Talk:Holodomor denial - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Blindlynx (talk | contribs) at 20:57, 2 April 2023 (→Obvious POV Fork of Holodomor Genocide Question: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:57, 2 April 2023 by Blindlynx (talk | contribs) (→Obvious POV Fork of Holodomor Genocide Question: Reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Holodomor denial article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 6 months

Template:Vital article

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

keep, 15 November 2010 (UTC), see discussion.
keep, 1 January 2008, see discussion.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Ukraine Mid‑importance

	Ukraine portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Soviet Union Mid‑importance

	Soviet Union portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Russia: Science & education / History / Politics and law Low‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the science and education in Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Alternative views Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 26 May 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Denial of the Holodomor to Holodomor denial. The result of the discussion was moved.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 182 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Requested move 26 May 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Denial of the Holodomor → Holodomor denial –

Better fulfils the WP:CRITERIA:

Naturalness: it’s arguably less awkward.
Concision: it’s shorter.
Consistency: with titles Genocide denial and every other article and subcategory of Category:Genocide denial.

WP:COMMONNAME asks us to use the most widely used name in WP:RS’s and this is it. For example, the the LOC subject headings used worldwide in English-language bibliographic cataloguing are Holodomor denial and Holodomor denial literature, and Google Books Ngram shows that this term appears in sources, while the current title is below its threshold for inclusion. —Michael Z. 16:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Support per nomination. Naturalness, concision and WP:CONSISTENT with main title headers of other English Misplaced Pages articles that end with "denial", such as Armenian genocide denial, Bosnian genocide denial or Cambodian genocide denial, all as mentioned. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Support per the above comments. Lugnuts 09:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Support for consistency. Capsulecap 23:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deletion of Douglas Tottle And Modern politics Sections

Douglas Tottle SHOULD have is own section in the Holodomor genocide question page, but not in this one. On page 2, in the introduction of "Fraud, Famine and Fascism: The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitter to Harvard" Tottle states that:

"However, while historians accept that famine occurred in Ukraine in 1932-1933

— as well as in other areas of the USSR — they are still debating the causes, extent and results.

My examination of the campaign and its charges of "Ukrainian genocide”

does not attempt to study the famine in any detailed way.

His book advocates the thesis that the narrative surrounding the holodomor originates in nazi and anti-communist propaganda, that framing it as a genocide is based on false and fabricated evidence. But it isnt a "claim that the Holodomor, a large-scale, man-made famine in Soviet Ukraine from 1932–1933, did not occur" - as stated in the opening of this page. Being there a page about the denial of the ucranian famine, and another about its status as an genocide, Tottle book pertains only to the latter O mutlei (talk) 05:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The same aplies to the Modern politics sections. The Background section states that "the Holodomor has been a point of contention between Russia and Ukraine", and that "The Russian government does not recognize the famine as an act of genocide". So, again it pertains to the genocide question, not denial.

Same with Blinova articles in Sputnik News. She follows the same thesis as Tottle: although there was a famine, it was not a genocide and that the narrative around it was wildly exagerated propaganda. .

To Mironin is also not atributed a claim of denial: "Sigizmund Mironin's "Holodomor in the Rus" argued that the cause of the famine was not Stalin's policies, but rather the chaos engendered by the New Economic Policy". The same with Tkachenko and Mukhin. Yury Mukhin is a notorious supporter of conspiracy theories, but that seems insufficient to estabilish a issue of "Modern politics"

Every topic up until 2.2 Discusses the denial and cover up of the famine. Sections 2.3 and 3. do not.

If both of these belong in this article, "Denial of the Holodomor" should be better defined to encompass both topics. But since there are articles on the "genocide question" and "Holodomor in modern politics", the deletion of these topics (sections 2.3 to 3.2) Seems like thes best solution O mutlei (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The book attributed to Tottle is not a source on the Holodomor. It is an example of genocide propaganda, and part of the subject of this article. So is the above-linked article on Russian state website Sputnik International.

An authoritative secondary source on bibliographic classification, the Library of Congress, uses Tottle as a definitive example for the subject heading “Holodomor denial literature,” which contains “works that diminish the scale and significance of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 or assert that it did not occur.” This is distinct from the subject of “Holodomor denial,” which is “the diminution of the scale and significance of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 or the assertion that it did not occur.” —Michael Z. 18:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mzajac Its not relevant to my point wheter Tottle or Sputnik are credible sources or examples of propaganda. My point is that these are exemples of *denying the holodomor as a genocide* not a denial that it happened. And again this very article we are discussing defines *Denial of the Holodomor* as "the claim that the Holodomor, a large-scale, man-made famine in Soviet Ukraine from 1932–1933, did not occur". These are different things, as evident in the first parts of this article, which deals with soviet cover-ups and denial of the famine itself.

