Misplaced Pages

:Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal | Cases

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Paul Siebert (talk | contribs) at 18:36, 10 October 2011 (→Statement by Paul Siebert). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:36, 10 October 2011 by Paul Siebert (talk | contribs) (→Statement by Paul Siebert)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Misplaced Pages Mediation Cabal
ArticleHolodomor
StatusActive
Request date02:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Requesting partyQwyrxian (talk)
Parties involvedPaul Siebert, Lothar von Richthofen, Igny, Volunteer Marek, Vecrumba, Greyhood, The Last Angry Man, Galassi, Lvivske
Mediator(s)User:Steven Zhang, User:Mr. Stradivarius, User:TransporterMan
CommentAgreement gained on ground rules. Requesting opening statements.
Status of mediation:
5%

Current status of the mediation: Re-establish party stances in the dispute and obtain opening statements to ascertain what they want to get out of mediation, and the issues they feel need addressing.

Request details

Where is the dispute?

As far as I know, the dispute is strictly at Holodomor and its talk page

Who is involved?

The list of the users involved. For example:

Note: I (User: Qwyrxian, the editor opening this dispute) am not a party to this dispute. I am involved in this article strictly in an administrative capacity, having fully protected the article on 26 September following an edit war that began on 19 September. Also, I may have missed one or two users, so if there is someone else who believes themselves involved in this present dispute, they can list themselves here. All of the people listed above were involved in either the edit war or the related discussion on the talk page, though if anyone feels they are only peripherally involved, they could be removed from the list. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the dispute?

The current dispute relates to the article's lead. Specifically, there is a dispute as to whether or not the lead should describe the famine as "man-made", whether or not it should be described as a part of the larger Soviet famine occurring at the same time, and whether or not the "relief" parameter of the infobox should be filled in. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What steps have you already taken to try and resolve the dispute?

The cause for this coming to the cabal is that the disputants were "trying" to "resolve" the issue through edit warring. Some discussion has occurred on the talk page both before and after the protection; see Talk:Holodomor#No need in this phrase, Talk:Holodomor#Man-made character and Soviet famine context, Talk: Holodomor#Some changes to the lede., Talk:Holodomor#Graziosi, and Talk:Holodomor#Full protection. In addition, some aspects of this dispute have been discussed at least as far back as last year; see Talk:Holodomor/Archive 15#First sentences and Talk:Holodomor/Archive 14#that occurred during the Soviet famine of 1932–1933 / a part of the Soviet famine of 1932–1933.

What issues needs to be addressed to help resolve the dispute

The debate is quite intricate, and involves a large number of sources. Some editors have accused some of cherry-picking sources, and of creating the appearance of a consensus in sources when one does not exist. There appear to be concerns that some sources, particularly older ones, may themselves not be reliable (that they may be biased, single-POV representations of the event). Much of the dispute seems to be a focus on WP:DUE, rather than a concern with basic facts. If there are other issues, I invite the involved participants to list them as well; however, I do not believe that it will be helpful to turn this into a free-for-all covering every single dispute that has occurred on this article (the talk page archives show quite a number of different concerns have arisen in the article's history). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What can we do to help resolve this issue?

The involved editors need to find a way to sort through all of the information and various POV to agree on a consensus version of the lead. This may require changes to the body of the article as well. It's possible that the editors may benefit by first laying out all of their sources; alternatively, they may want to try to point out those that they feel are the most authoritative. It may be that neither the prior consensus version nor the modified versions of the lead are optimal, and perhaps mediation can help them see alternative wordings that would be acceptable to everyone. Part of the problem is that there are so many editors involved, and many of them appear to be extremely knowledgeable about both the subject matter and Misplaced Pages policies; of course, this is a good thing, but it can sometimes make discussions explode into a dozen different directions with citation not only to real world sources but also a whole variety of Misplaced Pages policies, guidelines, and essays. I hope that a mediator can help organize and focus discussions. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Mediator notes

Notes by Steve Zhang

Opening case. It will take me some time to review the dispute. This is quite a large dispute, so it may be one that I will co-mediate with colleagues of mine. Let's start of with an agreement to ground rules, then we will proceed from there. I would ask for no discussion on the dispute to occur here until we gather an agreement on the ground rules by all parties. Steven Zhang 07:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a note, as a relatively complex case this will be co-mediated by Mr Stradivarius, TransporterMan and myself. Once the case is started, I want to get a breakdown of the current issues that needs to be addressed and we will work on it step by step. We will use a proposals format for discussing the lede section, where we can together discuss potential changes to the lede and compromise until we come to an agreement. So, agreement to ground rules, list of issues to be addressed, and then we will begin. Steven Zhang 22:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Great. Everyone is on board. I want you to all add this to your watchlist, as I will not be providing updates on talk pages anymore. After that, in the discussion section, I want you to each write a brief statement of no more than 250 words. I would like you to answer the following 4 questions.
  1. What are your interests in regards to the Holodomor articles? How did you discover and start editing the article? Do you have any potential conflicts of interest?
  2. What problems you think have caused this dispute to require mediation?
  3. What is your view of the dispute at present, and what issues need to be addressed in this mediation, that would help resolve this dispute amicably? Give a list of issues, if possible.
  4. What do you hope to achieve through mediation?

Remember, keep it focused on content. After that, we will start working on the lede section together through the proposals page. Steven Zhang 20:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Also, can each editor list the timezone they are in next to their signature in the ground rules agreement section. It's more so I can keep some track of when each of you edit, as I am located in Australia (UTC+11). Thanks. Steven Zhang 11:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Notes by Mr Stradivarius

Greetings everyone. Per Steve's request, I am editing in Japan (UTC+9). — Mr. Stradivarius 11:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that an arbitration enforcement thread about The Last Angry Man has been opened by Igny, for remarks on a different page. We should probably keep an eye on this to see how it turns out. — Mr. Stradivarius 04:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Notes by TransporterMan

I've left another note on the page of Galassi asking that he at least let us know if he is going to participate. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Done. TransporterMan (TALK) 15:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

@All parties: I am concerned that looseness in the meanings of terms is partly responsible for this dispute and that there might be a higher degree of agreement if all parties were using the same frame of reference. I have created a chart on a subpage here which I hope categorizes all of the possible causes, Soviet involvements, and purposes of harm at issue in this dispute. I would appreciate it if each party would identify, using the index numbers in the chart which position or positions represent their own beliefs as to what can be proven through reliable sources (the sources should not be identified at this stage). For example, this could be a response:

(Example 1:) @TransporterMan: I believe that position 4E can be supported by reliable sources.

Another example (a variation on the last one):

(Example 2:) @TransporterMan: I believe that position 4E is the right one, but that 4E, 2D, and 1B can all be supported by reliable sources and ought to be included in the lede.

Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Ground rules

  • Please keep all comments focused on the mediation. Proper editing decorum must be maintained, and as such, incivility and personal attacks must not occur, and I reserve the ability to archive, refactor or remove comments of such nature.
  • Try to keep an open mind in the case, and realise that sometimes, you need to give a little to get a little. Mediation is not possible without compromise as well as keeping an open mind.
  • When there are multiple issues that need to be addressed in a dispute (such as this one) only one particular issue or dispute is to be discussed at a time. Discussion that veers off course of the current topic may be archived at my discretion.
  • MedCab is not a formal part of the dispute resolution process, and cannot provide binding sanctions. Nevertheless, I ask that everyone involved agree to abide by the outcome of this case.

Please sign just your username below, as well as Agree or Disagree, with four tildes (~~~~) to indicate your agreement or disagreement with the ground rules and your participation in the case. These shouldn't be taken lightly. If you agree to these it is expected you will abide by them.

Agreement by participants to abide by ground rules

Mediation Agenda

The following is a timeline of how we are to progress through mediation. Our progress will be documented through the status bar (at the top) and as we progress, so will it. I'll tick things off the list as we proceed, but once opening statements are complete we will discuss the smallest issue and proceed through resolving the issues at hand one at a time. Steven Zhang 00:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Garner party agreement to ground rules.  Done
Discuss and document current issues that need to be addressed, discussed, and resolved, over the course of the mediation.  Done
Re-establish the party stances in the dispute, obtaining opening statements to ascertain what each party wishes to get out of the mediation, and the issues they feel need addressing.
Initiate discussion on the first issue, discussing issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.
Initiate discussion on the second issue, discussing issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.
Initiate discussion on the third issue (if one exists), discussing issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.
Initiate discussion on the fourth issue (if one exists), discussing issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.
Assess the status of the mediation, as to how the solutions that have been implemented have helped with the status of the article, discuss views with parties as to how the mediation, and status of the articles is progressing.
Re-visit previous issues, discussing alternative solutions, if required.
Discuss the articles with parties, offering advice as to how to better manage disputes in future
Discuss long term options to help keep the article stable, for example agreement to abide by certain rules when editing these articles.
Seek resolution of dispute through party agreement, then close mediation.

Administrative notes

On 26 September, I fully protected the article indefinitely, until such time as the editors can come to a consensus that will stop the edit warring on the lead. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Statement by Paul Siebert

In my opinion, the dispute is focused mostly on the following main points:

  1. (i) Holodomor was a part ("an epicenter", according to some authors) of the Great Soviet famine, or (ii) it was a separate phenomenon unrelated to the concurrent famine in other parts of the USSR.
  2. (i) Holodomor affected primarily major grain producing areas, or (ii) it was a genocide directed against ethnic Ukrainians.
  3. (i) Holodomor was an unexpected result of the Soviet policy of collectivisation, or (ii) it was a deliberately designed and consciously organised famine directed against (Ukrainian) peasantry.
  4. (i) Holodomor was a "man made" famine similar to most other great famines in recent human history, so, instead of describing it as "man made" (which implies some uniqueness), one should explain concrete causes (industrialisation, collectivisation, food requisition, poor weather conditions, infestation of grain), or (ii) it is necessary to specify that it was a "man made" famine, which is its distinctive feature.

In my opinion, the article should make stress on "i"s, although the reservations should be made that significant amount of sources share the "ii"s viewpoints, and some sources advocate a point of view that is a synthesis of both points.
If my description of the subject of the dispute is incorrect, especially, if I described "ii"s incorrectly, please, let me know, and I'll try to fix my description of the subject of the dispute accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could provide cites for the points expressed in the "i's" and "ii's", so that this discussion can be rooted in what has been published in reliable sources. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
At this time, citations aren't required. This is an opening statement asking for opinions of the editors. Additionally, I'd appreciate it if we can not comment in each others sections. There will be time for discussion and debate later. Steven Zhang 22:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  1. My interests in regards to the Holodomor article is to remove political and nationalist bias from this article. In my opinion, that can be achieved by making an emphasis on the peer-reviewed English publications authored by leading historians. I declare that I have no conflicts of interest.
  2. In my opinion, the major problem that have caused this dispute is the desire of some users to represent Hololdomor as a deliberately engineered genocide of ethnic Ukrainians.
  3. The list of the issues is presented above.
  4. During this mediation, I hope to achieve a consensus between all major contributors that, whereas different viewpoints exist on Holodomor, all of them should be represented in the article fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, and the priority should be given to the viewpoints presented in the recent peer-reviewed English sources.
    The need to focus on the recent sources is dictated by the fact that many good books and articles written before so called "archival revolution" (massive release of formerly classified Soviet archival documents) are somewhat outdated now, and many authors re-considered their views of Holodomor during last two decades. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

On TransporterMan's table. I am not sure the table summarises all possible viewpoints. The obvious omissions as as follows:

  1. The discussed event is seen as static. In actuality, serious authors discuss several phases of the famine. Depending on the phase, the situation could be described by 2B, then by 4A, then, probably, 4B, and sometimes even 4C, and, by the end of the famine, 2A.
  2. Similarly, it is hard to give a simple answer about the anti-Ukrainian nature of the famine. The opposition to collectivisation was common for all Soviet peasantry, however, since most grain producing areas in the USSR were populated by either ethnic Russians or ethnic Ukrainians, the peasant resistance in Ukrainian populated areas had assumed national forms, and the government actions, accordingly, became simultaneously anti-peasant and anti-Ukrainian. (Obviously, that specifically anti-Russian actions and nationalist Russian resistance were impossible for an obvious reason: the authorities by no means could the Russian peasantry as some minority, and the peasants didn't see the central authorities as some alien force). Accordingly, the famine in Ukraine, by the moment of its apex was directed against the Ukrainian, both because the major part of Ukrainian peasantry was ethnic Ukrainians, and because the resistance to collectivisation adopted national/nationalist forms.

In summary, it is hard for me to formulate my position based on the table prepared by TransporterMan, because it does not take into account some important nuances.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba

I was writing my own assessment, which I can still complete and provide. However, for the purpose of framing the debate, I’ve responded in a manner which I hope will facilitate comparison and dialog.

At issue are intent, means, and consequence.
(a) Holodomor was a part ("an epicenter", according to some authors) of the Great Soviet famine, and (b) it became a separate phenomenon in the focusing of famine consequences on the Ukrainian people.
(a) Holodomor affected primarily major grain producing areas—Ukraine being the “breadbasket of Europe”, and (b) in being focused on the Ukrainians, in particular, the resultant scale of death became a genocide against the Ukrainian nation.
Elimination of Ukrainian resistance to collectivization started at the top, commencing shortly after its announcement with show trials in 1930 and 1931 followed by the destruction of nationalist-leaning Ukrainian communist leadership in 1932-1933.
(a) The Holodomor was neither an “unexpected result of collectivization” nor was it (b) “deliberately designed and consciously organised famine directed against (Ukrainian) peasantry.” (a) understates and misdirects so-called “expectations” regarding inevitable results of confiscating both grain and food (unrelated to collectivization) while (b) overstates pre-planning versus taking advantage of an opportunity once elimination of Ukrainian nationalism as a prerequisite to achieving collectivization was already (i) a priority and (ii) underway since 1930.
(a) The concrete factors contributing to famine conditions (similar to the prior famine in which the USSR did request—and receive—international aid) were similar to other great famines in recent history, and (b) the focusing and “man-made” amplification of famine upon the Ukrainians (e.g., confiscation of family food stores, not permitting Ukrainians to flee their territory once there was neither grain nor food) made it uniquely “man-made.”
Regarding the chart mentioned below, "5C". Once a deliberate course was taken which included forcibly emptying Ukrainian households of even personal food stores even while grain was exported, whatever natural decrease there was in harvest (the "3C" version) became irrelevant. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Apologies for not answering the questions, briefly:
  • Interest: I discovered Holodomor as one of the many articles editor Jacob Peters was rampaging through back in early 2007. My interest is the historical portrayal of the Soviet legacy. I have no conflict of interest.
  • Locus: The "dispute" is whether or not Stalin facilitated the deaths on a genocidal scale of Ukrainians (in particular, as they were the most resisting of collectivization), or if it was just all a terribly unfortunate confluence of circumstances, after all, there is one documented case in particular where Stalin responded to a personal request for aid. And if there is not incontrovertible archival evidence Stalin planned this all in advance, it logically cannot be intentional, etc. Lastly, the contention by some that this ultimately boils down to just another politicized attempt to smear Russia's image in the post-Soviet era.
  • Issues: Per mine above in apposition to Paul Siebert's which, in my view, could not be more clear in having proposed a false set of choices. Stages, nuances, and claims of biased politicization are informative but not material once the food cupboards of Ukrainian families were being forcibly emptied.
  • Hopes: An article that reputably represents historical circumstances. The evidence of willful action focused upon the Ukrainians, with catastrophic and genocidal results, is voluminous and incontrovertible. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If this might move along definition/resolution of positions (although how I became an apparent spokesperson is still unclear), to Paul Siebert's: "Accordingly, the famine in Ukraine, by the moment of its apex was directed against the Ukrainian, both because the major part of Ukrainian peasantry was ethnic Ukrainians, and because the resistance to collectivisation adopted national/nationalist forms." The meme presented is that "direction" was a confluence of circumstance outside intent with just the ever slightest whiff of victim blaming (Ukrainian nationalist resistance to collectivization). Since we appear to now at least have agreement that circumstances alone concentrated (as opposed to a willful direction) famine suffering upon the Ukrainians, the next step is, from my viewpoint, to establish the use and role of policy targeting Ukrainians (failure to request international aid in stark contrast to prior famine, confiscation of grain, confiscation of family food stores, restriction of movement, shooting children for stealing a handful of grain, etc.) to actively focus and amplify the famine beyond circumstances into a willful genocide conducted against the Ukrainian nation—the elimination of whose nationalism had commenced in tandem with the launch of collectivization. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by The Last Angry Man

  1. What are your interests in regards to the Holodomor articles? How did you discover and start editing the article? Do you have any potential conflicts of interest?
  • My interest lies more in the legacy communism left behind of which Holodomor is a part. The denial of the man made aspects of this genocide has irked me to quite some extent. There are no conflict of interest.
  1. What problems you think have caused this dispute to require mediation?
  • Russian nationalist views and communist apologists who deny the facts of Holodomor, id est, Stalin used it to crush the people.
  1. What is your view of the dispute at present, and what issues need to be addressed in this mediation, that would help resolve this dispute amicably? Give a list of issues, if possible.
  • The dispute is obvious, the removal of the man made aspects of Holodomor, be it the theft of seed grain, the theft of most anything edible in fact, the turning of people back at the borders, the shooting of people trying to leave the area, the denial of the famine to the world at large, and the point blank refusal of Stalin to render aid to the stricken people all point to a deliberate attack on the people of Ukraine, and this view is backed by the majority of reliable sources.
  1. What do you hope to achieve through mediation?
  • An accurate article would be nice.

Regarding the chart I am of the opinion that 5C is the only possible response based on the sources. The harvest was not so bad that the populace would have been unable to feed themselves, the excessive requisitions of grain and specifically taking seed grain was the cause of the famine, the fact that the Soviet Union were exporting grain at the height of Holodomor is proof of this. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Greyhood

Here are my answers for the questions.

  • Interests. I was long aware of the disputes in this area, both on-wiki and off-wiki, but until recently I've avoided participation in such discussions, being just a watcher. Once I've actually read the current Holodomor article more closely, I was bemused by a fact that certain statements there not only are POVish when it comes to history representation, but also are problematic from a purely logical point of view. This spurred my participation in the dispute. My interest is to fix those logical problems, to make the article less-biased and to represent all points of view accurately, fairly and neutrally. I have no conflict of interest here.
  • Basis of dispute. Paul has already named an immediate reason of the dispute. Speaking on a larger scale: unfortunately, there is a political demand and campaigning in Ukraine, supported by some other countries, seeking to present Holodomor as a kind of Holocaust against Ukrainians. This leads to the fact, that much of what was written about Holodomor has a political nature, not a scientific on. What real scientific discussion could be there when Ukraine almost legally prohibited the Holodomor denial (what a joke of an article, by the way, judging by the image captions alone)? So, the topic should be dealt with very carefully.
  • Issues. Again, Paul named the primary issues, and I share his approach to fixing them. "Man-made" should not be used as a black box label, it should be properly clarified; it should be explained what is meant under that characteristic. Among other typical issues related to the subject are the following:
    • 1) The question of controversial victim figures - often the numbers are inflated by including migration, mortality from other causes and estimates of unborn children due to the much lower birth rate. Could be solved by presenting any figures only alongside with the explanation of counting methods.
    • 2) The question whether relief was provided or prohibited by the state. Could be solved by unbiased presentation of available sources.
    • 3) The question of dubious photographs illustrating Holodomor. There are very few, if any, real photographs of the 1932-33 hunger with 100% provenance. There were multiple scandals when Holodomor researchers or activists used the photographs of the Russian famine of 1921 presenting them as Holodomor photographs. Those of the supposed Holodomor photographs, which were not proven to be from 1921 (like the current lead image), were published originally in the books alongside hoax photos. The problem could be solved by making very accurate and extensive captions to such photographs, explaining the problems with provenance, or by not using dubious pictures at all.
  • Hopes. I hope to fix at least the primary issues which led to this dispute, and, if possible, other issues named by me above. I hope also that we will find a good mechanism to collaboratively work on this article (and related ones) in future. GreyHood 12:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • As for the chart, I'm not sure that it fully summarizes all aspects and all options, but 2B is the closest hit in my opinion. GreyHood 12:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Biophys

  • Interests. This is one of the most important and highly publicized events in Soviet history. We need good article about this. No conflict of interest. Actually, I do not even have strong interest in this specific subject, as I already said to Mr. Stradivarius . What concerns me most is the general tendency of discrediting good sources in this subject area, and Holodomor is only one example. I talked already with two participants of this mediation about it .
  • The problems. I never could edit this article because one of the "sides" always refused to accept academic sources on the subject, and in particular the book "The Harvest of Sorrow" by the most prominent western historian of Russia Robert Conquest (a publication by Oxford University Press). This is not a partisan source. The whole book was written specifically on the subject of this article. Of course this "side" did not discard this source completely and directly, but only based on various technicalities. A few years ago it looked like that (see edit summaries) . Now it looks like that: .
  • Current dispute. Looking at the discussion (for example here), it's apparent that instead of using statements made by Conquest himself in his books, this "side" claims that he changed his scientific conclusions. However, Conquest never officially retracted his Holodomor research. To the contrary, he reiterated his position in his more recent books, such as "Reflections on a Ravaged Century".
  • What do you hope to achieve through mediation. Admit that book "The Harvest of Sorrow" by Robert Conquest published by Oxford University Press (and later books by the same historian) can be used as one of major sources for this article. Admit that book itself qualifies as a reliable secondary RS and can be quoted as such. If Conquest changed his position, this must be referenced to a later RS by the same author. Same should be the rule for academic books published by other authors. I hope we can all agree about this. That is realistic. I encourage all sides to use this book.
P.S. I made this comment related to mediation.Biophys (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Category: