about them. They will probably try to have a reasoned argument with you. However, per the first characteristic of The Truth, this is logically impossible. Therefore, they must be irrational people, and no purpose is served in interacting with them in any way (although a light scoff may make you feel better) You can safely ignore the people who do this, and continue with your method of repeating the same argument in the face of irrational opposition. The Truth only needs one argument!

Unfortunately, WP:TRUTH is not just a humorous essay—it does reflect very well the reality of many discussions that follow POV-slapping (read: WP:IDONTLIKE) tags. Turgidson (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Horlo, Termer: To try to understand this strange situation (and hopefully, arrive at a solution that would allow this article to move forward), I recommend looking back at the initial edit, where the POV tag was slapped. Two things struck me in the wording there. (1) "It miscontrues an (alleged) statement by Duranty": note how this tries to cast doubt on the statements by Duranty, which are extremely well documented (his columns appeared in The New York Times, for Chrissakes, and are quoted and commented upon in dozens of reliable sources). (2) "I also have a problem with journalists being described as "Holodomor deniers". This strikes me as a neologism with an odious similarity to "Holocaust denier"." Note the use of the word "odious": what's "odious" about saying that Duranty, Fisher, Tottle, etc denied the fact that the Holodomor occurred—an extremely well documented fact? Who exactly is showing a POV here—those bringing up sources (such as the New York Times Statement About 1932 Pulitzer Prize Awarded to Walter Duranty), or those using words such as "odious" at the drop of a hat? Turgidson (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, when I said it was an "odious comparison" I didn't mean that the people who make the comparison are odious. I meant holocaust denial itself is regarded as odious, so that when you draw a parallel between holocaust denial and something else, you are implying that that something else is equally odious. Gatoclass (talk) 04:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not how I read the meaning of odious similarity (again, good ole Logic 101!), but let's agree to disagree on that, and let the reader decide. Turgidson (talk) 04:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. I had no idea the statement was ambiguous until you made your comment above, which is when I realized it could be interpreted more than one way. I would never label someone "odious" for comparing the holodomor with the holocaust, because I think it's a legitimate POV to conclude the famine was a genocide, which is to say there is obviously considerable evidence in support of such a view. We must remember though, that that is only one POV, and that an encyclopedic article must canvas all significant POVs without taking sides. Gatoclass (talk) 11:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That's rich! Please don't lecture me on WP:AGF, willya? Or, if you do, let me know exactly where I supposedly failed to follow that policy, chapter and verse, 'cause I don't buy it. If you had no idea that your statements were ambiguous, that's your problem —assuming good faith does not mean trying to put a better spin on words than the one that's glaringly apparent, especially when taken in the full context of your statements, and the way you keep making them. For example, impugning editor's motives on the basis of their national origin -- if that's not a clear-cut violation of WP:AGF (and a few other core principles of WP), I don't know what is. As far as I am concerned, this is yet again one of those flailing about charges that you've been making right-an-left for a few days, with little or no basis in fact, only to partially backtrack, and try another angle of attack (one of those "manoeuvres" you were talking about, perhaps?). And, oh, by the way, while at it, please do review WP:CIVIL, you may find some useful tidbits in there. Turgidson (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

let me know exactly where I supposedly failed to follow that policy, chapter and verse

Previously, I said to you that I was unaware of the ambiguity in my phrasing and explained what my actual meaning had been, to which you responded That's not how I read the meaning...but let's agree to disagree. In other words "I don't believe you".

You then followed up that comment with:
assuming good faith does not mean trying to put a better spin on words than the one that's glaringly apparent, especially when taken in the full context of your statements.

In other words: "you're a liar".

It appears from your responses to me ever since I took an interest in this page that you are determined to try and make me the issue rather than the arguments I have put forward. You are in short, employing the classic ad hominem line of attack. I would appreciate it if you stopped wasting everyone's time with these tactics and started addressing yourself to the arguments instead. Gatoclass (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Twelve ways

(moved from my talk page)

Why do you keep removing Twelve ways to deny a genocide by branding it as irrelevant. The section only deals with the method used to deny a genocide as determined by Genocide Scholars. Many of these methods are echoed in the article. How do you determine that it is irrelevant. Bobanni (talk) 08:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, please discuss article content in article talk pages.

Second, "Twelve ways" belong to the article Genocide. This article is about Holodomor. In encyclopedia each article speaks strictly on the topic defined by its title. Otherwise we may put the whole world history into a single page. Please rememeber wikipedia is not paper and also it has its own style conventions. `'Míkka>t 17:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all a genocide can be only denied if an event has been recognized as such. Since holodomor is recognized as a genocide only by 15 countries, it is currently a minority view that might deserve it's place in the article. But since the article is about the denial of the famine, not about the denial of a genocide, the list you keep adding is irrelevant.--Termer (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Taking Care

Hello,

If I may, I'd like to clarify a few points again. First, this is an article about Holodomor Denial, which is claiming that the famine never took place. It is my mistake that we didn't include the reference to the origins of this phrase in the lead, but that has now been corrected, and two citations are given there.

This article focuses on denial of the existence of the famine. Every section, mention, quote, and personality mentioned are exclusively about that.

This discussion was complicated by the fact that a few editors - prior to user:Gatoclass - wanted to obfuscate the issue. Throughout this discussion, I have made it very clear that this is an article about the denial of the existence of the famine, not about genocide.

This issue is further complicated by comparison to Holocaust denial. This is a very touchy topic, as nobody really denies that the Holocaust took place anymore, and so the issue of Holocaust denial now focuses on how many millions were slaughtered, and their ethnicity.

However, some modern scholars - even today - deny that the Holodomor did take place. That's what Holodomor denial is. The term may be used differently in Ukraine, but here, the focus is on what is used in English.

There was a tag placed on the article almost immediately after it was started, and the first section in the discussion page is entitled "shame", and includes phrases like "campaigning on the bones of victims". Luckily, that editor seems to have come to terms with the fact that some people deny the existence of the Holodomor, and this article brings that to light.

There is no apologizing or name-calling. Every fact presented is sourced.

I cannot change the fact that the term "denial" is loaded. I cannot change the fact that some people will make connections to Holocaust denial. I cannot change the fact that people did and do deny the fact that the Holodomor took place. That's the price of living in a free country. I can only hope that people who are interested in the topic read the article.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Motion to remove tag

Editor Gatoclass has for the 3rd time placed a tag on the article.

• 1) Initially it was for POV, then
• 2) for deletion and now
• 3) for disputing the information in the article. He has not stated what specific information is under contention nor what his suggestions are regarding its correction. The Duranty material which he objects to was discussed above.

His behaviour IMO demonstrates that he is not interested in making positive contributions to the article, but only in the disruption the development of this article.

In my opinion this is WP:IDONTLIKEIT

I would like to motion that the latest tag be removed. Bandurist (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't stated what my objections are? You've got to be joking. I have now stated them ad nauseam, here and at the AFD page. More importantly, I am now aware that numerous other editors have made the same or very similar objections. So you can no longer argue that it is one lone user who objects to the content at this page. Gatoclass (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Of, for Chrissakes! This sounds like a poor rerun of WP:TRUTH than anything else. Yes, you did talk and talk ad nauseam, but that doesn't mean you actually said something beyond the fact that you don't like the article, or the editors working on it. OK, we got that. Anything else? Turgidson (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

fine, lets call the article the great famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine called Holodomor denial that should be as factual as it can get, since someone totally disputes the factual accuracy of the article. Of course, it might be, the issue here is that the fact of holodomor denial itself is "totallydisputed", meaning we're dealing with the "denial of the holodomor denial". That would explain the desperate moves for the article's deletion and irrational arguments that question even the Ukrainian Communist parties resolution from 1990's that admitted the fact of famine called Holodomor.--Termer (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that you bring up the subject of changing the article name, I'm inclined to think this might be the best approach. It might enable you to retain the bulk of the existing content - which I'm sure would be your primary aim - whilst removing the main concerns that I and others have expressed about the page.

If we take the alternative approach - of giving the correct definition of the term at the outset - then I think that is inevitably going to mean major changes to the content to conform to the new definition. And that is obviously going to be a lot more problematic. Gatoclass (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove the tag. The title and lead are the result of many contributions and those editors have worked out the issues of neutrality and original research. If Gatoclass continues to feel strongly about this then he can always actually contribute a title and text. As with this and every other article in the Misplaced Pages his edit may be accepted as is or reworked and improved or expanded by other editors until they are satisfied they have the best possible article. Eduvalko (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is just not going to work. There are substantive issues here that need to be resolved before this page can move forward, and this is the place to do it. Then we can all get back to something more productive, which I'm sure is what we'd all like. Gatoclass (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Gatoclass I have no idea what are you talking about. As it's the third time the suggestion to change the article name has been brought up . Since there is no factual difference between the lengthier version and the current shorter one, it wouldn't change anything regarding the factual accuracy of the article. Nothing justifies you tagging the well referenced article where facts speak for themselves. Again, in case you are aware of any other pov-s , feel free to add those facts to the article according to published sources. the current tag that questions "factual accuracy" is irrelevant and should be removed. In case you have problems with the facts listed in the article, please feel free to take such claims to the relevant sources. Such as the Communist Party of Ukraine that ended the denial of the famine in Ukraine in the 90s etc.--Termer (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting we adopt that particular alternative. I was suggesting we have a discussion about possible alternatives that might satisfy everyone's concerns. I was thinking of maybe something along the lines of Changing attitutes to the Holodomor or The Holodomor in public discourse. Gatoclass (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Since Stalin started it (whereas the Soviet Union had sought and accepted international aid in prior famines), "Holomodor suppression" (which is, of course, denial where the outside world is concerned) might work.

   I still believe Gatoclass' objections are based on personal interpretation of titles and what the content is. Holodomor in public discourse and changing attitudes toward the Holodomor are quite different topics than its suppression and denial.—PētersV (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

On WP:AGF

Before proceeding to something more constructive, I think we need to clear the air, or else this article will be forever held hostage to someone who does not edit it, just slap tags and AfDs, filibusters on the this talk page, and generally disrupts the editing process, while harassing the editors who actually do the work. So, here is a quote from WP:AGF:

This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary.

Now, in the AfD that Gatoclass initiated, he stated:

Did I ever stop to ponder why so many disagreed with me? Sure I did. And in that regard I couldn't help but notice that all of the editors of the page apart from me appear to be of East European origin, with potential axes to grind against their former Soviet overlords. Just as this AFD is currently accumulating a host of "Keep" votes from Latvians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Hungarians and so on.

Several editors expressed their dismay at this assertion by Gatoclass. For example, K. Lastochka said :

The minute someone invokes someone else's ethnicity or nationality as an "explanation" for their opinions, the person doing the invoking loses every shred of credibility he may have ever had in my eyes. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks this way.

while Ostap R said:

Alright, that Gatoclass guy just lost all of his credibility with that comment. Is he suggesting that anyone who "appears to be of East European origin" should have their opinions discounted? Laughable.

In view of all this, I am asking the other editors: Can we still assume good faith from someone who "cannot help but notice" that editors who disagree with him "appear to be of East European origin", with "potential axes to grind" ? And, I don't care if this was said about Eastern Europe, South Asia, Northern Africa, or the Maritime Provinces. It's just mind-blowing, I think, to have to argue with someone holding such animus against a group of editors, solely based on their (supposed) ethnicity or country of origin. Turgidson (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Still you insist on making me the topic of debate here instead of the article. I am not going to respond to these diversionary tactics. When you are ready to stop slinging mud at other editors and actually start discussing article content, you know where you can find me. Gatoclass (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

To your reference to Eastern European editors, your implication that people who are motivated to learn about their heritage and history and bring it to the electronic age after half a century of suppression behind the Iron Curtain are "grinding axes" is the worst form of intellectual discrimination and derision of reputable editors. You owe an apology. Your "concerns" no longer deserve being addressed. I am tired of ignorant editors using people's heritage as an instrument of insult.

   And since I'm tired of repeating myself on that sad topic of editorial turpitude, you can read my diff here. —PētersV (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems it was you Gatoclass who let the ethnic Genie out using it as an argument against your opponents. Therefore it should be your business to put it back in the lamp I think.--Termer (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• We know that there are a lot of nationalist POV-pushers on Misplaced Pages, and an especially large concentration of them in Eastern Europe. In fact, there have been at least a half dozen arbitration cases on nationalist POV-pushing matters. Just to name a few of the most recent cases: Macedonia, The Troubles, and Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. When a bunch of people who all share a common nationality band together and argue for their own point of view, it's not unreasonable to think they might have something other than Misplaced Pages policy foremost in their thoughts. And I include in this the xenophobic American nationalists on Talk:Waterboarding who are attempting to deny the consensus of everyone in the world except the American right-wing. *** Crotalus *** 22:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

So *** Crotalus *** I don't think labeling your opponents is going to help solving any content issues on WP. Please consider following WP:NPOV instead: The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. --Termer (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

PētersV, Bandurist, Turgidson and rest – am I late? So pure sighs Talk:Holodomor – really misses your “reputable sources” which you sadly forgot to present. So, you moved here and once again tried to exploit WP as a soapbox. – It sad sight. So, as regard your “hard work” on mentioned topic (clear OR) – please look at facts: Header: The events as you stated “great famine of 1932–1933 in Ukraine “ does not take place because – well regarded historian Mr. Kulchitskiy explained it as Holodomor-33 (i.e. 1933) and mentioned as a duration - first half of such 1933. As regarding Soviet denial – as far as I can see they denial mostly referred to anti-soviet propaganda claims rather the facts – so let me cite so “liked” by you Duranty “On the other hand, it cannot be denied that there has been a growing tendency here in recent months to try to cover up or minimize the difficulties--for foreign consumption. The censorship in particular seems unable to realize that the United Stated Department of Commerce, to take a single instance, has efficient representatives in countries bordering on the Soviet Union, who not only collect and carefully sift reports from people visiting Russia, but are able to read accurately between the lines of Soviet newspapers, which those representatives receive a day or two after publication.” Also in foreword of “First Paytiletka results summary ” book issued in 1934 at USSR mentioned about hunger which taken place during it. And also many of same style “between the lines” truth. As regards to the post July 1933 western claims about hunger, aid etc (e.g. Cardinal Innitzer, Archbishop of Vienna and rest campaigns started and result-less ends till 1935) – too late for starved to death– rest was saved by Soviet themselves. As regards to the “Ukrainian Parliament passed a bill branding the Holodomor” there must be mentioned what adopting of such bill was a result of political trade-in between President and Prime-Minister (former rouged opponents - Yuschenko and Yanukovich). Package included preserving some ministerial posts for Yuschenko families neighbor (куми) and provide new extensive responsibility and ability to governed by Prime-Minister Authorities. Initial intent to present Holodomor as genocide of “Ukrainian nations” in this was spoiled by same (pro Prime-Minister) majority in Ukrainian Parliament so they create one more legislative nonsense – “Ukrainian people” – which not relevant for Genocide since “people” is not “nation”.
Cover-up during the famine
problem is that you frequently quotes selectively from source and in desired stiles. As for example – “secret telegram” – but decree; “party and provincial police chefs” – for Ukraine and North Caucasus and not to “police chefs” but to OGPU (policy was under NK of Justice) ; “requiring that Ukrainian peasants” but peasants from Ukraine and North Caucasus; “going north to Russia” – but to other areas and especially from Ukraine and North Caucasus and visa versa; “who allegedly wanted to start a famine scare” – but propaganda against kolhozes and Soviet regime; “over two hundred thousands peasants” Ukrainian OGPU reported about 1950 arrested (including criminals) under this Decree actions; “The secret correspondence” – between Khatayevitch and Molotov taking place in summer 1932 – once again desired citation exluding context. “Out of 9,472 only 3,997 corpses were registered” references on this data appeared at early 90-s but later disappeared since that figures does not correspond with relevant OGPU figures and the positions of persons who sign this document does not relevant to Authorities they represent responsibilities. “Stalin's wife, Nadezhda Allilueva,” - or my dear mr. Robert Conquest – let me allow few words from his “works” (bandurist – I ask you for assistance in translation) Лебединському дитячому центрі 76 дітей, що заразилися сапом від неякісної конини, було розстріляно. Отож, “небажаних” дітей позбувалися за допомогою різних засобів. Повідомлялося також, що деяких топили в баржах на Дніпрі (так робили і з дорослими). And for prominently cited his compatriot by grant consuming Mr. James E. Mace - Her goods consisted of jellied meat, frozen jellied meat" "At the militia, two members of the NKVD went over to her and, instead of taking action against her, they burst out laughing. 'What, what you killed a kulak? Good for you!' And then they let her go."
Early Years
criminal offense to mention the famine – so clever POV OR for anti-soviet propaganda accordingly to 58 of USSR and 57 of Ukrainian SSR article of Criminal Low. “set by the Communist party” – really idiotic-oriented version of story. “Initially, the 1937 Soviet Census” – may be truthfully to mention a before? “government officials in charge of the census received state awards immediately upon the census conclusion” – names please, I knew only one person “nominated” “right historians” but unfortunately he received it well before 1937 census; “final population figures” – there no such figures ever exist - only preliminary, and even before correction and checking for under enumeration. “certainly inflated data” – less then 1.5 % - excellent results even for meny recent conducted censuses. No other censuses were conducted until 1959. – probably forgot about WWII and after war situation in USSR?

“Ukrainian diaspora exerted significant pressure on the media and various governments, including the governments of the United States” – more look like visa-versa – what about Empire of Evil campaign ?

Walter Duranty

Probably the persons who claimed such even does not read his articles in full version – so please do it – and in a whole, but not only desires citates.

As regards to his words “There is no actual starvation or deaths from starvation” – probably you don’t look what he mentioned a whole USSR, and don’t know the fact what actual widespread starvation or deaths at Kharkov region were registered from April-May and beginning of June 1933. Note he wrought his article at end of March.

So what I see here – some known for their POV anti-soviet visions of history wpedian would like to soapboxed a WP and claim what the denying of clear propaganda based wording and figures (like Note from the Library of Congress on the Ukrainian famine: The policy of all-out collectivization instituted by Stalin in 1929 to finance industrialization had a disastrous effect on agricultural productivity. Nevertheless, in 1932 Stalin raised Ukraine's grain procurement quotas by forty-four percent (44%).) are the denial of fact in general – such unclever OR.Jo0doe (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• B-Class Ukraine articles
• High-importance Ukraine articles
• WikiProject Ukraine articles
• Unassessed Soviet Union articles
• Unknown-importance Soviet Union articles
• WikiProject Soviet Union articles