There is another wikipedia article about the claim that the holomodor isnt a genocide - the claim that Tottle and Sputnik make. So I dont see how these sections arent misplaced. If the claim that holomodor isnt a genocide is, in itsel, "holomodor denial" then there isnt an "Holodomor genocide question", just holomodor denial

Also “Holodomor denial literature" are works that comit “Holodomor denial" so I really dont get what your are trying to say with this distinction O mutlei (talk) 05:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Trying to be as clear as possible in explaining my issue:

there are two diferent things:

A= Denial and cover-up of the famine

B= Denial that the Holomodor was intentional, or genocidal in nature

This article defining claim that the Holodomor, a large-scale, man-made famine in Soviet Ukraine from 1932–1933, did not occur"

There is an wikipedia article that deals with A, this one, and another that deals with B, the Holodomor genocide question

This article up until section 2.2 gives exemples and discuss cases of A. Then, from section 2.3 onwards it give examples of B

If both A and B fall under the category of Holomodor Denial, and thus pertain to this article, or if Tottle is a fringe theorist and so a special case of B that constitute denialism, then that should be stated and explained, and so the latter parts and intro of this article should be extensively rewriten O mutlei (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I get what you’re saying. But a reliable secondary source classifies Tottle as Holodomor denial literature, because it comprises “the diminution of the scale and significance of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 or the assertion that it did not occur.” Your A’s and B’s are WP:original research. —Michael Z. 18:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Holodomor Hoax: The Anatomy of a Lie Invented by West's Propaganda Machine and Holodomor Hoax: Joseph Stalin's Crime That Never Took Place

Obvious POV Fork of Holodomor Genocide Question

I think its quite clear. No real need to argue the point. Whatever part of the article can be salvaged can be incorporated in Holodomor genocide question then just redirect. Qayqran (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense. They are two different topics: an academic debate that went on from the 1990s to the 2010s on the one hand, and historical negationist denial epitomized by a genre of Soviet and Russian propaganda on the other, for which the Library of Congress created specific separate subject headings. There is no overlap in the article content. —Michael Z. 21:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The only thing correct in the OP is no real need to argue the point. // Timothy :: talk 21:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

it's clear they're two different things—blindlynx 23:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

They are not two different things. One article discusses different views on whether the Holodomor can be considered a genocide (most scholars think it wasn't, some argue it was even just the result of crop failure), the other one is a POV fork which aims to delegitimize any questioning of the genocide narrative equating it to Holocaust "denialism". Denialism is a deeply loaded word which implies the Holodomor as genocide is fact and those who scholars who argue against it (the majority) are borderline genocide apologists and are basically lying. This article is just a POV fork created for propaganda purposes. Delete and redirect. Qayqran (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Michael You are an administrator on Misplaced Pages. I see you hold strong views on the topic of Ukrainian history and Ukraine in general for which I would ask you to consider abstaining from this topic. Denial of the Holodomor as genocide is not "Soviet propaganda" or "Russian propaganda" it is a mainstream academic current held in the Western world, held by R. W. Davies, Stephen G. Wheatcroft, Michael Ellman, Hiroaki Kuromiya, Robert Conquest, Ronald Grigor Suny, Stephen Kotkin and of course Mark Tauger, among others. Qayqran (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Did you get blocked under another user name, that you show up here with just over a dozen edits to make such specific claims and personal accusations? I suggest we stick to writing about the topic and not about other editors. Denial of the Holodomor as genocide is not an article under discussion. —Michael Z. 15:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Michael Z, no I didn't, but I admit that is a valid point you just made right now. I hadn't fully read the article. Qayqran (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The claim that 'most scholars think it wasn't ' is patently false. This article is not about the scholarly debate of the Holodomor but about the wp:fringe position that it didn't happen at all—either that there wasn't a famine or it wasn't man made—as the article itself puts it 'Negationism of the Holodomor is distinct from the argument that it did not constitute a genocide'. You need to have a better argument that simply asserting your POV—blindlynx 15:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I have to supplement that for clarity. The Library of Congress Subject Heading gives perhaps the best concise definition of Holodomor denial, as “the diminution of the scale and significance of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 or the assertion that it did not occur.” Diminishment of its significance can include the denial that it is a genocide, especially in countries where the Holodomor is recognized as a genocide and where denial of atrocities such as genocides is illegal (e.g., Germany). But such denialism is distinct from the academic debates on what constitutes a genocide. As far as I can see there is little or no overlap between the two, and this proposal we’re discussing by someone that hasn’t bothered to read the articles is spurious. —Michael Z. 15:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Sorry for not being as clear as i could be in my reply—blindlynx 16:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Nothing to apologize for and you were absolutely right. I just want to be clear and open on all of this, because some of these important facts related to the definitions of these subjects have been disputed previously. —Michael Z. 16:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

One question I do have: What about academic positions such as those of Tauger which argue that it was predominantly caused by crop failure? The concept of "Holodomor denial" is certainly a slippery one, considering the definition given to the concept as a man-made and intentional starvation targeting a specific ethnic group. Even though this article excludes the academic debate on this issue, Tauger is technically engaging in Holodomor denial since he denies practically every element which defines the term. In this sense I still see this article as problematic. Wouldn't it just be better to have it as a free standing sub-section of another article?Qayqran (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

2 cents: Misplaced Pages editors shouldn't be performing OR / SYNTH on academic positions (or anything else). If there is SIGCOV of a position in IS RS, then it can be considered for inclusion based on CONSENSUS and criteria such as WEIGHT, but it is important to consider what IS RS state, not what editors think. There can be grey areas, and in contentious subjects I think editors should be all the more careful to let sources speak for themselves, NPOV, and not presented/interpreted in Wikivoice. You have a half penny change coming. // Timothy :: talk 11:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

This article does not accuses Tauger of Holodomor denial. This is a question of WP:WEIGHT Tauger's position is a minor one in Holodomor scholarship and as such is wp:undue—blindlynx 15:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It is very important to point out that the fringe position is that the famine had natural causes. Tauger at no point talks about what caused the crop failure—other scholarship agrees it was caused by collectivization. It seems that you are misunderstanding what type of crop failure he is talking about—blindlynx 17:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the criticism of Tauger is more about his wilfully ignoring the confiscation, denial of seed grain, and forcible isolation that Stalin chose to impose on Ukrainians after a low harvest in fall of 1932, leading to a disaster the following year including the next harvest. Everyone could have been fed, but Stalin knowingly caused the deaths of millions in specific regions. See a letter to the editor by James Mace, esp. the paragraphs following “The work of Mark Tauger began . . . ” —Michael Z. 17:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

In another email posted on the same page, David R. Marples also distinguishes academic research from denialism: “Mark Tauger has focused on primary source materials in Ukraine and his opinions--whether or not one agrees with them--deserve respect. The same cannot be said of the writings of Coplon, Tottle, and others that are based more on Ukrainophobia and polemics than a quest for objective answers.” —Michael Z. 18:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I know, but i'm just talking about that one '91 paper of his here not the responses to it. The key point is he never claims the crop failure or famine had natural causes—blindlynx 20:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources answer your question. Do they name Tauger’s arguments as Holodomor denial? I think no, but if you find other evidence, then we can update these articles.

Your “technically” is an example of WP:original research, and, I think it’s wrong. Holodomor denialism is denial despite the evidence, not good-faith attempts, sound or unsound, to interpret the evidence with academic grounding. —Michael Z. 15:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

In terms of the LOC definition I quoted above, Tauger is not trying to diminish the scale of the Holodomor, he’s trying to determine its scale. That said, there’s a point where academics can be criticized by others for ignoring facts and taking a POV or WP:fringe position. I think Tauger may be near the borderline in this way. —Michael Z. 16:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Michael Z Thank you for your response. I am still troubled by it however since we could turn your argument around in its head to further highlight the problems with this article. You have provided me with a reasonable "definition" of Holodomor denial which excludes academia: Denial is in "bad faith" and is not good faith academic research into the topic. You consider Tauger does not engage in denialism due to him being a good faith bona fide academic even though he concludes there was effectively no "Holodomor" but simply a Soviet famine caused by crop failure. My follow.up question is as follows: Is not your definition of "Holodomor denial" WP:original research and WP:SYNTH created ad hoc for this article? Where are the sources on the basis of which you establish these criteria for inclusion and exclusion?Qayqran (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I was relating and summarizing what the reliable sources say, the ones you can follow because I cited them directly and the ones cited in these articles. I don’t have anything to add. —Michael Z. 19:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

So do we have a single coherent definition of Holodomor denial? Or do we have various sourced definitions? If it involves "diminishing the scale" of the Holodomor, diminishing it from what? From a predefined number of dead? Is an academic questioning intentionality of the Holodomor, as so many do, "denialism"? Is Holodomor Denial a defineable tangible fact or is it something more diffuse anyone can be accused of? I find all this very difficult to hold together from a policy perspective. Qayqran (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

What we have is no consensus to merge these articles.

I think its quite clear. No real need to argue the point. —Michael Z. 20:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Categories: