Talk:Denial of the Holodomor/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Sad sight 2 Constructive help is most welcome 3 The term does exist outside Wikipedia and thus deserves an article 4 Motion to remove tags 5 Kharkiv-> Kiev 6 redirect and merge 7 destruction of archives 8 Annoying tags 8.1 Tags removed 8.2 Motion to remove merge tag 9 New sections 10 Isn't it also the denial that it was a genocide 11 Lead 12 It was a criminal offense to mention the famine in any way 13 Modern criminalizing 14 Alternative dyk 15 Duranty section 16 Contemporary Russian diplomats and Holodomor denial 17 Another major problem 18 Please read before declaring major problems 19 A History of Holodomor Denial 20 Application of Tags 21 Twelve ways 22 Taking Care 23 Motion to remove tag 24 On WP:AGF 24.1 JoOdoe has joined us 25 Tags, tags, are good for your heart 26 Frozen meat of kulaks and sunken barges full of Ukrainian by nationality children 27 Tagging based on title, possible renaming 28 Gatoclass and discussing content 29 Wiki-incident 30 Problems with original research 31 Reliable sources that use the term 32 Article title redux 33 Propaganda 34 Gareth Jones as Holodomor denier 35 Wikilinks to parties voting on the bill 36 Article 36.1 Translation 37 Motion to remove tags 38 I tak dali 38.1 We digress but 39 Other 40 "See also" 41 Gulag picture 42 Reinstate the “Annoying Tags” 43 Remark 44 Tottle 45 Last edits 46 Materials removed by Relata refero without discussion 47 Resources 48 Tags one by one 49 Last deletion 50 Let's have some academic references which debunk the existence of denial of famine, then 51 Tagging abuse 52 Tags one by one ... again 53 Continuing the latest title discussion 54 Sidebar on Duranty 55 A bit of reorg (Soviet Union section) 56 Motion to remove "Neutrality" tag 57 Suggest we table (removal of) tags to conserve energy

[edit] Sad sight

It is a sad sight to see this article being an attempt of Wikipedia 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[1] 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)

Apologies for coming to this discussion and thread late. Stalin did suppress news of the famine. What the outside world saw was denial of famine. Gatoclass didn't like "Holodomor suppression" either. The best that can be done is to set the scope clearly. Irpen would have us believe this is about denialist POVs. No, it's about active denial by Stalin and the Soviet state that a famine was in progress, how that denial was assisted, what its impact was, and then examination (I would expect) of what the contemporary assessment is of that denial. —PētersV (talk) 04:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia.

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)

[edit] The term does exist outside Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia with the proper article.--Molobo (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia "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)

[edit] Kharkiv-> Kiev

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? [2] .--Kuban Cossack 00:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia will probably never get away from.

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Tags removed

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

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Seems to me we've been too occupied in the usual charges/counter-charges of late. For me, at least, the "narrative" might be something like...

1. Very short statement on what information was released in prior famine (1920's) and support of the Soviet Union by the international community at that time;
2. Primary focus is the cut-off of information to the outside by the authorities;
3. The western press, roles in supporting/abetting Soviet position (or not);
4. How those denials at the time of the famine worked themselves forward in:
   1. Western assessments
   2. Soviet assessments
   3. Russian assessments (official and non-official)
   4. Ukrainian assessments (official and non-official) ... this is where we can also mention (but not go on in great detail) about the denial of the Holodomor as genocide issue

... and those assessments can be broken down by whatever timeframes make sense, perhaps: Stalin, post-Stalin, glasnost, post-Soviet, and current situation.

  While this famine (and prior) involved areas other than Ukraine, we should obviously wherever possible note any actions which specifically impacted Ukraine.

  I'm not sure "revisionism" is the right term/focus to use, it's too easily bandied about by those on both sides of the issue. I'd use that only in specific instances where reputable scholarship has specifically described some position as revisionist.

  And I was so hoping to steer clear of controversy this year! —PētersV (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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^(discuss) 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)

[edit] 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^(discuss) 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 Wikipedia: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^(discuss) 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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^(discuss) 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^(discuss) 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^(discuss) 03:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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^(discuss) 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^(discuss) 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^(discuss) 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^(discuss) 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^(discuss) 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)

P.S. Personally, I think "dyk" should be used for positive events and information that make people smile and wonder. There's enough darkness in the world. —PētersV (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is water under the dam, now, but, for the record: It was Piotrus who proposed this article for DYK -- he beat me to the punch by a few days (boy, this guy is quick!) Riurik also seemed to endorse the nomination. We were off to a good start -- lots of energy went into this, starting just after Christmas, and through the New Year. and yes, there were some false starts, and some dead ends, but I think it grew up pretty well, considering the kind of pressure put to spike it. In hindsight, maybe we all should have been better off enjoying the Holiday season, instead of revisiting these dark times, and opening Pandora's box yet again. And, yes, I know, most people don't want to hear about such things -- perhaps for a good reason. It's a human defense mechanism, after all -- like sleeping, and trying to forget. Turgidson (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[Edit conflict] 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)

Seems to me that published reports such as...

"There is no famine or actual starvation nor is there likely to be."

--New York Times, Nov. 15, 1931, page 1

"Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda."

--New York Times, August 23, 1933

... constitute denial. It's a bit disingenuous that, faced with the fact that someone says something did not happen, you ask for a scholarly report that the same someone indeed said something did not happen and specifically labeled it a denial. That is what you are asking for. You're arguing over semantics as if there were some issue. There's not. "A says B did not happen" = "A denies B happened." It's English. —PētersV (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2008 (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)

Interesting reading here [3], best Duranty quote is that a few million dead is "quite unimportant." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vecrumba (talk • contribs) 19:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, the Arnold Beichman piece is already mentioned and quoted in the article, but we could use more from it, for sure. Turgidson (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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 ^що? 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 ^що? 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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, Wikipedia, but a term that is found here [[4]], here [[5]], here [[6]], and here [[7]].

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 [meeting] 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 [party] committees as well as the raion executive committees and the raion [party] 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, 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)

I offered you "Holodomor suppression" and you objected to that perfectly justifiable and supported title as "accusatory." You've offered much information about what it is you don't like, you've nominated the article for deletion, you've insulted editors here based simply on their heritage, you've even turned my personally motivated but objectively informed quest for truth in the post-Soviet era--and that of other individuals here whom I have come to consider as reputable editors--into a personal attack on you. Perhaps you might make more progress being less Gatoclass-centric. (I'm also sick and tired of editors not listening to what other editors say in response to their position and then characterizing all subsequent disagreement with their position as a personal attack.)

  I've already responded that your existing suggestions for pablumizing the current title in fact describe different topics than the one being covered here. —PētersV (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2008 (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 articles 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)

[edit] Application of Tags

Hello,

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the application of tags on Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia 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)

Firstly, I think "holodomor suppression" is an ambiguous term that doesn't really make it clear what the article is about. More importantly though, I think that proposing this as a title highlights what is wrong with "holodomor denial" as a title. You cannot build an encyclopedic article out of what is essentially an accusation, unless it's an accusation about something that is an undisputed fact. For example, there is no serious dispute that the holocaust was a deliberate genocide, and that those who dissent from that finding are practitioners of denialism, hence we have an article on Holocaust denial.

To put it another way, if you adopt an accusatory title like "Holodomor suppression", then you place a very high burden of proof on yourself to demonstrate that the examples you give of suppression are uncontroversial, established facts. Now in the case of the Soviet Union itself, I think it's probably uncontroversial to state that it did indeed attempt to cover up the existence of the famine. But when you start accusing reputable organizations like Time magazine and the NY Times of deliberately suppressing information, then you start running into problems, because you can't really prove they did not simply make honest mistakes based on the information available at the time. Likewise with some of the other examples.

The point I'm trying to make is that it's ultimately to your advantage to adopt a more neutral title, because it considerably lowers the burden of proof and enables you to widen the scope of the discussion to include all possible examples of repression, as well as misreporting etc. But by adopting a title like "holodomor suppression", you immediately place a very high burden of proof on yourself to demonstrate that the examples you provide really are examples of deliberate suppression of information. Gatoclass (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I thought "suppression" would be more neutral, with worries about somehow equating with Holocaust denial. But you, Gatoclass, think it's accusatory. Fine then, we'll stick with denial. I see no reason to title articles with pablum when they discuss serious issues. Stalin suppressed knowledge of the famine--it was denied to the outside world, and unlike earlier famine. That the Times et al. published accounts that famine was not in progress means they participated in that suppression, whether as knowing accomplices or merely dupes--in any case, the result is still suppression.

  Exactly who are you worried about offending with "accusatory" titles? Stalin? He's dead. —PētersV (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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:[8]

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 [9]:

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: [10]

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" [as a result]? 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)

your implication that people who...after half a century of suppression behind the Iron Curtain are "grinding axes" is the worst form of...

Hoist by your own petard. Better luck next time.

You owe an apology

For what? Stating the patently obvious? I don't think so.

Your "concerns" no longer deserve being addressed

And finally we get to the real motivation behind this attack on my character. You just want to exploit this non-issue to give yourself a justification for not having to engage in sincere debate over the content of this page. Well, sorry, but whether you want to participate or not, I'm not planning on going anywhere until the substantive issues at this page have been addressed. Gatoclass (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? My motivation in participating in and editing Wikipedia is to bring nothing but verified facts to light to the outside world. Perhaps you are unaware that Eastern European editors aren't out to "grind axes", they are merely out to bring half a century of lost history to light. That you equate a search for truth (reputably sourced, incontrovertible facts) with "axe grinding" frankly hoists you by your own petard.

   And playing the "patently obvious" personal attacks, etc. card? You're "not going anywhere"? Fine. Then learn to be civil and not fashion yourself into some Joan-of-Arc against the Eastern European editorial rabble.

   What "non-issue" are you talking about? Stalin didn't suppress news of the famine? You didn't insult Eastern European editors?

   Perhaps you might consider participating on a topic where you are better informed and less biased against editors merely because of their heritage. —PētersV (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. At least your motivation for being here is clear, can't even replace the word "victim" with a less accusatory "dead", just remove the word and leave a number (3 million) hanging. There are cases where words like "victim" and "dead" can enlighten our understanding of history. History, sadly, is not pretty and it is not pablum. —PētersV (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S. Gatoclass, from my diff:

• Here [on Wikipedia], "nationalist" is not a term denoting patriotism or love and interest in one's heritage and history, it is a term of derision. Patriotism itself is scorned as an intellectually debased POV affliction and sources are denounced based merely on the surnames of authors.

This would not be resembling you exactly how, at this point? Please spare us the self-righteousness and try some introspection first. —PētersV (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

P.P.P.S. It's not my problem that you've battled editors to lower the number of Stalin's victims, based on reputable sources. That is your battle somewhere else. Leave your stereotypes home when you start to denounce editors for personal attacks which don't exist. —PētersV (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well said, PētersV. Piotrus has suggested invoking the Digwuren general restriction in this case. I find that's a good idea, given the situation, which you summarize in the above. Any thoughts on that? Turgidson (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's really simple. If Gatoclass apologizes that he mistook the participants here for participants elsewhere and takes back his characterizations of axe-grinding and accusations of personal attacks, the conversation can continue. If Gatoclass offers up more self-righteousness about not going away then the Digwuren general restriction would apply as that line has already been crossed. —PētersV (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• That would mean personal apologies to editors on their user talk pages, not some blanket mea culpa. Since Gatoclass has made this out to be personal, then his apologies must be personal too. I'm sick and tired of being accused of having no integrity simply because of my name. —PētersV (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Peter, but I must utterly repudiate your claim that I am the one who "has made this out to be personal". It is not me who initiated the accusations of bad faith or the impugning of motives at this page, and I have been subject to far more personal attacks here than anyone else.

But let me try to set the record straight here. All I initially did - in response to someone's inquiry - was to note the possibility that national or political allegiances can influence how someone perceives a political issue. I regard that as no more than a truism, but you chose to misinterpret this rather banal observation as "discrimination", "derision" and "an insult". When you went on to deny having any "axes to grind" toward the Soviet Union, I drew attention to comments you made in the very same breath that indicate otherwise. This you have now twisted into a claim that I accused you of "having no integrity".

I find it unfortunate that you appear determined to escalate this disagreement with inflated charges at every turn. It may be however that this is due to a genuine misinterpretation of my words and not a calculated strategy of confrontation on your part. If the former, then hopefully we can now put this misunderstanding behind us. If the latter, then that is obviously something only you can choose to change. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, and amen to that. There are few things that irritate me more here at WP than when I see someone engaging in that kind of speech. I simply cannot continue in a discussion with someone who clings to such views, even after that person was notified (repeatedly) as to how repugnant such views are to others. Turgidson (talk) 20:42, 3 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)

Sorry Termer but that is not the case. It was not me who brought up the issue of user motivation, but Turgidson, who asked me what I thought might be motivating my opponents. I simply replied to the question. When someone solicits my opinion on some aspect of their behaviour and I oblige, they have no-one but themselves to blame if they don't like the answer. Gatoclass (talk) 12:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User motivation would be irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what the sources say. And in that sense any Eastern European POV is as valid as any other. Regarding sharing your opinions, as long as it doesn't violate the principle Comment on content, not on the contributor and therefore can't be interpreted as WP:NPA, would be fine.--Termer (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor

Excellent advice, but I could take it a little more seriously if comment...on contributor had not been almost exclusively the modus operandi employed against me ever since I arrived at this page. This entire section was dedicated exclusively to another "comment...on contributor" attack on my character and my motivations for being here.

I am fully in agreement with your timely reminder concerning policy here, and a look back through this talk page will show that I have been pleading with users right from the outset to focus on content and leave the personal stuff out of it. My pleas have almost without exception been ignored. But let me take this opportunity to plead once again with users to get back to discussion on content and leave the personal stuff behind. Gatoclass (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It would definately help to leave the personal stuff behind if you could refer to any published works that would spell it out clearly what exactly are you after here. So far all your opinions have been confusing I think, and that has been the reason your opinions have been ignored. It's not clear what exactly are you talking about and the only way to explain your take on the subject so far would be if it was backed up with the conservative Soviet style communist-Stalinist sources or their symphatisers in the west who denied the existance of the famine in the first place. So once again, please feel free to refer to any published works that would illustrate your position regarding the content, otherwise if it's not becoming clearer what exactly are you talking about, your opinions are going to be ignored I'm afraid. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• We know that there are a lot of nationalist POV-pushers on Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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)

To Crotalus horridus "we know..." -- I will make the same observation as with Gatoclass. If you find anything here that is not a fair representation of a reputable source, please feel free to discuss. Leave your bucket of tar and bag of feathers home. Did you ever consider that if dozens of people of dozens of nationalities say something is so based on reputable sources, that it might actually be the case and merit consideration--that it might be possible that agreement among Eastern European editors is not immediate proof of collusion and cabals. —PētersV (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JoOdoe has joined us

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: Article wording (bold) and facts (Italic)

• 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 to 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.

• About credibility of “scholars”
  

“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 the 1937 Soviet Census?

“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 recently conducted cencuses.

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. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

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)

Joe. You should put this and all the rest of you findings all together and send it to the link title in London so they could publish it. They may even invite you to one of their Sunday sessions to give a presentation. Bandurist (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

JoOdoe: I have very little idea of what you're trying to say—this is too long and confusing. Maybe you can give us the executive summary at some point? But I did follow your suggestion, and clicked on the very first link you provided, here, and this is what I read in the first two paragraphs from Duranty's dispatch:

MOSCOW, Aug. 23. - The excellent harvest about to be gathered shows that any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda. The food shortage which has affected almost the whole population in the last year, and particularly the grain-producing provinces - that is, the Ukraine, North Caucasus, the Lower Volga region - has however, caused heavy loss of life.

To reap this harvest, aid is being given by the Red Army and voluntary workers. But even if the new crop is not fully reaped there will be more than sufficient to cover the nation's food supply for the coming year and to justify the Kremlin's policy of collectivization.

Hmmm... How does this contradict what the vast majority of reliable sources say about Duranty — that he was basically repeating Soviet propaganda? Turgidson (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, JoOdoe, you seem to be having some issues with English. Please try to make your speech as short and clear as possible, otherwise it becomes very difficult to understand you. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Good article narrative is based on multiple sources. JoOdoe, perhaps you could take one thing at a time, such as historian Kulchitskiy indicating famine in the Ukraine existed for only the first part of 1933 -- which you should take up on Holodomor, the topic here is suppression of information of the famine.

As for suppression, Stalin did specifically suppress outside news of the famine (unlike earlier famines). Your contention that the West knew anyway because they were watching borders and "read between the lines" is your personal interpretation of the situation. If one government does not admit to a condition where it requires outside help, outside help cannot be offered, plain and simple. Hoover managed massive amounts of aid to the Soviet Union earlier. It's a far more likely scenario that suppression of information about the famine precluded the possibility of outside aid as had been earlier provided. Reports in the western press, such as those of Duranty, that there was no issue only sealed the case. —PētersV (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Vecrumba - SO POOR citation - you cite my "Kulchitskiy explained it as Holodomor-33" as "Kulchitskiy indicating famine" - so the topic here to "create new history for Ukraine" - as far as I can see a same names of "respected" scholars and same team of Wpedians. You once again would like to mash the date - e.g. August and March - Does anyone proposed aid in March (Of cause, you don`t trust in facts what OGPU was one of Authority which organize aid since January, the February and later food aid Decree for Ukraine does not exist) ? Or probably Soviets handle it (famine) by themselves (badly, poorly but handle). I also can't see any info what most of recponcible for poor distribution of Soviet food aid was imprisoned and later shooted. It's clear one-side history - i.e. propaganda Jo0doe (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Jo0doe (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Jo0doe, we don't seem to be communicating well. I just took one of your contentions and asked for more clarification of it as I understood you had stated it (my Kulchitskiy remark)--and noted that if it dealt with the when and where or other circumstances of the Holodomor itself, that was a better discussion topic for that article. I don't have any agenda or desires regarding any "dates" other than they should reflect what is in reputable sources. If you believe the Holodomor is misrepresented, please feel free to take it up on the Holodomor article. No? —PētersV (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It`s a question here about credibility and NPOV of sources used as reference for many article statements, rather then holodomor itself.Jo0doe (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tags, tags, are good for your heart

Hello,

The issue has been discussed, voted on, deliberated, and the consensus is that it is neither unbalanced nor POV.

If any editor has any specific arguments about this article, please discuss them on this page, rather than adding tags, which will just antagonize every editor who has contributed to the creation of this article.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not true. The consensus was that the article should be kept, not that everything in the article was fine as it was. There is no such consensus as you claim above, and this article needs a lot of work to even come close to meeting WP:NPOV. More academic sources, less editorializing, and fewer citations from fringe Eastern European sources would be good. *** Crotalus *** 08:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Like said, please Gatoclass feel free to follow WP:NPOV and add any possible alternative POV-s to the article according to any published sources. Misuse of tagging such as adding "totallydisputed" to the well referenced article is not going to be tolerated. Thanks for your understanding.--Termer (talk) 07:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you Crotalus is not my sockpuppet :) Gatoclass (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Gatoclass, it would make communication much easier in case you could put things in context. meaning, if you'd look at the timestamp, mine is posted before User:Crotalus horridus and was a response to your edit. Therefore there is no reason to suggest like I was referring to Crotalus horridus as your sockpuppet even though the guys uses the same arguments like you that are not based on facts but on "I don't like it". Again, instead of expressing your dislike against Eastern Europe in general on talk, why don't you guys put your words in action and introduce any new facts to the article that might balance it according to the alternative POV you seem to be supporting? --Termer (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Frozen meat of kulaks and sunken barges full of Ukrainian by nationality children

I agree with Irpen - It is a sad sight to see this article being an attempt of Wikipedia 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.

Sadly, but your (Bandurist, Turgidson, Horlo) stiles of replays is expected – demagogy as is. It is a sad sight what you would like to push in WP desired by you version of history – McHistory based on few books and propaganda films. You would like to have own wider map of Ukrainian SSR in 1933 to put there a “colors of death”, 24 months version Holodomor instead of 6-7 months and prefer many millions instead of demographical assessed figures. You like to have a frozen meat of kulaks and sunken barges full of Ukrainian by nationality children and don’t like facts. You don’t like to belief in saved children, food aid, good harvest in 1933 and bad harvest in 1932 and 1931. Probably better for you to choose an ukr.WP – you can find a lot of same styled topics. Or even better – to add in a current article a new para – a Wpedians who denies a holodomor 1932-33. So I’m first – I deny the existence of private freezers and NKVD in 1933 in Ukrainian SSR. I also not agree what terms Genocide can be used for people who populated the 1933 Ukrainian SSR territory. If you would to feel themselves “occupied” or shorten the whole Ukrainian culture only to bandura – so do it – but WP it’s not right place to do so. WP mostly prefer the facts rather then language by which propaganda was pushed. P.S. Duranty ‘s words - “caused heavy loss of life” “Yet the dearth rate rose during the Winter and early Spring to nearly four times the normal rate” “Conditions have been bad in many sections prior to the harvest” “REPORTERS ARE CURBED” It is generally known, however, that there has been some suffering in Russia, even to the extent of malnutrition in many cases, because of last year's poor harvest.” widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition” – It’s more look like “anti-soviet” propaganda rather then pro-soviet. Jo0doe (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Jo:

You miss one important point. This article is not about what you have described, although what you wrote is somewhat related. You are off-topic. The article specifically deals with the people and governments that denied, and some who continued to deny that the Holodomor took place.

You write:

1) It is a sad sight what you would like to push in WP desired by you version of history – McHistory based on few books and propaganda films. - This has little to do with the topic. Each of the statements made in this article are taken from a variety of specific sources. Everyone of them is referenced. If you have other information, please add it with references.

2)You would like to have own wider map of Ukrainian SSR in 1933 to put there a “colors of death”, 24 months version Holodomor instead of 6-7 months and prefer many millions instead of demographical assessed figures. (You are confusing things by mixing apples with oranges and taking things out of context. The colour map by Carynnyk is not part of this article). Your statement has nothing to do with Holodomor denial. Initially this article did not have the number of people who died. It dealt with Holodomor denial specifically. No one will know exactly how many died. That is not what the article is about. To me the difference between 2.5 million or 10 million is difficult to comprehend. Its the millions of lives that are hard to comprehend. (This is because I haven't got a million dollars, but know you have to work a hell of a long time to earn such a sum.) Is 10 million 4 times as bad as 2.5? Or 2.5 better than 10 million. It's the millions of needless, purposeless deaths that is incomprehensible. Why did they die? "И как усе умрем, в борбе за это" and the eto no longer exists - but I digress.

3)You like to have a frozen meat of kulaks and sunken barges full of Ukrainian by nationality children and don’t like facts. This has nothing to do with Holodomor denial. Your statement, at least the way it is phrases is disgusting and offensive and without fact.

4) You don’t like to belief in saved children, food aid, good harvest in 1933 and bad harvest in 1932 and 1931. This has nothing to do with the topic of Holodomor denial.

5) Probably better for you to choose an ukr.WP – you can find a lot of same styled topics. Or even better – to add in a current article a new para – a Wpedians who denies a holodomor 1932-33. This is a tempting idea. Thank you but that would be own research.

6)So I’m first – I deny the existence of private freezers and NKVD in 1933 in Ukrainian SSR. I don't believe private people had fridges let alone freezers then, but I do think that the NKVD did exist at the time. I don't think howeve, that you will find this statement in this particular article.

7) I also not agree what terms Genocide can be used for people who populated the 1933 Ukrainian SSR territory. This is not what the Holodomor denial article is about.

8) If you would to feel themselves “occupied” or shorten the whole Ukrainian culture only to bandura – so do it – but WP it’s not right place to do so. WP mostly prefer the facts rather then language by which propaganda was pushed. This is not what the article is about. Yes, I do consider myself a specialist in the bandura, bandura music and related artforms. It is what my doctoral dissertation is about - It focuses on the bandura and bandura music, the blind kobzars in the period and the massive changes in living standards from 1926-1934 and the many changes that influenced the players and the music they played. However, where do you see a reference to the [[bandura] in this article on Holodomor denial?

9)P.S. Duranty ‘s words - “caused heavy loss of life” “Yet the dearth rate rose during the Winter and early Spring to nearly four times the normal rate” “Conditions have been bad in many sections prior to the harvest” “REPORTERS ARE CURBED” It is generally known, however, that there has been some suffering in Russia, even to the extent of malnutrition in many cases, because of last year's poor harvest.” widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition” – It’s more look like “anti-soviet” propaganda rather then pro-soviet. According to my interpretation of the sources I have read, Duranty in his press releases denied the fact that the Holodomor, the Famine, took place in Ukraine. He is one person all Holodomor deniers rely on as a source. As a result he is included here in this list of Holodomor deniers. I hope your comprehension of English is better than your prose.Bandurist (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Jo0doe: You still don't make any sense, despite Bandurist's valliant attempts at deconstructing some meaning out of your pamphlet. Please familiarize yourself with what WP is, and what Wikipedia is not. In particular, the fact that WP is not a soapbox, certainly not for the kind of off-the-wall (not to say, offensive) section titles you use on this talk page. Please stick to the point of this article, if you have something concrete to say, and leave the soapboxing out. Thank you for your consideration. -- Turgidson (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Turgidson my respect to you demagogical effort, It’s a sad to know what you do not recognize from first letters so many times cited in article - Dr. James E. Mace (Frozen meat of kulak) and Robert Conquest (barges ). So I put this citation from well known sources and printed in respected publishing houses in order to underline their credibility and NPOV for article topic matter. So my wording for topics is definitely related to article and I stick to the point of this article.
It’s sad to know what Wpedian who contribute to articles related to 1928-1934 about USSR does not knew what NKVD was dismissed in late 1930 and reestablished in 1934. Also I still can’t build up a link between “blind kobzars” and holodomor (now it’s easy to erect any type of monument – even to themselves – but were is the facts???) Also it’s sad to know what person who contribute to the article about famine does not know what the famine is and how it was described in relevant 1930 sources. As regarding – “taken from a variety of specific sources” – most of them has same origin which far from WP:NOT#SOAP propaganda and known for propaganda sources. As an prominent example: Video resources Harvest of Despair Numerous Holodomor videos available - cold war propaganda movies created from pictured in 1914-1922 events. I really can’t understood why you mentioned the dismissing the facts as denied holodomor? Why you mentioned here the describing the current situation in USSR as denying the past event without any reference – the word originated to 1934-35 “there no famine in Russia (USSR)” you interpret as “ denial of Holodomor” ? Why you selectively cite, modify, and invert the facts (see my posting in topic above: hints – put an article wording in one cell and my comments to another row by row) ?Jo0doe (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Joe - you write:

1)Turgidson my respect to you demagogical effort, It’s a sad to know what you do not recognize from first letters so many times cited in article - Dr. James E. Mace (Frozen meat of kulak) and Robert Conquest (barges ). So I put this citation from well known sources and printed in respected publishing houses in order to underline their credibility and NPOV for article topic matter. So my wording for topics is definitely related to article and I stick to the point of this article.

What has this to do ith Holodomor denial?

• - denial of falsified facts mentioned in this article as Holodomor denial.Jo0doe (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

2) It’s sad to know what Wpedian who contribute to articles related to 1928-1934 about USSR does not knew what NKVD was dismissed in late 1930 and reestablished in 1934.

One NKVD for the Soviet Union was establshed in 1934. Before that there was the GPU. However, there were republican NKVD for each of the republic if I remember correctly. Russia had its own and Ukraine had its own.

• It's sad what you are so poor to knew Ukrainian history.Jo0doe (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

3) Also I still can’t build up a link between “blind kobzars” and holodomor (now it’s easy to erect any type of monument – even to themselves – but were is the facts???)

What does this have to do with Holodomore denial? However if you are interested in this area I recomend Solomon Volkov's book "Testimony: The memoirs of Shostakovich" London, 1979 p. 165 which writes about this, but for a more in depth work try Кость Черемський - Повернення традиції - З історії нищення кобзарства - Харків, 1999 (288 с.)which collects all the accounts, articles and reproduces the documents from the DPU (in Ukraine) from the period.

• I carefully examined "documents from the DPU" directly and oops - no "blind kobzars" massacre.Jo0doe (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

4) Also it’s sad to know what person who contribute to the article about famine does not know what the famine is and how it was described in relevant 1930 sources. As regarding – “taken from a variety of specific sources” – most of them has same origin which far from WP:NOT#SOAP propaganda and known for propaganda sources. As an prominent example: Video resources Harvest of Despair Numerous Holodomor videos available - cold war propaganda movies created from pictured in 1914-1922 events.

Yes the film harvest of despair has sections with photographs and film which do not depict the 1932 Famine. Yesterday I was watching a documentary of a Canadian soldier who received a Victoria Cross in WWI . It was obvious that he did not have a film crew following him. The section of the soldiers fighting in the trenches did not include him, the train sequences also did not have him pictured, in fact the only thing in the almost hour long documentary was a grainy b/w passport photo of him and a few hand written letters, yet they put together an hour documentary on a famous Canadian hero. It seems that do not understand the artistic manner in which a documentary is made. The video does have materials of Duranty, and the French premier, and George Bernard Shaw and also and interview with Malcolm Muggeridge discussing the Holodomor famine. Is it relevant. I think it does because it deals with the topic of Holodomor denial.

• So - why not only "materials of Duranty, and the French premier, and George Bernard Shaw and also and interview with Malcolm Muggeridge" Why not mentioned about 1914-1922 origin? Jo0doe (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

5) Why you mentioned here the describing the current situation in USSR as denying the past event without any reference – the word originated to 1934-35 “there no famine in Russia (USSR)” you interpret as “ denial of Holodomor” ?

This I could not understand. You need to rephrase.

• You've cited ""Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda," without referencing what such words reffered cituation in USSR as of 20 of August 1933 and join it together with March 1933 words - to achive disired Jo0doe (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

6) Why you selectively cite, modify, and invert the facts (see my posting in topic above: hints – put an article wording in one cell and my comments to another row by row) ?

This is also difficult to understand, however in the article you can't put everything, and I select things which leave an impact on me. If you are referring to yourself, I think I quoted you accurately. My interpretation may not be exactly your interpretation however. Bandurist (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Once more you use "Ukrainian" instead of "peasants from Ukraine and North Caucasus",

you replace "propaganda against kolkhozes and Soviet regime" with "famine scare" etc etc.

Re: Jo0doe "It’s sad to know what Wpedian who contribute to articles related to 1928-1934 about USSR does not knew what NKVD was dismissed in late 1930 and reestablished in 1934." See, it's this sort of generalization that causes problems. The secret police was under constant evolution, for example, the NKVD of the Russian RFSR disbanded and replaced by that of the USSR. Cheka, OGPU, NKVD, they are all the same secret police organization. You write this as if the secret police was disbanded and didn't exist for the years in question. This makes no sense whatsoever. —PētersV (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Why not use KGB? SVR or FSB? I write what no NKVD at this time but OGPU and milicia which was under NK of Justice - and they was a deffinetely differ organizations before 1934. It's speaks badly for overall credibility of article - too many simplification, manipulation ect. Jo0doe (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yada, yada, yada. See Chronology of Soviet secret police agencies, where the whole alphabet soup of Soviet secret police agencies is explained in all gory detail. But, as Pēters asked, what real difference does it make? As the French say, C'est la même Jeannette autrement coiffée. Maybe there is a Russian saying to that effect, too? Seriously, though, if you see a discrepancy somewhere, why don't just go to the article and correct it, instead of bitching about it here, filling pages and pages with almost impossible to read prose? Just a thought. -- Turgidson (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I can’t correct well “respected scholars” – e.g Mace and Conquest – WP does not expect so.

But at same time appeared a question – does someone from respected scholars will include in their works known for inaccuracy facts (means not only one mistake). I can see in provided by you link existed strange gap between 1923 and 1934 for NKVD – poor sign for authors of this topic. So lets return to the issue – you claim here about denials – and references given in article to mentioned above “respected scholars” does not met WP:NPOV and RS criteria. Jo0doe (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging based on title, possible renaming

The original has been tagged and then retagged by Gatoclass with the comment: "(Well referenced when you don't even have a reference for the article's major premise? I don't think so. Please stop removing tags when you know perfectly well there is a dispute here)"
   Gatoclass' alternate title suggestions (the two I've responded to at least, perhaps I've missed something else) described a different scope than the article here. I offered "suppression" as an alternative for "denial"--I can't speak for the other editors here, but I would not offer a suggestion unless I thought it would find editorial support--which Gatoclass rejected. Gatoclass' notion that it's a deficient title because it is "accusatory" is misplaced, no one can dispute that Stalin suppressed information. (And the article progresses from that as its initial point.)
   If there are legitimate grounds for believing there is any basis for confusion of terms, regardless that the use of Holodomor denial and scope of article are clearly defined, then I would suggest Holodomor suppression as an equally appropriate title and that we should rename to put any-use-of-the-word-"denial" issue to bed.
   Finally, with respect to origins, Stalin was quite aware of the famine, "denial" would be him simply stating it's not happening, "suppression" is taking multiple steps to insure that news does not get out. Thoughts? —PētersV (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

when you don't even have a reference for the article's major premise is a personal opinion. The sources say clearly how exactly the famine was denied and that the famine is called holodomor. The fact that the sources do not cite "Holodomor denial" directly, the point our opponent is referring to has been addressed with the suggestion renaming the article according to the sources the famine called holodomor denial that would fit the sources exactly. Is that really necessary is another question. And I'm not getting it why it has to be said so many times. We're dealing with a clear communication problem here as far as I can tell and until any alternative sources are not provided to illustrate what exactly Gatoclass is talking about, the discussion is going to be useless I'm afraid since it's not clear what exactly the guy is after.--Termer (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, there may be some valid concern that "Holodomor denial" is akin to terminology used to refer to denial of the Holodomor as genocide. If we take this concern at face value without all the rhetoric, I'm suggesting "suppression" is readily supportable and eliminates all potential allegations of confusion. —PētersV (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I am pleased to see that finally someone here is prepared to acknowledge that there may be a problem with the current title. However, I've already given a number of reasons why I think "holodomor suppression" is also inappropriate. I've offered a couple of possible alternatives of my own, but I'm certainly open to further suggestions. Gatoclass (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue has been addressed several times, just that as it seems PētersV , also Gatoclass have missed it. Whether "Holodomor denial" can be translated as Genocide denial depends on the official recognitions of Holodomor as an act of genocide by the international organizations, governments of the world . It can't get more straight forward than that. --Termer (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Holodonor supression could be used for some parts of the article but I have not come across the term in my readings. It does however suggests that the person who who suppressed the information was in control of the information. In that case all the Soviet consul in 1933 in the USA 0=- was he in control of the information or was he told to answer in that manner. What about Tottle and co-travelers and the Stalin Club? There they had access to the information but chose to ignore it and produce their POV's. I don't think the term will do this article justice and I do not think that the disagreement will stop if this is done. I beleive the disagreeemnt is over other things. Bandurist (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't as worried about other disagreements. "Denial" does cover more bases--as you indicate, one needs to have the information in order to suppress it--while one needs no information to deny something. I'm fine with Holodomor denial, and it's fair to say that "suppression" is a subset of "denial."

   So for those keep score, I'm "withdrawing" my possible renaming sugestion. —PētersV (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I understand, the word denial means what it means—denial—and it is used in a wide variety of situations. To take just one example out of zillions, look at the Guardian article on "The denial industry", which presents a theory related to global warming. To view that word as "odious" (which is how Gatoclass presented it in his opening salvo against the article), is simply ludicrous. Now, that does not mean we should not be sensitive to possible misinterpretations, and not define very carefully all the terms used in the lead of the article — to the contrary. But that should be done in an atmosphere of good will, cooperation, and mutual understanding (as PētersV just did, and others, such as Bogdan did on the AfD), not in the antagonistic, aggressive tone certain editors chose as their default mode. -- Turgidson (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Gatoclass, but you keep retagging with, at this point, nothing other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Your objections are based on your worries about readers' perceptions and not about whether titles match the subject matter. Your suggestions for alternate titles have not been reflective of the topic. Now you retag and threaten editors with official action. And you laud yourself as an editor of integrity above my alleged axe-grinding and "personal attacks?" I'm sorry, but you seem hell-bent on making this personal. Have it your way. Remove the tag yourself and make some constructive suggestions that editors here can actually act on (of course, we know you wanted to just delete the whole article, I believe all the votes--and not all people I recognized from my travels, giving the lie to your cabal theory--were keep with one rename). Or we can go the Digwuren route.
  It's your choice, you're the one choosing to get off on the wrong foot and make this all about personalities and axe-grinding, not me. Don't threaten editors, that never ends well. And I'm still waiting for your apology. —PētersV (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

So now adding a tag to an article is a "personal attack", and a proposed referral to AN/I is "threatening editors"? It appears you are indeed intent on inflating this dispute to the greatest possible degree. Well, that's your choice. As for "making constructive suggestions", I am already doing the best I can. Gatoclass (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for Gatoclass' benefit, I have my personal opinion of the Holodomor (which doesn't need to be fully sourced), and my editorial opinion. They are not the same. I've made some edits to the Holodomor article which are still there, some which were reverted (and unfortunately I only had an academic book review of the section of D and W's text in question, so could not dispute).

   Gatoclass, you might consider that you are projecting your personal opinions (Eastern European axe-grinders) on to your editorial sensibilities and justifying escalation on the basis that I (and I suspect others) won't tolerate polemic. —PētersV (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

you might consider that you are projecting your personal opinions

Fine. You might consider the same with regard to your own. But why are we still talking about users? Isn't it time we got back to discussing content? Gatoclass (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

PētersV: It's not just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT (and multiple violations of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, etc, etc), but also, I think, a textbook example of WP:TRUTH. We've been through this grinder for fully 5 days now, and I don't think Gatoclass has done much else at WP in that interval, except attacking this article, and the editors working on it (and by the way, some of these editors work also on other articles—adding content to WP, not just venting hot steam on talk pages). How much longer do we have to put up with this, for crying out loud? Turgidson (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gatoclass and discussing content

I had no intention to get as deeply involved in this. We're still talking about users because you haven't apologized, but your latest tone is an improvement. You've attempted to get the article deleted. You've tagged (more than once) the article with {{Totallydisputed}}, meaning it's all inaccurate (at best). Rather than saying the whole thing sucks, perhaps we can start with your top three objections based on:

• possible key omissions ("cherry picking" is a frequent accusation against the Eastern European non-cabal)?
• sources which are being misrepresented?

Arguments that certain terms feel a certain way to you when they don't to the majority of the editors here are best served at least for the moment by your assuming good faith on the part of editors here and abiding by the consensus. {{Totally-disputed}} tagging does not connote assumption of good faith on your part, I expect the tag to stay off. Let's deal with any specific factual problems first. If you apologize for your uncivil conduct and are prepared to abide by the consensus of editors once factual errors are corrected, we can make progress. If you think the editorial community here is a axe-grinding cabal out to get any opposition (you), I'm just as happy to go to arbitration enforcement over your conduct. Everyone here has better ways to spend their time than indulge spleen venting. —PētersV (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the matter of tag removal up an AN/I. As for arbitration, I think that would be utterly pointless but I would remind you that at arbcom the behaviour of *all* users comes under scrutiny, not just that of the nominated party. Gatoclass (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am also tired of "reminders" about what ArbCom is going to do to me. I have asked you to deal with any issues of fact specifically one by one and you have obviously made up your mind already. I suppose this means you're not apologizing either. This would appear to conclude our dialog here. —PētersV (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree anyone who objects should, rather than just tag, list out what it it that they object to. Please be specific, saying it has serious issues is not really all that helpful. If nobody knows what the problems are, how can any progress be made? Ostap 01:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the tag has returned with nothing but a "please leave the tag in". Same question to TableManners: please list three specific items to address, such as:

• possible omissions

see above, but don't use a demagogy approach Jo0doe (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• sources being misrepresented

see above but don't use a demagogy approach Jo0doe (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Tagging without specifics is not helpful. If you've retagged it at Gatoclass' initiative, he chose to complain officially instead of to respond to my query for specifics, so not helpful there either. Items for correction? —PētersV (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Insertion of a factual accuracy tag without any reasonable explanation is inappropriate.Biophys (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The rules are simple:Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor according to Wikipedia:Citing sources. therefore feel free to tag the article, until no source is provided to back up the tag, it's going to be removed by any editor.--Termer (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• That applies to article content — text, headers, images, etc. If it were applied to tags, it would be impossible to ever apply any tag anywhere. You're being tendentious. *** Crotalus *** 12:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks for sharing your opinions Crotalus. attaching WP:OR to the well referenced article was too far out as was the factual accuracy tag. Please do not hesitate to refer to any published sources that would back up your opinions. Until then, your unsourced edits are going to be challenged by any editors and your opinions are going to be ignored like you have ignored the references and the published sources in the article. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki-incident

Apologies my cold is getting worse and I don't have the energy for diffs. Perhaps someone can craft a more eloquent response than mine posted in response to Gatoclass'. I'm sorry, but after axe-grinding, petard hoisting, then asking when we'll get back to the topic, I don't expect to have an "incident" opened up in response to my request for specific items to be addressed. That demonstrates neither good faith nor integrity. —PētersV (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with original research

This article has serious problems with original research. It starts with the opening sentence, which states "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." Three sources are cited here. The problem is that none of these three actually use the phrase "Holodomor Denial." In fact, there are only a few hundred Google hits for that phrase, and Wikipedia is the top term. This makes me concerned that we're being used to perpetuate a neologism. Many of the hits are blogs, mailing list posts, and otherwise unreliable sources. In contrast, Holocaust denial has over 680,000 hits — more than one thousand times as many as "Holodomor denial" — and many of these are reliable sources (major newspapers, published book references, etc).

Several individuals are mentioned at length, including Walter Duranty and Louis Fischer. However, no source is cited where these individuals have been specifically referred to as "Holodomor deniers." Without such a source, their inclusion here is original research. In contrast, I had no trouble finding reputable sources that, for instance, specifically called Harry Elmer Barnes a Holocaust denier; see, e.g., [16] and [17]. In contrast, only a few Ukranian blogs and websites specifically call Duranty a "Holodomor denier," and these do not qualify as reliable sources. There is no evidence on Google that "Louis Fischer" and "Holodomor denier" have ever been used in conjunction anywhere on the Web, making this inclusion a classic example of original research.

Please with the "classic" WP:OR. There are plenty of references with Louis Fischer and famine and denial. The editorial community has decided to use the name "Holodomor" for the Great Famine in Ukraine. And you suggest that makes it WP:OR to use the term Holodomor denier? Them suggest an alternative. As I said, we can replace every occurrence of Holodomor in WP to make sources and statements non-WP:OR per your contentions, or look for a more constructive solution. If not, then your WP:OR tag will need to come off. Do take the time to respond to the proposed change in word order in the title. —PētersV (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:NOR, original research is prohibited in Wikipedia articles. Per WP:V, any uncited information may be challenged and removed. Unless accurate, specific, and reliable citations can be found, much of the material in here will have to be removed. *** Crotalus *** 12:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

3 days ago I pluged into Google search numbers for the terms:

1) Holodomor denial - Today I got 6,500 hits 2) Famine denial Ukraine - Today I got 45,600 hits Результати 1 – 10 з приблизно 45,600 на запит Famine denial Ukraine. 3) Голодомор заперечення (in Ukrainian) I received 16,800 hits. Today I received 18,600 hits 4) Отрицание Голодомора (in Russian) I received 213,000 hits. Today I received 288,000 hits. The subject Holodomor denial is a current topic of discussion at seminars and symposia. Bandurist (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know where you're getting these thousands of hits from. I did a Google search for the phrase "Holodomor denial" and got only 500-700 hits. And most (though not all) are weblogs and other unreliable sources. Sources written in the Ukranian and Russian languages are problematic because virtually no editors here can read or understand them. Google Books shows no hits for this term. Neither does Google Scholar. *** Crotalus *** 16:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It’s sad to know Bandurist what your not only poorly involved in a topics (history of Soviet Ukraine) you try to contribute, but also has a difficulties with basic searching engine request – hints try to add “ on both side of your words. Jo0doe (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

To Crotalus horridus, Duranty's role for example is well known and not a subject of WP:OR conjecture. Holodomor is only coming into popular use. There's no problem finding reputable materials which discuss Stalin suppressing news of the famine, denying the famine was occurring (as far as the outside world was concerned). Of course a source from a decade ago is not going to call Duranty a Holodomor denier, that doesn't mean the term does not apply now that "Holodomor" has been widely adopted to refer to the Ukrainian famine. And of course there are going to be far more references to Holocaust denial than to any other kind of denial--your contentions regardig numbers of references neither proves nor disproves anything (and appear to be more than just a bit of that WP:OR you're concerned about). To Jo0doe, perhaps you might try focusing your discussion and pick one or two specific items to focus on relative to the topic at hand? (And discussions about the Holodomor itself should not be forked here, they should be conducted at the main article.)
   Specific items? Factual ommissions? Sources misrepresented?

• This article is about "Holodomor denial," a neologism coined by Ukranians for political reasons. If you want Duranty and Fischer included, you'll need a reliable source explicitly calling them Holodomor deniers. *** Crotalus *** 16:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "Famine denier" should do, also. Otherwise you eliminate decades' worth of sources which are completely applicable. Surely you're not suggesting that. As there is a Holodomor article, the title here would need to include Holodomor as well. —PētersV (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course the alternate path is to string substitute "Ukrainian famine" for every occurance of Holodomor in Wikipedia so older sources once again apply according to Crotalus' logic. —PētersV (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    • If the article was moved to Denial of the Holodomor, then that would obviate many of the issues about original research. I still think the sections on Duranty and Fischer are unduly long, but they can be mentioned as long as reliable sources accuse them of denying the famine (or denying that it was deliberate). My primary concern here is about the use of neologisms and the insertion of modern-day, nationalist political rhetoric into what should be an encyclopedia article. There are plenty of reliable sources showing that Stalin deliberately created a famine in the Ukraine, that massive death resulted, and that a lot of people in the West were fooled into believing at the time that this did not happen. (Denial today is limited to a handful of nutcases, but back then there were lots of reasonably sensible people who were fooled. Stalin was a master of propaganda.) *** Crotalus *** 00:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I could not support "Denial of the holodomor" as a title either because it still invokes the phenomenon of denialism and I think that is too much of a POV. If you had a title like that, I think virtually the only valid content would be the Soviet Union's historical denialism in relation to the matter, which I think is a well established and undisputed fact. But when you come to Fischer, Duranty and all the other subjects listed on this page, it immediately becomes a very problematic approach because one is essentially accusing them all of deliberate suppression of information which is only one POV (even if the most plausible one). Gatoclass (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(reindenting) Suppression means not letting the facts out when you know them, denial is simply stating something is not happening. There's really no better word than denial, and the word order has been changed to not follow "denialism" syntax, that is, "X Denial". Denial does not require deliberate suppression of information Duranty or Fischer otherwise knew to be true. I don't see that (a) historical Soviet denialism, (b) how that denialism was aided and abetted (or not) by western journalism, (c) etc.... can't all fit under the same topic. As long as the title doesn't directly mirror denialism of genocide, which was Crotalus' issue, then I think we should be O.K.. An article which has at its root the active suppression of known information carrying a "denial" tag in a title is not too POV. You may not be happy it still conjures up denialism for you, but it should do less so in the new form than the current. If we can agree the proposed title is an improvement perhaps we could agree to move on to addressing the contents. —PētersV (talk) 04:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still think the word "denial" comes with too much baggage. As I've said, I am more than open to suggestions that will satisfy the POVs of both parties, but I don't believe "Denial of the holodomor" will do the job. Gatoclass (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources that use the term

I'm trying to find how many reliable sources actually use the term "Holodomor denial." There are only a couple of hundred Google hits for the phrase. Here's what I've got so far.

• BBC News article discussing Yushchenko's proposal for criminalizing "Holodomor denial"
• President Victor Yushchenko's web site, again discussing criminalization
• Another Yushchenko reference from his web site, same as above
• A few other references on the same issue from official Ukrainian government websites

The overwhelming majority of the article, therefore, constitutes original research. About all we can say about "Holodomor denial" is that it appears to be a neologism recently invented by Ukrainian nationalists, and that the Ukrainian government is trying to criminalize it. *** Crotalus *** 16:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Note also that the previous year the Ukrainian government passed a law declaring the holodomor to be an act of genocide. So when they subsequently propose a law against "holodomor denial", they are in effect proposing a law against genocide denial which is not how this article defines it. Gatoclass (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I am curious as to where you discovered this is a term invented by "Ukrainian nationalists"? Ostap 18:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, this — which, as a non-notable newspaper editorial, is NOT a reliable source — indicates that there is a concerted campaign to brand Duranty a "Holodomor denier." However, this doesn't seem to have achieved much traction. It is not the role of Wikipedia to actively aid nationalist campaigns like this. *** Crotalus *** 16:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If Duranty is a "Ukrainian famine" information suppresser/denier, then he is a "Holodomor" deniers, no? You're confusing an evolution in terminology (Ukrainian famine becomes Holomodor) with attempts to "brand" Duranty. What Duranty said and did is quite clear and well referenced. There's no "branding" required.

  Would it really solve anything to replace every occurrence of "Holodomor" with "Ukrainian famine"? That will solve your WP:RS dilemma. But it would only confuse readers who read the Holodomor article.

  "Suppression" was rejected outright by Gatoclass as "accusatory". Though the shoe certainly fits Stalin and those who assisted. I'm happy to entertain any title suggestions that preserve the focus of the topic--which starts with Stalin suppressing information regarding the famine and denying it as far as the outside world was concerned. —PētersV (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, of course, Holodomor is a relatively recent way the 1932-1933 Great Famine in Ukraine is called, so, as other have pointed, you cannot expect to find all references to "Holodomor denial" by simply googling the term. As just one example, take a look at this page, on a Gareth Jones interview with with Commissar Maxim Litvinov, from March 1933, and note the html title of the page: "litvinov_famine_denia_oldl.htm". From the text: "And as such, from the mouth of Litvinov, is probably the highest level of a famine denial by any Soviet official, as he was arguably second only to Stalin in political power.." I think this is a very relevant and notable example of usage -- after all, Litvinov was one of the first and most vociferous deniers of the Holodomor. But Litvinov didn't call it the Holodomor, so would you leave him out of the article, because of that? Turgidson (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Does "Suppression and denial of the Holomodor" work for you [Crotalus]? "Suppression and denial of the Ukrainian famine?" I appreciate your concern, but there aren't a lot of options. —PētersV (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

PētersV -- I didn't have a chance to comment yet on that "suppression" proposal, but let me do it now: I don't think it works in this context. Indeed, there is suppression of dissent, but that was not what this was: after all, the Soviets didn't suppress the famine -- if nothing else, they exacerbated it, by various policies. They did suppress the news about it, and sent people to the Gulag for even talking about it (as mentioned in the article): but would that meaning come through by using "Suppression [..] of the Ukrainian famine?" The other standard meaning of suppression is like in the "suppression of the Boxer Rebellion", or, "the suppression of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956". But then again, this is not what happened here -- if there had been, say, a peasant rebellion in Ukraine during the Holodomor, and the Soviets had suppressed it, then this would be a workable title. But, as far as I know, there was no organized resistance to the Soviets in 1932-1933 in Ukraine. At any rate, I don't want to get too long-winded, let me know what you think so far, and I will clarify further if needed (and if I can). Turgidson (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Alas, now that you bring it up, I can see where there's a wording problem with suppression of... as it's actually "suppression of news of the famine" not suppression acting upon the famine itself. We would seem to be back to denial, in which case "Denial of the Holodomor" might be an allegedly less "loaded" version of "Holodomor denial." We need to get unstuck. —PētersV (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Precisely -- glad you see my point, Pēters. "Suppression of news of the famine" (or some such) would work pretty well, if we were to confine ourselves to the 1930s, and to mentioning Kalinin, Litvinov, Skvirsky, Duranty, Fischer, etc (plus some of the attendant useful idiots of the time). But the article, as now conceived (after a rather rocky evolution process), is broader in scope, and gets us to the modern era, of Tottle, Coplon, the Stalin Society, etc. And, in this context, it's clearly no longer a matter of trying to suppress the news of the famine (how could they?), but of simply denying the famine (and also, obfuscating its meaning, its scope, its causes, etc). "Denial of the Holodomor", though less snappy and concise, may still work, why not? Turgidson (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

One thing remain unclear - does Smart Mr. Jones meet with Litvinov in March ( and does he even entred USSR after Im Januar und Februar 1933 berichtete Jones als Journalist vom Aufstieg Adolf Hitlers zum Reichskanzler. 23 февраля 1933 г. Политбюро ЦК ВКП(б) приняло постановление «О поездках по СССР иностранных корреспондентов». Установили порядок, «в соответствии с которым они могут ездить по СССР и находиться в определенных пунктах только получив разрешение Главного управления милиции». Jo0doe (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Jo0doe, this is English Wikipedia -- I have no idea what you're saying. And please use a more dignified tone when referring to Gareth Jones -- why do you attack him with those sneery comments? Turgidson (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the issue, Jo0doe? Yes, foreign corresponded travel within the USSR was curtailed by the February 23, 1922 order. Orders curtailing travel don't mean travel can't occur (especially if the Soviet state wants to put some official word out). —PētersV (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article title redux

I'm still waiting for specifics. So far you've indicated "Holodomor denial" sounds like something else. Proposed solutions? You maintain the article is WP:OR and tagged it. Your insisting a source must say "Holodomor denier" and that "Ukrainian famine denier" is insufficient (and to us them interchangeably is WP:OR or at least a violation of WP:RS) I think is misplaced and from my vantage point a bit of red herring.
  Do you have anything specific relative to the content itself? —PētersV (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Dialog would be you express your concerns on WP:OR, I respond where I believe you are mistaken in what you believe are requirements in use of terminology, and you respond to my points. Tagging and not responding is not dialog. —PētersV (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

How are you with Denial of the Holodomor to replace Holodomor denial? I believe that addresses your neologism concerns. (One at a time.) —PētersV (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That works for me. I think it would be a better title for the page. *** Crotalus *** 00:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Thoughts from the other editors? I'm in favor. —PētersV (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said somewhere above, Denial of the Holodomor is fine with me, too (even if slightly more stilted, it could be slightly more correct English, though it's hard to tell -- both constructs are grammatically correct, though). And, if this is what it takes to get back on track and fine-tuning and improving the article (up to GA level? would that be possible?), I'd say let's go for it. Turgidson (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me or would the in front of Holodomor be really necessary? I mean grammatically, since Holodomor is the name of the famine, Denial of Holodomor should do just fine. Otherwise it feels like there are multiple Holodomors and this one is about the Holodomor. Not that I'm getting it what kind of difference would it make and why exactly Crotalus thinks it would be a better title? but never mind this, anything is better than unreasonable tagging or renaming the article exactly according to the provided sources The famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine called Holodomor denial or Denial of the famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine called Holodomor etc..--Termer (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, "the Holodomor" is how it's referred to in English grammar, having "the" makes it more readable and observes proper usage. I think Crotalus' (valid) point is to name the article something that is less easy to confuse with denial of the Holodomor as famine. —PētersV (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also support the rename. Someone should do it. Ostap 04:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Termer: good question, I've also been puzzled at times whether to call it "the Holodomor", or "Holodomor" in various instances. English is funny with these things, and there are no iron-clad rules, except in some clear-cut situations. Eg,it used to be "the Ukraine" in the old days, but that has changed to simply Ukraine (also, "the Sudan" has changed to simply "Sudan")--but that's another discussion, and there are sound reasons for that. In this precise situation (which I doubt is discussed in dictionaries, though I could be wrong), I think Pēters is right, "Denial of the Holodomor" would be the preferred way (or, of course, "Holodomor denial"). To check a bit for usage (not necessarily with Holodomor), googling for "denial of the famine" yields 29 hits, whereas "famine denial" yields 448 hits (top 2 ones actually being for the Niger and Ethiopia famines, most of the other top ones being for the Ukraine Great Famine).

Just one word of caution in all this, though: the construct "denial of [something]" is also commonly used in another sense, such as denial-of-service attack. I don't know if this could create a problem down the line with the proposed new title for the article, but I figured I let you guys know, see what you think. Turgidson (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

A P.S. to my response about Gatoclass' denialism concerns, any title that indicates that the topic is someone or some authority indicating something did not happen which did will still (and appropriately) bring up denial. There's no way around that given the subject matter. The best we can do is to insure the title does not sound like other denials. And, as I mentioned, denial does not require the nay-sayer to know the facts while suppression of news *does* require the nay-sayer to know the facts--so if someone denies the existence or severity of famine, it's less accusatory (to one of Gatoclass' earlier contentions) than suppresses news of the famine. —PētersV (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

One more thing: This book by Lubomyr Luciuk ("Searching for Place: Ukrainian Displaced Persons, Canada, and the Migration ...", Published in 2000 by the University of Toronto Press) has the following quote (which I will add shortly to the article): "For a particularly base example of famine-denial literature, see Tottle, Fraud, Famine, etc. So here you have yet another clear example of RS usage of "denial" in precisely the sense of this article. Turgidson (talk) 04:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The best we can do is to insure the title does not sound like other denials. got it, so all this has been about, the Holodomor denial sounds too much like Orgasm denial?--Termer (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I couldn't support Denial of the holodomor as a substitute title. It's just shifting the deck chairs around, because "denial" still implies, or is too easily confused with "denialism", and the phrase is still essentially framed as an accusation which will only encourage the content to follow.

If however consensus is going to build around retaining the word "denial" in the title, which I still think is problematic, then as an alternative I might suggest something along the lines of Denialism and the holodomor, which at least clarifies the meaning and gets the accusation out in the open where it can be discussed as a proposition instead of just employed as an a priori assumption. Gatoclass (talk) 07:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Gatoclass, now it appears that you don't like the name Holodomor Denial not because it is not in any "reputable" source, or because there are only a few thousand hits on Google, but because you don't like its implications. How many hits on Google are there for "Denialism and the Holodomor"? How many "reputable sources" can you come up with to support the fact THAT YOU DIDN'T JUST MAKE THAT PHRASE UP, to show that you are not engaged in ORIGINAL RESEARCH?

Sorry, any validity of your arguments up till now, and any possible Good Faith just went out the window.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I don't like the idea of having "denial" in the title at all and I'm not satisfied that it would meet NPOV. However, it would certainly be a considerable improvement over "holodomor denial" which is a great deal more problematic in all sorts of ways. Gatoclass (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"Denialism and the Holdomor" is a different topic--denialism is a different phenomenon (denial of the undeniable in the face of widely available public evidence, intentional misrepresentation of chosen facts to build an alternate and entirely false reality in the face of public evidence, etc.). The initial denial was not letting information out--something completely different. —PētersV (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

In other words, dezinformatsia, right? See eg here for sample usage. Turgidson (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Gatoclass, you missed the point. You now admit that the reason you put tags on this page is BECAUSE YOU FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE WORD DENIAL. Until now, you have been claiming that this article is unreferenced, unsourced, and/or invented by me. Obviously, that is not the case. Now, you want to invent a new name for the article.

I think that you have made your opinion very clear on this. Horlo (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've used up my cold-limited Wiki-energies for the moment in attempting to bring the continuing escalation which afflicts Gatoclass' related AN/I to a close. I've informed Gatoclass and also responded to his demand for an apology from Termer. Perhaps some kind soul can take up the task of renaming the article to Denial of the Holodomor and deal with all the links that require updating? Thanks!
P.S. My thanks to Crotalus now that we've proven it *is* possible to edit based on consensus. —PētersV (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've renamed the article and dealt with some of the resulting redirects. :-) Thanks to all, let's keep at the article. —PētersV (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Propaganda

Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people usually to support some fringe theory - like the Holodomor never happened. Instead of providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience.Bobanni (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you - Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people usually to support some fringe theory - like the Holodomor is great famine of 1932–1933 (instead of Holodomor-1933 – till July), which claimed up to (and more) 10 millions (instead of somewhere below 2,6), Ukrainian life (instead of habitants of grain production areas of USSR), increasing the grain procurement quota for Ukraine by 44% in 1932 (instead of initial lowering by18% (compared to 1931) and final lowering by almost 50%), specially designed famine by (Russian) communists to exterminate a Ukrainian nation as a cultural and political entity, barges of Ukrainian children and adults (see ‘Harvest of Sorrow”, blind kobzars massacre, holodomor in 1934, 1935 etc. etc. etc.Jo0doe (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gareth Jones as Holodomor denier

Carefully studied and articles and diary of Mr. Gareth Jones – thank you Turgidson – I’ve found what we’ve also can include in this article because many of his statements were dismissed by well “respected scholars” – e.g Mace and Conquest and also as other useful idiots because :

* he easily can reach a Ukraine (which encircled and sealed by  NKVD and RKKA troops),

• he was met in train with peasants from Ukraine (note – it’s mid of March, Ukrainian villages encircled and sealed by NKVD and RKKA troops, tickets sells to peasants are specially forbidden since 22 January),
• he met with live peasants (note about encircling and sealing, note what all food was confiscated in December 1932 – black doshka),
• he did not report about corps and dead mothers over the 40 miles by walk trip through March snows near the Kharkov.
• Even when he was in Kharkov he does not report about numerous dead bodies on the streets and numerous cemeteries encircled Kharkov , even he not write about numerous advertising “Мертвых тут не хоронить”.

So sad sign for Gareth Jones - private secretary David Lloyd George special mission “Before going to Russia, I went to Germany where I met Hitler and flew with him in his aeroplane to attend a giant meeting in Frankfurt, had a long conversation with Goebbels and other Nazis, with Breitscheid von Gleichen [?], etc. I made a special study of the Labour Camps, which impressed me deeply. I also visited Checho-slovakia and Danzig. I had interviews with the following: Litvinoff Karl Radek The Commissar for Finance, Grinko The Vice-Commissar for Light Industry The Vice-Commissar for Education The President of the Atheists (who has given me a special message to you as a Baptist!). The British and the German Ambassadors” He leave Moscow 10 of March for Ukraine by train - strange warm welcome in German Council in Kharkov after a forty-mile walk through villages in the neighborhood of Kharkov – later 19 he met with Litvinov he write a letter from Berlin at 27 – so there no regular Lufthansa flight – I assume he leave Moscow 26 (if his flight it was DerLuft ~ 10 hours of flight time) So we’ve 16 days in which he met 6 soviet official 2 Ambassadors and able to talk with Duranty to discuss his article… Too many strange facts. Also Torgidson - I don't like persons which "met Hitler and flew with him in his aeroplane" Jo0doe (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, JoOdoe, what you "like" or "don't like" is not important here. There are documented and sourced quotes throughout this article.

Also, please stop referring to people as "useful idiots". If it is a question of English, please refrain from writing such long speeches, but rather focus on objective details which could improve the article. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Horlo, this user once compared Robert Conquest to Joseph Goebbels. Details like that won't help at all. Ostap 18:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ostap, for my profile, but such info reflect your credibility. So in order to prove my statement please see at the bottom of the topic. [18] – or try "PhD and Professor" with CTR+F. Also, as regards to my like/dislike I replay to Turgidson “why do you attack him with those sneery comments” – so – any questions ? I also can’t see any future for this article – to many POV, OR, omissions, and even manipulations with known facts. So it’s a good sign what it’s not only my vision, but also an other Wpedians has same opinion – but demagogy always won – as in real life as in WP – so, please eat your “frozen meat of kulak”, if you don’t want to see a differences in quality of data. Jo0doe (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

JoOdoe's innuendoes about Gareth Jones do not really require a reply, but let me do it, anyhow, since I don't like this kind of guilt-by-association calumnies to float around, unchallenged. Gareth Jones was a journalist, for Chrissakes. As such, it was part of his job to fly around, meet important people of his day, and interview them on current events. You know, that's what good journalists do—it comes with the territory. So he went in 1931 to the Soviet Union with H. J. Heinz II, and wrote a book about it. And in February-March 1933, he was in Germany, covering the accession to power of Adolf Hitler, and even flew with him to Frankfurt, reporting on Hitler's tumultuous acclamation in that city. Yeah, so, what about it? Shortly after, he travelled to Russia and Ukraine, and had that interview with Maxim Litvinov, mentioned in the article. Yeah, so, what about it? Let me stop here, I'm not sure it's worth continuing. Turgidson (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"Mr. GARETH JONES, one of Mr. Lloyd George’s private secretaries," [19] - which person we dispute? And from January he was in Germany , and 6 of March he was in USSR- poor knowlage of topic as far as I can see Jo0doe (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sure-- he started working as Foreign Affairs Advisor to former British Prime Minister David Lloyd George in January 1930, then became a journalist. And in early 1933, he traveled to both Germany and to the Soviet Union -- what's the problem? You see, Jo0doe, it's all in the WP article on Gareth Jones, if you ever bother to look at it. As for your assessment of my knowlage [sic] of the topic, it's so laughable, that I won't even bother to take it as a sign of incivility, but just as a reflection of your own sense of how to evaluate anything properly. Turgidson (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem in WP:OR if in source stated what, by the time he was return from Germany and Russia, he was a one of Mr. Lloyd George’s private secretaries. If he was a journalist, for Chrissakes – it will be stated. Also, as far as I can see from his diaries – he “like Germany” but ”don’t like Russia” - so credibility and NPOV of his reports in general are questionable. Jo0doe (talk) 11:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilinks to parties voting on the bill

Wikilinks to parties voting on the bill regarding the denial law would be useful. I don't know the acronyms of the first two and what the latter are called on Wikipedia. Adding them would improve the section as one could read what each party represents.Also the fact that 2 members of Party of Regions supported the bill is interesting as 200 abstained, I think it is notable enough that they could be mentioned by name.--Molobo (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point Molobo, I'll second you on this. I asked myself that same question (I have no idea what those acronyms represent, though I guess I could find out with some googling), but, with all the ruckus around here, I forgot to ask. Turgidson (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I put in the links. I wish you could read in Ukrainian. The link to the Party of regions biographies I find entertaining and scary at the same time. Some of the things these people are involved in are truely disgusting.Bandurist (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Gatoclass is now open.--Termer (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article

I spend several time to read all the messages around the article. I think that all users all not talking in the same language, I'm afraid. Topics:

• 1.- Holodomor = genocide
• 2.- Refuse genocide = refuse that holodomor has not happened
• 3.- If genocide = holodomor, genocide have had not happened.
• 4.- Some journalist and writers denied anything have happened.
• 5.- As sovietic propaganda hide any fact, demostrate that western (anti-comunist) propaganda was right.
• 6.- "See also: Historical revisionism (negationism); Genocide denial;Agent of influence; Fellow traveler; Useful idiot" can't help to be "neutral" telling about facts.

I'm afraid that it looks like more ucrainian "national building", demostrating that comunism=stalinism=russian=anti-ukrainian.... and all ukrainians that don't belive it... are traitors. I wish it would not, but look like it. w:es:user:Shliahov --84.76.36.6 (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow those equalities (the equal sign does have a very precise meaning, such as in 1+1=2); maybe they should be interpreted as logical implications? But then, in which direction? Nevertheless, I can assure you that the article is not the product of "ucrainian "national building"", but rather, a collaborative effort by WP editors, coming from all walks of life, and very likely, from the four corners of the World (isn't that the idea here at Wiki?) Turgidson (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I correct the redaction: The discusion seems to be around:

• 1.- Holodomor IS THE SAME AS genocide
• 2.- Refuse genocide IS THE SAME AS refuse that holodomor has not happened
• 3.- If genocide IS THE SAME THAN holodomor, THE CONSECUENCE IS THAT genocide have had not happened.
• 4.- Some journalist and writers denied anything have happened. (AS FACT)
• 5.- As sovietic propaganda hide any fact, THEN demostrate that western (anti-comunist) propaganda was right.
• 6.- "See also: Historical revisionism (negationism); Genocide denial;Agent of influence; Fellow traveler; Useful idiot" can't help to be "neutral" telling about facts.

This is NOT about article but the DISCUSSION and how it is being undertood from any contributors (or misunderstanding).

w:es:user:Shliahov (Sorry for capital letters, but my only intention is be more clear)

--84.76.45.168 (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your input. Hopefully this will help answer some of your questions:

The lead of the article states that "Holodomor Denial" means stating that the Holodomor never took place. The only mention of genocide is in the final paragraph of the introduction, which talks about the current laws in Ukraine.

You are very correct in that one editor has issues with the word "denial", because of that editor's pre-conceived notions. Regardless of what the article states, this editor continues to say things like "too much baggage", and wants to eliminate the word denial completely. Again, this article is only about the existence of the famine. If the lead is not clear, please suggest a better way to do that so we can improve.

Your third point was not very clear, could you please explain that better.

There are entire sections describing what some journalists said - please see the sections on Duranty and Fischer, for example.

The only mention of propaganda is that which was used by Soviet authorities to hide the Holodomor. Posters were published, ambassadors lied, and grain exports were increased to hide the Holodomor, that millions were slowly starving to death.

You are absolutely correct again in stating that words like "useful idiots", and "historical revisionism" are not conducive to positive constructive work. However, if you look at who uses such words, you will see that it is the editors who are trying to discredit this article, who nominate it for deletion, or who write entire sections in foreign languages (I think it was Russian).

You are again absolutely correct that some editors are trying to obfuscate the situation. For example, user:Kuban Cossack tried to re-write the lead in such a way that it made no mention of the term at all, and simply gave one explanation of the Holodomor.

Finally, I'm surprised that you think that this looks like Ukrainian "national building". Most of the editors here are not Ukrainian!

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot contribute with so much information because I'm learning more than "lisening" (reading) than talking. I knew about the holodomor only a few years ago, and always around strong feelings about it. Anybody who were present in any of these discussions authomatically knows that one thing bear another (for example, only mention holodomor is the same that genocide and the same that anti-russian), and became only a TOOL to be used. Outside from Ukraine or Russia it cannot be undertood easily, so I'm trying to explain WHY are happening (in my opinion) this "strom". NOT about the article, because I don't feel able to criticism it.

w:es:user:Shliahov

--84.76.45.168 (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Shliahov,

You are reading into the article, things that are not there: *1.- Holodomor = genocide This is not stated in the article anywhere.

*2.- Refuse genocide = refuse that holodomor has not happened This is not stated in the article anywhere.

*3.- If genocide = holodomor, genocide have had not happened. This is not stated in the article anywhere nor is it within the scope of tis article and the discussion.

*4.- Some journalist and writers denied anything have happened. Some journalists and writers did indeed deny that the Holodomor (Ukrainian Famine) took place.

*5.- As sovietic propaganda hide any fact, demostrate that western (anti-comunist) propaganda was right. Volodymyr Shcherbytsky, a member of the Central Committee of the CPSU acknowledged in 1987 that the Holodomor took place. Leonid Krawchuk, the head ideologue of the CP of Ukraine, who was given the task of finding information to deny the Holodomorin 1983, found evidence to support it and actually was one of the first to call it a genocide. Although the Soviet Union initially hid the fact of the existenec of the Holodomor, it its final days of Glasnost acknowledged it.

*6.- "See also: Historical revisionism (negationism); Genocide denial;Agent of influence; Fellow traveler; Useful idiot" can't help to be "neutral" telling about facts. Despite the fact that the terms may be disliked, they are related top the topic and IMO do not detract from the neutrality of the article. Bandurist (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I really was really unclear. I'm not arguing against article or redaction because I don't feel myself capable to do it (lack of clear and undisputed information, or better, having a huge amount of disputed and unclear information). I'm trying to explain why people are reacting against the article. I have no doubts that hunger happened, and it was denied by sovietic politicians, but I'm witness of the use nowadays of this topic in internal politic in Russia and Ukraine. By that, I was trying to expose it. (and only for that)

w:es:user:Shliahov

--84.76.45.168 (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Your concerns about politicizing of the term have resulted in the article being renamed from Holodomor denial to Denial of the Holodomor. Titles such as Suppression of information about the Holodomor simply become too unwieldly. It's unfortunate that current Russian policy has chosen a course which rehabilitates, not confronts, the Soviet past. As long as that's the case, there will always be charges and counter-charges over that past. The task of this article is to discuss the topic at hand in a well referenced manner which fairly represents its sources, plain and simple. The denial of famine by the authorities and others was a departure from the past and materially affected the chances of outside aid while it was in progress and has colored perceptions since then. If we are to understand today's politics around the Holodomor, then it's urgent that the history of the denial of the Holodomor be examined and recounted--a topic too extensive for the original article. I should also mention, some of the "objectors" here have in the past maintained that anything anti-Soviet is POV regardless of how well sourced, or how fairly those sources are represented.

To not have the article, to not examine the issue, only perpetuates the situation you are really concerned about: people arguing over what happened armed only with their opinions and without the facts. Specific content concerns are being addressed and related articles (such as Duranty) examined to insure they are balanced.

Unfortunately, the article was attacked as soon as it was created before editors could even become aware of it to contribute to improve it. I would suggest that once some of those unpleasantries sort themselves out and the article has had a month or so to develop positively, you come back and review the article again at that point. —PētersV (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Shliahov, thank you for your positive contribution. Perhaps if you told us why you think the article is easily misunderstood, we would be able to fix it. A lot of time has been spent trying to make this article NPOV, and any help would be much appreciated. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Most editors here are “regime victims”, most of them are Diaspora, which has no (or few) relation or roots to a Soviet history itself, even most of them have very limited knowledge (proved) about topics which they tried to contribute, as their factual base predominantly based on few books with colorful facts as “frozen meat of Kulaks”, “sank barges full of Ukrainian children and adults” and “soldiers, predominately Russians, but in any case not an Ukrainians …”. They dont like facts which not fit to desired version of simplified history which they would like to push. They don’t see wording like this “he had seen no dead or dying animals or human beings” but mentioned what such person report about soviet famine. But they mentioned other person as denier which write in March 30 “If through climatic conditions, as in 1921, the crop fails, then, indeed, Russia will be menaced by famine. If not, the present difficulties will be speedily forgotten.”[20]. In order to prove such statement they joined to selected citation from his 30 March and 20 of August in one line. As regarding to Litvinov denial – they referred to the dairy of Gareth Jones - private secretary to David Lloyd George, person which spend 2 month in Nazi Germany with special mission (unfortunately this story was omitted on his “commemorative website” created by Canadian Diaspora for holodomor proposes). Interesting what Mr Jone mentioned in the letter o his master Lloyd George “In the meantime I enclose my conversation with Litvinoff” – that exact document not appeared at OR website. Also, how truthful was mr. Jones can be easily to assess :” Lots of GPU men in street. Supposed to be 250,000 in Ukraine” (Note –whole RKKA at this time 500-600K OGPU at Ukraine numbered as high as 25-35K). So If you would like to check the credibility words like this “Posters were published, ambassadors lied, and grain exports were increased to hide the Holodomor, that millions were slowly starving to death.” - Just check the date of each mentioned. Also regarding export you can check the exact figures here [21]. Also useful reading was a foreword [22] for “Итоги первой пятилетки» there you can find a word hunger. And be informed who was mentioned as a responsible for that [23] from “Советская Украина за 20 лет» - as you can see Ukrainian nationalists on last place – but they now would like to be pushed on first with new version of history. If you really would like to be more involved in topic – and you’ve enough time – you can try to assess the situation which happened before Jan-June 1933 here [24] Jo0doe (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, JoOdoe, I have mentioned this to you before, but you don't seem to understand - this is not a place for you to practice English, but an encyclopedia. Please keep your statements short and concise, otherwise they become completely impossible to understand. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Horlo , I agree with you what WP this is not a place for you to practice in OR and propaganda distribution. It’s a shame what you don’t know the time of invention of Holodomor term, who that done and when it was implemented. And even you don’t know what this mean in ordinary Ukrainian language (it’s a different language – Mr. Serbin and those who invent it). You also don’t know the export figures, which you spoken about, – but prefer to push here you POV. WP it’s a not place to do that – WP likes NPOV facts. Jo0doe (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, Jo0doe, for your opinion that you are a beacon of truth in a sea of darkness perpetrated by diasporic regime victimes. Don't confuse a reason for motivation--and, more importantly, a love for the richness of Baltic/Eastern European heritage that was lost to the West for two generations--with lack of being fully and reputably informed. For your part, your contentions of the non-existance of the NKVD from 1930-1934 made it sound like there was no secret police at all (as opposed to the numerous reorganizations of the alphabet soup while the organization and management thereof remained the same).

   I went out and bought the Davies and Wheatcroft text (I might add at quite significant expense) so I could work from the best reputable sources. Don't insult my "diasporic victim" status. For Shliahov's benefit, they can read about that here. We cannot choose our past. We can only choose our future course. There's no need to embellish the darkness of the Soviet past, only an obligation to bring it to reputable light.

   Your endless and somewhat disorganized repetition of the same diatribes is not making it any easier for any of us to understand what specifically your complaints are. And I'm sorry, if you think that editors in English Wikipedia are pushing an agenda, some of what I've read in the Russian Wikipedia, for example, about the Baltics and their occupation, is laughable where it comes to having any basis in fact. Please cite some reputable books for your contentions and perhaps we can address whatever your concerns are. —PētersV (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. In general, precisely because Wikipedia is not a scholarly source, no public Wiki is considered a reputable source where it comes to sourcing material for articles. —PētersV (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S. Jo0doe, you failed to mention that the Russian Wikipedia article is the "Soviet version" of events, including blame-laying on the negligent and couldn't-care-less collectived farmers. Interesting but not authoritative. —PētersV (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

P.P.P.S. I should mention that as far as I'm aware I'm the only "diasporic regime victim" here. Do try and improve your accuracy when attempting to discredit editors. Statements such as yours might lead one to think you're here with preconceived notions and have little intent to work on any consensus. As I said, bring some reputable sources to the table and we can discuss your concerns. —PētersV (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What does "diasporic regime" mean, or what do you think it means?

PS Joke - Did you hear about the Russian Godfather? He made him an offer he couldn't understand. Bandurist (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• PētersV, I don't use wording "diasporic regime victim" as all the rest you insult me. If you would like to count “regime victims” and Diaspora (I also forgot to add 1939 date) as “attempts to discredit editors” I assume it’s your own POV – together with “darkness of the Soviet past”.

Also not “"Soviet version" of events” – but exact facts – instead version. Also see WP:PSTS for better differentiating. I’ve mentioned texts of Decrees and newspapers articles which are different from texts which appeared here from “reputable sources” – so how to handle this issue?Jo0doe (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You know the old saying, "in the news there is no truth and in the truth there is no news." Whatever is in a Soviet edict or press report gets stated as what was decreed or reported. That does not mean that's what happened. Just as one does not take the Great Soviet Encyclopedia at face value. The history recounted there is a version, not a recounting of facts.

   I did not mean to insult you, you did indicate regime victims in the diaspora, so that would include their offspring. If you avoid blanket statements, you'll avoid people misinterpreting your intention. As for "POV", I was not aware that indicating there is darkness in the Soviet past is other than a statement of fact. Surely you don't suggest the Soviet past is nothing but glory, sweetness and light? —PētersV (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Interesting, probably you agreed with my opinion what versions must based on facts and include such – and quality of version always depends on facts quality . Probably you cannot hold in your hand nether Great Soviet Encyclopedia nor Small Soviet Encyclopedia - a first edition versions (issues published in 1926-40). History of countries (especially such big and no ordinary) always consist everything – i.e. dark and white, glories and defeats. victories and misconduct, crimes and prosecution – but it’s happened during time. And if someone would like to push only dark or sweet as whole past – it’s not a history – it’s called propaganda. I recommend you to try to find an info about Great Southern Drought in US in 1932 – so does this kind of events info was not suppressed by regime? Or details of ordinary people life during Great Depression ? Only sweets and glory, you said?Jo0doe (talk) 11:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do have the Concise Encyclopedia of the Latvian SSR and materials such as the Great Soviet Encyclopedia's account of American history (a translation). I for one have no issue with Russian pride highlighting the positive accomplishments of individuals during the Soviet era, but I would draw the line at pride of empire--at what cost in lives? Stalin was burying his Siberian GULAG victims in mass graves using bulldozers acquired through the U.S.' lend-lease program. What do we hear of that today from modern Russia?

   As for the U.S., there was no suppression of drought, the 30's were the dust bowl years. If you can't find anything specific on the U.S. south in 1932 it's probably because it's rolled into the greater catastrophe, not because something is being suppressed. Some of the most gripping and memorable news reports, pictures, and literary works ever produced came out of those events. In New York state, where I live, an entire book was published on the depression, its impact on people, and public works which were constructed to try to put people to work (one we still have which my father bought in his time). —PētersV (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. It's the "Great Southern Drought of 1930-31", relief efforts underway in 1932. —PētersV (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Replay on your talk page as WP: not a forumJo0doe (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Translation

Sad sign – many words, attempts to change “current Russian policy has chosen a course which rehabilitates, not confronts, the Soviet past” , but no data about “President Mikhail Kalinin” (Kalinin became western called “president” only in 1938) speech and background of it date and also as Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov (excluding Mr. Jones info) – I’ve got data only for his denial in early January 1933 (but Holodomor only started – to in fact when he said his demagogy speeches – there no famine in USSR in general).As regards to the – “law which would make public statements” – exactly clear idea to join wine and water in one cup – moreover – this law can not be adopted without changing the Constitution of Ukraine. Also I ask (hopelessly) bandurist to translate this few words from communists Decree dated February 8 1933 Ввиду имеющихся случаев голодания в отдельных мелких городах и отдельных семьях колхозников - предложить областкомам и облисполкомам не оставлять ни одного такого случая без принятия немедленных мер к локализации, обратив при этом особое внимание на проверку того, нет ли в том или ином случае симуляции или провокации. Jo0doe (talk) 11:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Its my Christmas today. Had our family meal yesterday and went out caroling

Translation:

Regarding the occurrences of starvation in separate small towns and separate families of collective farm workers - to suggest to oblast committees and oblast performance committees not to leave any such case without taking immediate action regarding its localization, and to pay particular attention to check whether they are not pretending or whether it is a provocation. Bandurist (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you Bandurist, your English deserve appreciation. Jo0doe (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Jo0doe, what is your sad sign? You note that statement "A" was noted and so sad that statement "B" was not made when they are completely unrelated. I was speaking of things like Dzherzhinsky's bust being restored to its place of honor in the courtyard of the Moscow police. As we say, please try to not mix apples and oranges so we can understand the point you wish to make. PētersV (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• A better translation of some Soviet terminology: "Regarding the cases of starvation in some small towns and some families of kolkhoz workers - <it is decided> to suggest oblastkoms (oblast CPSU Committees) and oblast ispolkoms (oblast executive committees) ...." The rest is OK. `'Míkka>t 20:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  BTW "localization" may well be an euphemism for "blocade", unless one may provide a descriptionm how else the "localization" of starvation was executed. `'Míkka>t 20:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to remove tags

Hello,

I think that all problems have been discussed and addressed. Please note any specific reasons to keep the tags.

If there are none, I move the tags be removed. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I second that motion. Please state specifically what reasons there are to keep the tags other than IDON'TLIKEIT. Bandurist (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I third that motion, remove the silly tags. They do not reference any debate here. Lobojo (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've noted specific reasons several time but my facts are to bad for your English. So if you don't like to handle it , but would like to remove tags Jo0doe (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you for or against the tags? Lobojo (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Too many tags needed. Jo0doe (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This talk page has become too long. Please list the issues with the article text you think remain unresolved. `'Míkka>t 20:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as can see all mentioned here “deniers” accused as such because they 1)in one case they mentioned famine as “hunger… and widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition” 2) they dismiss the famine claim as currently lasted events event after famine/hunger ends (all after June 1933 publication, info and reports). 3) Everyone whom mentioned about OUN-Nazi collaborationism and dismiss claims of “Phony Film and Photographs” (like this [25] picture 6a019) and victims more than in Holocaust, Holodomor – genocide of Ukrainian nations and statement like this: “deliberately engineered" by Stalin to crush Ukrainian nationalism and cow a stubborn peasantry into permanent collectivization. Seven million Ukrainians were killed. I can find any credible source (above mentioned here as a deniers) which claims what in fist half of 1933 in USSR was everything ok. Other statements referred to the current USSR situation (almost all given here referred to post 1933 August). E.g. deniers here only whom who not agree with “World Congress of Free Ukrainians” “facts” and "history".

 Moreover – does Serbin is linguist or philologist.     
“He misuses sources, he twists everything.” – about Conquest Jo0doe (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Serbyn speaks and writes in Ukrainian very well, and you could be mistaken for him being a philologist. Actually his bio states that he was born in 1939 in Vyktoriv, Western Ukraine. In 1948 he and his family settled in Montreal, Canada. In 1960 he obtained a B.A. (Political Science) from McGill University. He went to France where he first studied French and then history at the Sorbonne. In 1967 he obtained a Licence en lettres (History) from the University de Montreal. In 1975 he completed his PhD (History) at McGill University. He began teaching at the University de Quebec, Montreal in 1969; he retired from this institution in 2002.

Re the "World Congress of Free Ukrainians" - I don't think it was around in 1933. I think that it was established only in 1967. Here;s their website Here They have an office in Moscow here. They have a great library there full of books dealing with Ukrainian subjects including history which you won't find in typical Russian libraries. Some interesting sources hereBandurist (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• So - he have not any grade in nor linguistic nor philology. Anyway issues remain - I can't find any statements were allegidly claims what in first half of 1933 in USSR (Ukraine) was everything ok, and were is no hunger and malnutrition stated in respect to first half of 1933. As regarding to claims of 7,5 starved to death or pictures taken 1921-22 in Lower Volga given as taken in 1932 at Ukraine - I also a denier of such "facts". Tottle dismiss Harvest of Despair as propaganda film ("misuses sources and twists everything")- I agree with him. So please provide me any link were Holodomor as Holodomor-33 was denied (Please give a link to letter of Garret to Lloyd George or date when Kalinin deny - if it was when he was "President" - I agree with him - there no famine in 1938)Jo0doe (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

JoOdoe, I asked you before to limit your contributions to readable lengths, but you have not. Here, in the first sentence, are some reasons why you are difficult to understand:

"he have not any grade" - basic subject verb agreement. The correct form is "he has not"; however, you are misusing the verb "have" - in this case, it is the main verb, in the simple present tense, and needs the auxiliary "does not" when making a negative statement;

"in nor linguistic nor philology" - two problems: first, paired conjunctions should be "neither ... nor ..." (you cannot use nor twice together); second, linguistics is the name of a subject, and even though it is singular, it needs to end in "s", like mathematics, physics, or economics.

In your statement, there is enough information to make three separate paragraphs: one about Serbyn, one about evidence, and one about how you agree with Tottle.

Once again, I tell you - your input is welcome, but please keep your statements short so that you do not become too difficult to understand. Otherwise, they may be considered disruptive, as you seem to not be saying anything which helps the article, but rather want to confuse editors.

Finally, I find your statement that you agree with Tottle very telling - please note the lead in the article to see what mainstream society thinks of Tottle and those who agree with him.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

JoOdoe -

Re Serbyn - He is a scholar from credible institutions. He has specific training as a historian. He has the language skills required to tackle the task at hand. Here in the West he has credibility. To you he may be a bourgeoise nationalist scribler, but then most people here fall into that category more or less. I don't think he is more bourgeoise than Putin though.

Re documentary. In the process of making documentaries film and sources are used to illustrate the concept being discussed. Recently I watched a documentary on television on a Canadian recipient of the Victoria Cross. The only thing they had on him was a grainy photo and some letters he wrote, but they did a full hour feature on him. They showed soldiers leaving for the front by train (obviously he was not in the group that was filmed) and departing by boat (obviously not in these shots either). They also had film of soldiers fighting in the trenches and none of it had any direct link to the soldier being discussed, but it was illustrative material for the subject. Yes, they did use some photos of famine victims from 1921, yes they did use some photos from the Volga region to illustrate the emaciation of the villagers due to starvation. Should they have used these materials? Could they have used other materials specifically from the Famine of 1933? Did they include these materials to specifically deceive the public? One can go through the film with a fine tooth comb as Tottle did, however does that mean that the Famine of 1933 didn't take place? Every now and then someone states that there is no document signed or written by Hitler about the murder or extermination of Jews in WWII. Does this mean that Hitler was not responsible or that it did not happen?

Re Tottle. His book was published here in Toronto by the Ukrainian Communist publishing house "Progress". The manuscript lay in the publishing house for 2 years whilst the Ukrainian communists discussed whether to publish it. When it did come out Shcherbytsky a few month later in October of that year acknowledged the fact that the Famine took place and the book was withdrawn from sale. I remember going into the book store in Toronto and they were giving the book away. People just threw them in the trash can. Today because of its rarity it can get upwards of 300-400$ on Amazon.com in the used book section. The book was specifically targeted to foil the activities of the Ukrainian diaspora here in Toronto which had been the instigator of the coordination of commemoration of the Holodomor and had instigated Conquets book and the film. In recent months the correspondence that went on at the Publishing house before the publication of the book has recently been released for study. It will be interesting to see what is made of it. Bandurist (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As regards to Serbin – I don’t care about his past (interesting but were I knew there few “most decorated” collaborationists which allowed by Nazi to retreat with their families – so I assume his father made for them “something special” ) – So you agree what he is not linguist nor philologist – so his “decoding” of Holodomor world should not be at header – as he is not WP:PSTS. You repeat once same wording as on Holodomor:Talk – but does it change the World – propaganda remains as it’s – so I once again remind you about WP propaganda policy. You should mentioned in header what kind of “holodomor” was denied by everyone of mentioned here persons, otherwise this article has clear propaganda proposals.

So could anyone cite me words “never took place” for every of mentioned here persons, and what the situation in first half of 1933 in USSR as "everything fine".

I also find interesting facts from Garret Jones master – Lloyd George - In August 1936 Lloyd George met Hitler at Berchtesgaden and offered some public comments that were surprisingly favourable to the German dictator, expressing warm enthusiasm both for Hitler personally and for Germany's public works schemes (upon returning, he wrote of Hitler in the Daily Express as "the greatest living German", "the George Washington of Germany"). As also He wrote to the Duke of Bedford in September 1940 advocating a negotiated peace with Germany. So can be servant a different one? His (GJ) trips look like route of WWII - Chekh-Slovak, Danzig, Japan, China - would be intresting to look in his Nazi diary. P.S. Horlo – I will not do the same for you factual knowledge – I assume such is as “things we never win”. Jo0doe (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I tak dali

Joedoe:

You write:

As regards to Serbin – I don’t care about his past (interesting but were I knew there few “most decorated” collaborationists which allowed by Nazi to retreat with their families It's hard to be a Nazi at the age of 3 or 4. If I remember correctly he was born in 1939. The fact that he completed a tertiary eductaion and has his PhD is a credit. Scholars who have a personal POV usually have a short shelf life. His wasn't. Maybe it would be more prudent to speak about Serbyn's associations with Dmytro Dontsov who also lived in Montreal and also taught at the same institutions and the possible influence of one on the other.

• Once again we've spoken about 2 different direction - you about PhD in History - I spoke about his credibility in linguistics nor philology.Jo0doe (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Tell me, who creates the terms that are used in Engineering, Architecture, History? Who uses these terms? Bandurist (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

– so I assume his father made for them “something special” ) Usually scholars don't make such assumptions, particular of such a sinister type.

But anyway it's will be intresting to know his roots in Eastern Ukraine - all of person which able to flied with Nazis have strage gap in their history. But anyway it has any relation to Serbin as PhD in HistoryJo0doe (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

He came to Canada settling in Montreal in 1948 at the age of 9. I suppose he could have been a concentration camp guard, but I doubt it. Canada screened applicants then and didn't let Nazi's in. He completed his BA when he was 21 in 1960. Obviously that is very young and his biography says nothing about the high school he attended. At MacGill the courses were in English. In Sorbonne they were in French. He taught at the University of Montreal which also has teaching in French. I personally don't really trust people that speak French mainly because I can't understand them, and many of them are very nationalistic. They want an independent Quebec.Bandurist (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

– So you agree what he is not linguist nor philologist – so his “decoding” of Holodomor world should not be at header – as he is not WP:PSTS. You mean that a historian is not allowed to define his subject?? You are once again applying sinister implications to mundane tasks.

• Linguistics and Philology it's a subject of historian? Really?

You repeat once same wording as on Holodomor:Talk – but does it change the World – propaganda remains as it’s – so I once again remind you about WP propaganda policy. Propaganda is in the eye of the beholder. You being brought up in the USSR and Russia view everything as propaganda I guess. I was told that the most successful propaganda artists were the Austrians as they have convinced the world that Hitler was German and Beethoven was Austraian, but I digress.

• I assume if propaganda called propaganda - it's ok? If they will be provided only relavant facts - anyone will be have not any objection but - so citation from one of "denialist" Wouldn't one or two or 3.5 million famine-related deaths be enough to make an anti- Stalinist argument? Why seize a wildly inflated figure that can't possibly be supported? The answer tells much about the Ukrainian nationalist cause, and about those who abet it.

"they're always looking to come up with a number bigger than six million," observed Eli Rosenbaum, general counsel for the World Jewish Congress. "It makes the reader think: `My god it's worse than the Holocaust.'" Your version

I also find interesting facts from Garret Jones master – Lloyd George - In August 1936 Lloyd George met Hitler at Berchtesgaden and offered some public comments that were surprisingly favourable to the German dictator, expressing warm enthusiasm both for Hitler personally and for Germany's public works schemes (upon returning, he wrote of Hitler in the Daily Express as "the greatest living German", "the George Washington of Germany"). As also He wrote to the Duke of Bedford in September 1940 advocating a negotiated peace with Germany.

It is interesting how many favourable comments Hitler received in his early days. He basically turned Germany over from a inflation ridden economy to the most prosperous in Europe ion a short period of time. The Autobahn network, the Volkswagen car still being made and exported etc. Very positive reviews. Stalin was also very envious of him and so was Molotov. I guess that is why they signed that secret pact which led to the launching of WWII. If the pact had not been signed Poland would not have been invaded by both Germany and the USSR. Had Poland not been invaded and cut up, England would not have been forced to declare war and history would have been different. The early rise of Hitler reminds me so much of the rise of Putin (only Hitler did not plagerise his dissertation from an American textbook - he developed his own ideas. )Bandurist (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Probably you don't read soviet newspapers before August 1939 - regarding envious of him you will be surprised. So if the France and GB will not conduct Phony War - does Soviets has start their action as of September 17 1939 - ? What Germany (week to capable to have war on two fronts) thinked about - probably they got Lloyd George in GB and same person in France to fill free hands Jo0doe (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have had a chance to thumb through the magazines and newspapers of the 30's in Ukraine. Amazing stuff. I am amazed at how Stalin prepared for WWII by arresting and shooting most of his officers. My grandfather told me about the War. He had the stamp Neblahonadiozhnyj stamped across the last page of his green passport where he had the information with regard to where he had to appear in case of attack. (My Great Grandfather has 2 cows and 13 children. He was branded a Kulak and sent with nothing except the children to Ordzhinikidze. There he died). My Grandfather was the son of an enemy of the state - (read: son of a person who had 2 cows) - an obvious threat to national security. At the commencement of the German attack he was given a shovel (they didn't give rifles or uniforms to sons of people who had 2 cows then) and given the task of digging anti-tank trenches around Kyiv. They didn't work. The Germans came from the opposite side. Kept him in a POW camp for a few days (he got fed there better than the rations he got in the Red Army) and then they released everyone who didn't have a uniform, or a rifle, or his head shaved (all soldiers at that time had their heads shaved) or who had neblahonadiozhnyj stamped in their passports. But I digress. Bandurist (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

So, every time you omit me exact facts referred to exact case and switch to other story. So, just few: “Trud Army” at KOVO does not have arms, and in general KOVO suffered from lack of equipment even to reinforce “кадровые части”. As regards to “released everyone” –, if someone has called them a family member and if he was a ordinary soldier and mostly on route to “camps” – otherwise most of they die at Syretskiy and Darnitskiy camp and predominantly hunger and disease caused by malnutrition. So almost all (excluding politruk, middle command staff and artillery, tank and other technical forces) has two option – to preserve their honor and predominantly die or collaborate with Nazi. Interesting what last was a few numbered minority, but after they prefer to tail the own story as from whom to prefer to die.

You should note what Kulak (as my Grandfather was) and Enemy of People (as was his younger brother – Red Officer) it’s a two different categories – and they received a different treatment, kulaks goes to Volga-Baltic channel while Enemy of People got a bullets. Also probably you don’t know what in 1935 kulaks families was reinstated in their rights and nothing was mentioned in their passports (Yezhov ask for such so but Stalin was against). Jo0doe (talk) 09:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have found that much of the scholarship (particularly Soviet scholarship) dealing with this period is wanting. I take for example the case of the Ukrainian writer Hnat Khotkevych. He was arrested in February 1938. He was rehabilitated in 1956, but Soviet sources such as the Ukrainian Soviet Encyclopedia state continued to stated that he died in 1943. The NKVD guards told his wife that he was sent to Siberia "without the right to correspond" for 10 years (I guess this was done in order for the guards to continue to take packages and money and gifts from his family) saying that he was released and died during the German occupation. Recently it was discovered that he was shot in 1938. Why the great mascarade - why try to put off onto the Germans a crime that they had done. Yes he was rehabilitated but most of his writing has still not been published.

Then there is the case of the blind kobzar Ivan Kuchuhura Kucherenko a blind man (People's artist of Ukraine) who was arrested and tortured for 10 months and shot in the same prison in Kharkiv as Khotkevych. Once again Soviet sources stated that he died during the German occupation in 1943. They discovered recently the documents of his execution.

These are just 2 people. There are thousands. The initial crime by the Soviets was that harmless people were needlessly executed. Then the crime continues by covering up even though the person was rehabilitated. When I see Soviet documents I become quite sceptical.

Keep in mind that when the Soviets acquired Eastern Europe they not only captured German documents but also the means of producing those documents, paper, typewriters, stamps. German documents were produced by the Soviets which have quite questionable pedigrees. Bandurist (talk) 12:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You once again switch the way, - but anyway – It’s quite common situation for 1937-38 – as guards and prosecutors became a victims within a short period of time. I also heard few cases when person stated as executed but he returned home many years after (anyway such cases is exempt).

died during the German occupation – interesting – could you give me a link or name of book. Please care yourself – with such approach can be easily to mistrust yourself. So anyway – I pay you back – while German occupied Ukraine (if you like – you can call this event as “liberation” as OUN leaders did) they captured many soviet archives (prominent example – from Dnepropetrovska oblast) and also “ the means of producing those documents”. Moreover – as far as I know accidentally some of this archives (Dnepr – as example) appeared in US after some time past, even Conquest in 1983-5 use some papers from it. As regards “German documents were produced by the Soviets” – which document you refers? Jo0doe (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Those who attacked were often the next to go. O. Bilokopytov (the editor of Muzyka magaszine and head of the Association of Proletarian Compeosers) wrote some very harsh articles in 1934. Ultimately he was also arrested and shot. I personally know a half dozen people who have monuments to them (or special corners of memory in schools) in Ukraine as if they died during the German occupation yet they were alive in the West.

Keep in mind that not every Diaspora is a card carrying member of OUN.I certainly am not.

Regarding falsified documents off hand I can remember the id card for Demianiuk, but there are other documents (German documents discovered in Soviet archives) that I do not want to currently cite openly, which I personally believe were forgeries. They often have a pedigree that is unverifiable. In one case, a document, copy 37 of 40 copies and none of additional copies are not in existence. But I digress again. Bandurist (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] We digress but

“as if they died during the German occupation” – so please give me a name of Soviet book. As far as I can see in Soviet Ukraine Historical Encyclopedia published in late 60-s – they given only year of die (37-38 in many cases ) and just telling nothing. I don’t care about “every Diaspora card” but why some of them would like to push their own bad crafted story about history – simple because many witnesses (who can dismiss their fairy-tale) already die due the malnutrition and lack of basic medical treatment at 90-s at “one of the most European country”? You believe what in 1944-45 Soviets specially preserve some Nazi papers and ink specially for Demianyuk and for others like him to keep in mind 70-s and 80-s? Of course – “He said” and “she told” “while he met” with desired wording and “clear history” it’s more credible documents for people rather then strange pieces of almost unreadable papers with unknown set of phrases and symbols which you must read in full and compare with other same kind papers to get only direction. – So what’s about “denial” and denialist ? Jo0doe (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Re Khotkevych

in: (Ковальчук С.) Передмова до - Камінна душа - К. 1958 date of death given as 13 October, 1942

in: Ukrainian Soviet Encyclopedia (1964) (Volume 15) gives date of death 8.X. 1938

in: Черемський, К. Повернення традиції Харків, Центр Леся Курбаса, 1999 You have a reproduction of the order from a troika to shoot him.

Re Kucherenko Іван Іович- (народний артист УСРР) Date of death given (1943) Actually died in 1937.

in:Лавров, Федір - Кобзарі - Київ, Мистецтва, 1980 с. 193

in:Кирдан Б, Омельченко А. - Народні співці-музиканти на Україні - Київ Музична Україна, 1980 с. 139

in: Черемський, К. Повернення традиції Харків, Центр Леся Курбаса, 1999 You have a reproduction of the order from a troika to shoot him.

There are lots of documents, and books The difficulty is having the time to process it all and find all these small things.

You state and ask: I don’t care about “every Diaspora card” but why some of them would like to push their own bad crafted story about history – simple because many witnesses (who can dismiss their fairy-tale) already die due the malnutrition and lack of basic medical treatment at 90-s at “one of the most European country”?

The Ukrainian diaspora is not one great monoliph. It is a conglomeration. The one thing that unites them is their disorganization. The bulk of the Uk. diaspora came from Western Ukraine and have little first hand knowledge of Eastern Ukraine or the Soviet System. Then ones from the East sat quiet. My grandfather was an agronomist. He was a kandydat nauk. I have some of his publications from the 30's dealing with such as Влияние различных способов сушки перечной мяты на содержание зфирного масла - (Лубенская опытная станция лекарственных и душистых растений), Лубны, 1930. (His works were not removed from the Scientific libraries in Ukraine)..In Australia he worked as a janitor for the railways. My Grandmother was a chemist who completed her education in Leningrad. She wound up in Kazakhstan. My Aunt got 25 years for saying something nasty about Stalin after she found out her husband had died on the front. My Grandfather never took Australian citizenship but nevertheless he was scared, probably because he did not want anything to happen to my Uncle who lived in Kishinev and worked as an engineer. You could say that he would be a credible witness to the Famine because he was an agronomist, a scientist, and lived and worked right in the heart of Ukraine where and when the Holodomor took place. However, he would not make any public comment and castigated my father (b. 1928) when an article that was published about the famine in "Novoye Russkoye Slovo" had his name used as the author.

You state: You believe what in 1944-45 Soviets specially preserve some Nazi papers and ink specially for Demianiuk and for others like him to keep in mind 70-s and 80-s?

I believe in the existence of forged papers. I don't think that they kept them specially for Demianiuk but I believe they did manufacture them for him to implicate him. The making forged documents is quite common in the former USSR and in Russia. I actually have some documents which are "authentic" because they come from government sources but which are not true. For the right amount of money people will create any document for you and that continues to this day. Just look at the many sites that will issue you a Soviet diplomas for the right price and look at all the politicians with forged doctorates and dissertations. Even Putin has a plagarized dissertation and false documents. This is why a Soviet diploma here in the West is questioned and virtually useless.

Bandurist (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I ask about exact words you mentioned “as if they died during the German occupation” – does such was mentioned in Soviet books? Holodomor predominantly affected worst managed kolkhozes and self-employed peasants (unfortunately such was a majority in 1932), but there also exist a small number of kolkhozes and even rayons which not suffered from hunger. Once again you switch from my exact question about “deniers” to irrelevant themes. I knew enough facts about Diaspora – but thank for your explanations. Anyway – were is a requesting “never took place” and everything is Ok - you spend a lot of time to cite me many books and other wording but you’ve not time to cite me few words what I’ve requested. Sadly Jo0doe (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other

So could anyone cite me words “never took place” for every of mentioned here persons, and what the situation in first half of 1933 in USSR as "everything fine" - third attempt. Jo0doe (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Next you will want them to state emphatically and specifically that the "Holodomor" never took place using the term itself, despite the fact that the term was introduced 50 years after the fact. Its asking to see whether any iof the pre WWII politicians used the term Holocaust. Жить стало лучче, жить стало веселее. Said one of your countrymen with a moustache. Bandurist (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I ask to state were is mentioned the words “what the situation in first half of 1933 in USSR as "everything fine" and never ask about the term "Holodomor" itself. Look like you try to apply not clever demagogy effort – so assume what most of mentioned here persons was simply nominated as “deniers” because they dismiss the propaganda cases widely supplied by Nazi and their Western friends and later Nazi- collaborationists . Jo0doe (talk) 09:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Duranty - "The pamphlet does not add that in The Times, September 13, writing from Rostov-on-Don in the course of a personal inspection trip through those sections, Duranty stated that his estimate of July 24, before he had made his personal inspection, was exaggerated. He said that the poor harvest of 1932 had made for difficult conditions in certain sections, but there had been no famine. Writing from Kharkov, capital of the Ukraine, September 18, 1933, on conditions of that year, he said: 'The writer has just completed a 200-mile trip through the heart of the Ukraine and can say positively that the harvest is splendid and all talk of famine now is ridiculous.'"here title

"In 'Assignment in Utopia,' I tell how Duranty, returning from a tour of inspection after the 1932-33 famine, told Anne O'Hare McCormick, myself and others that the famine had killed many millions. His estimate, I say, was the largest I had yet heard. In the book I didn't mention the figure he used, but it was 7 million! Having passed on that figure to us in private conversation, he went home and wrote his famous dispatches pooh-pooing the famine."

Just one occurrence. I jkust haven't thetime to go throught the rest Bandurist (talk)

For your note all talk of famine now is ridiculous and date - September 18, 1933. Please visit Kulchitsky - and note what last reports about "difficulties" dated by end of June. So you accuse Duranty in what he spoke about September 18, 1933 for now your reffered to past? I can't find a logical reason to do so. As regards to "famine" "hunger" and "malnutrition" - they both reflect the sitation and depends on how capable an author to assess the situation - does he met such events before - but in any case such statement can not be mentioned as deny. told - it's not a WP cathegory - WP needs riged facts, I knew the story when somone speake with Balitslii at Kolyma a 1+ year after he was executed Jo0doe (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

???Bandurist (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

“Journalists, on the other hand, are allowed to write, but the censorship has turned them into masters of euphemism and understatement. Hence they give "famine" the polite name of "food shortage" and "starving to death" is softened down to read as "widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition." [26] Your comments on this statement ?

Also interesting view on “blatant lie of soviet regarding kulaks action “ – from FT [27] by Mr. Jones.

Also comment from denier It is an old story, which the writer first heard on the Volga during the famine in the Summer of 1921. Everywhere they said, "Things here are desperate, and unless we get relief we will die before Christmas"--which was true enough. Then we asked them, "But are people dying here now?" And they replied, "No, not here yet, but if you go to the village of So-and-So you will find hardly any one alive." We went to said village and heard exactly the same story, "Here we are desperate, thought not yet dying, but at So-and-So conditions are frightful." [28] Jo0doe (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "See also"

Please someone who has some time please explain that the "see also" section cannot contain marginally related, such as useful idiot, fellow traveller and hundreds more political epithets and whats not. "See also" must serve for clarification of the topic of the article. `'Míkka>t 06:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

For the time being I've deleted the section. I would suggest we work on the article. Revisionism is a minor component of the article and genocide denial is only mentioned in the context of the Ukrainian initiative. It seems to me that links to Soviet historiography et al. would be better candidates. Otherwise it's too easy for passers-by to label "See also" as it was as being a bit of tail-end axe-grinding. We don't need those sorts of accusations clouding the article. Genocide denial can simply be a link in the (brief) text which discusses the Ukrainian position. Same for where revisionism comes into the discussion. —PētersV (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gulag picture

I have removed the Gulag painting as irrelevant to the topic of article. It does not show Holodomor victims nor Holodomor denialists nor (most probably) honest Holodomor researchers. Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What may be more illustrative would be to possibly put up copies of the artwork for the cover of Tottle's book and also the cover of the Stalin Society book. I just wonder about copyright considerations. Bandurist (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reinstate the “Annoying Tags”

Dear editors, unfortunately this article construct predominantly from POV and OR. Facts twisted, misused and even manipulated. It seems what you try to apply here Holocaust deniers approach and push genocide version of the first half of 1933 tragedy. Unfortunately, none can able/want to provide NPOV reference for mentioned in article “deniers” as they was deny specifically the bad satiation with food in first half of 1933 in Ukraine and allegedly claims what everything is ok in first half of 1933 – especially in Ukraine. Please mind – Holodomor in Ukraine taken place in first half of 1933 and affected oblasts in different time and in a different extent. There no Holodomor since July 1933 (if you plan to provide ref on August and later statements about current situation and diary of Nazi-lover and propagandist). Jo0doe (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remark

The paper "Recognition and Denial of Genocide and Mass Killing in the 20th Century" should be available from a reliable source as well as ukrweekly.com or it is unacceptable as a source. In any case, as a conference presentation, it is not peer-reviewed and so not considered reliable for history. Relata refero (talk) 07:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:Source does not require reliable sources to be peer reviewed. For example, many books (reliable secondary sources) are not peer reviewed. In fact you have deleted a lot of texts supported by reliable sources. This is against WP:NPOV policy.Biophys (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No. This article is an utter mess of original research and dubious, ahistorical partisan sources, and it needs to be cleaned out. If a large part of the exceptional claims made in it are sourced to a single non peer-reviewed paper, then it trips WP:REDFLAG immediately.

First, please find a reliable source indicating that "Recognition and Denial of Genocide and Mass Killing in the 20th Century" exists. Then please find a record of this conference, and who called it; is it an academic conference? What are its antecedents? Who else presented?

After that we can move on to discussing whether the views presented here violate WP:FRINGE or not.

Note also WP:RS:

1. The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals.
2. Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are preferred. Relata refero (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I see Biophys showed up again and restored the nonsense. I am not to revert war here. Multiple objections stated at this page above and ignored by POV-pushers. I am tagging the article and the tag stays until the article gets rid of OR-ish rigging. --Irpen 18:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree a tag would be useful. And I fully intend to take these points one by one if necessary. Can we start with this above article? It screams "unpublished paper seized upon by pressure group" to me. Relata refero (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No objections. Please copy here a segment of text that you think is not supported by reliable source(s) and let me some time (a day) to verify or find the references. If references are not found, the text should be deleted or re-edited per WP:NOR. That will be more productive than RR warring.Biophys (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we determine whether or not the paper is even citable first? I will wait a few days, if you need the time. Relata refero (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tottle

To start off with, I've removed this section. Its about a book that - and this is trumpeted in the text! - is carried in 28 libraries, and that's it. Its published by "Toronto Progress Publishers", a non-RS Soviet-funded imprint if ever there was one. The only way it can claim to be notable is that its cited by the Stalin Society. The Stalin society! Can anyone tell me why this marginal piece of pseudoscholarship is notable enough to get a section? Relata refero (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I suggested to post the problem here and let me a day to validate or find the reference. But you started from deletion of sourced text. This not the way to collaborate.Biophys (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Now, let's talk. You have deleted the following segment of sourced text:

In 1987 the Canadian trade-unionist and activist Douglas Tottle, published the controversial book Fraud, Famine, and Fascism: the Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard, where he claimed that the Holodomor was "fraudulent", and "a creation of Nazi propagandists".^[1] By the author's own account, his book is only carried by 28 libraries around the world. His book, published by the pro-Communist Progress Publishers in Toronto, appeared practically at the same time Ukrainian Communist party leader Volodymyr Shcherbytsky publicly acknowledged the Famine, in December 1987, and the book was subsequently withdrawn from circulation.^[2] Nevertheless, the book is available on the internet, and continues to be cited as an "invaluable" and "important" book by groups such as the Stalin Society in Great Britain, author Jeff Coplon, and others.

In a review of Tottle's book in the Ukrainian Canadian Magazine, published by the pro-Communist Association of United Ukrainian Canadians, Wilfred Szczesny wrote: "Members of the general public who want to know about the famine, its extent and causes, and about the motives and techniques of those who would make this tragedy into something other than what it was will find Tottle's work invaluable" (The Ukrainian Canadian, April 1988, p. 24).^[3]

In his book, Searching for place, Lubomyr Luciuk comments: "For a particularly base example of famine-denial literature, see Tottle, Fraud, famine, and fascism...".^[4]

Please explain, what exactly portion of this text was disputed and why. Do you mean that a book with ISBN number does not exist? Please wait for reply and consensus opinion prior to deleting anything.Biophys (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I checked the sources. Reference [2] can indeed be challenged. Reference [3] is probably O'K (the internet link can be replaced by reference to newspaper article). References [1] and [4] are just fine unless you can prove otherwise. Therefore, I suggest to remove small segment of text supported by reference [2] - as indicated above. Let's wait for opinions of others.Biophys (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you read what I said above? Not only are references 2 and 3 non-RS (as is 1!) but this whole paragraph is completely non-notable and unencyclopaedic. Please re-read my first paragraph and answer the points there.

And I made it quite clear that while you look for the antecedents of the conference paper I will not remove any material sourced to that paper. That does not mean that other parts of the text that are particularly egregious will not go. Relata refero (talk) 07:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's take only one issue at a time. Why do you think that references [1] and [3] do not satisfy WP:Source? For example, source [1] is a published book. Was it published? I understand that it was. Hence, this is an appropriate source per WP:Source.Biophys (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

By an unreliable press. Not a reliable source. See WP:V and WP:RS. Similarly, what is the "Ukranian-Canadian"? Did it have any reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? What were its level of editorial control? Was it merely, as I suspect, an ethnic newsletter?

And to start off with, why are we having this conversation? What is remotely encyclopaedic about a book that is completely and utterly non-notable? Relata refero (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's consider one thing at a time. Are we talking about the book (source [1])? Do you admit that it fits WP:Source? If you do not, you did not provide any valid arguments. It is not required that a source was "notable". What does it mean "an unreliable press"? Who decided it is "unreliable"? This is not self-publishing if I understnd correctly. You ask: "Did it have any reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? What were its level of editorial control?" You could ask this about almost any published book. Biophys (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS#Scholarship and get back to me. And the first line that WP:SOURCE goes to says we need to "rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Relata refero (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What poppycock. Tottle's book is not used in this article as a source of reliable statements about the Holodomor. The premise is that this book, is quoted by many other sources, and is continues to be quoted as if it were a reliable source. what could be added is the amount of damage it did to the study of the Holodomor, particularly in Canada. Tottle's book (IMHO) singlehandedly derailed the inclusion of the Holodomor as part of the Genocide studies package developed by the Toronto Board of Education. (But then my conclusion would be Independant research. Bandurist 19:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandurist (talk • contribs)

Indeed. If you can find a mainstream/independent reliable source indicating that the Tottle book is in the least notable, it can stay. Otherwise it goes.

If you can indicate through mainstream/independent reliable sources that all the people who quote this book are notable in some way, it can stay. Otherwise it goes.

Etc. Relata refero (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

We do not use this book as a reliable source about Holodomor. We only use it to verify that person "X" made a statement "Y" (this article is not about Holodoomor, but about denial of Holodomor). There is no doubts that Tottle indeed made such statements, based on the sources. The book published by Tottle is a sufficently reliable source about statements made by Tottle. Do we all agree on that? Yes or no, please. If we do, we can move further and discuss notability.Biophys (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Reliance on direct quotes from primary sources is deprecated in WP:OR, and there are a couple of other problems, but I agree in principle. Relata refero (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Note I prefer not to revert, but when vandalism is accused I fear that it is necessary to make the point, especially when the editor doesn't seem to be reading the talkpage. I will not do so again. Relata refero (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss you changes so that a consensus can be arrived at before deleting significant sections of the article. Such behavior is vandalism. Please read the discussion page. It would be woth while to also read the Tottle book. It is is available as a pdf file.Bandurist 12:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandurist (talk • contribs)

This is the third time you have used the term 'vandalism'. You have presumably not read WP:VAND, which comprehensively explains why you are utterly wrong to do so. You will please cease using that word.

Consensus cannot be arrived at in the absence of a discussion. You have not participated in the discussion, so your opinions are irrelevant to the consensus, unsupported as they are by any form of reasoning.

Please answer my questions above; I repeat them below:

If you can find a mainstream/independent reliable source indicating that the Tottle book is in the least notable, the section can stay. Otherwise it goes.

If you can indicate through mainstream/independent reliable sources that all the people who quote this book are notable in some way, the section can stay. Otherwise it goes. Relata refero (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

And who are you to decide what stays or goes? What contribution have you made to the article? You haven't answered any of my questions at all. You have not demonstrated to me any comprehension of the topic being discussed.

For a list of materials quoting Tottle all you have to do is Google Tottle and one of the scholars researching the Ukrainian Famine, but if that is too hard for you, here is a short list.

Here is a selection of pro-Tottle articles:

• The Hoax of the Man-Made Ukraine Famine of 1932-33 -
• In Search of a SOVIET HOLOCAUST - A 55-Year-Old Famine Feeds the Right By Jeff Coplon
• [http://www.palgrave-usa.com/catalog/product.aspx?isbn=0333311078 THE YEARS OF HUNGER

Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933 R.W. Davies and Stephen G. Wheatcroft]

• REFERENCES* to R.J. Rummel, Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917 New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publications, 1992

Have a read. Bandurist 16:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Explain to me why that makes a difference? The Progressive Labor Party, which consists of about three people; a user comments section on a bookseller's website; a Village Voice article from before the book came out that happens to mention Tottle as being at a meeting; and a mention in a single bibliography with a few hundred entries without any context?

How about a couple of reliable sources please. This time actually read WP:RS. And get me something that tells me why this book is important. Or out it goes.

And my contribution is going to be clearing this article of execrable original research that is a hideous blot on Wikipedia's reputation. Relata refero (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I could cite many more examples, but I feel you will not acknowlege any of them - Plugging in Tottle University Famine gives me 704 hits here Tottle University Famine, or tottle famine will give over 1520 hits. I'm sure you can find something worthy there.

Here is one [http://www.artukraine.com/famineart/serbyn4.htm Dr. Roman Serbyn, Professor of Russian and East European History University of Quebec, Montreal, Canada (THE LAST STAND OF THE UKRAINIAN FAMINE-GENOCIDE) from The Ukrainian Canadian magazine, February, 1989] Bandurist 17:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you want the section, you find a reliable source that says that the book is relevant. Random ghits are not indicative in any sense.

Believe me, we're getting to the "Ukrainian-Canadian" in due course. I see no reason why it should be considered reliable in this respect. It is clearly a community newsletter, and not an encyclopedic source. Relata refero (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Last edits

Inspite of all negotiation efforts by Bandurist and me, Relato refero continues his unilateral deletions of sourced texts against consensus and without waiting for opinions of others. Should we submit an RfC about Relato refero if this continues?Biophys (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You have made no effort at negotiation. The only effort has been made by Bandurist in the last thirty minutes, and I've just demonstrated that it isn't even half an answer to the questions I've raised.

You don't have a consensus if you don't participate, OK? And you can stop saying "sourced" - it doesnt matter if its "sourced" if (a) the sources are crap, which is true in this case and (b) the matter isn't demonstrated to be relevant, which is true in this case.

Submit an RfC, as I said, input from the community is always delightful.

I note that I have made several times more edits to this talkpage since I turned up than you have; I notice that you have not followed through with a single reply to the questions I have asked. So yes, go ahead with an RfC, and I'll go ahead with cleaning up this article.

Or perhaps you could consider actually trying to discuss my points, and coming to a series of compromises. Relata refero (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you do not "go ahead with cleaning up" all sourced information you do not like, because that would be against WP:NPOV policy.Biophys (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Err... why? Who says they're because I don't like them? I have no objection to any of them. They may even be true. But they're not sourced to reliable sources, are frequently original research, etc. You see your problem is that you don't realise I have no opinion whatsoever on this issue! So I don't like or dislike anything... Relata refero (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

So far, you have deleted perfectly sourced texts except perhaps one small segment, as clear from my and your comments above. You did this unilaterally.Biophys (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Perfectly sourced? You still haven't read WP:RS?

Each and every section I deleted will, in sequence, receive the same careful examination, I assure you. Have you ever read WP:BRD? Relata refero (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Materials removed by Relata refero without discussion

On Feb 12 Relata refero without discussion removed:

While other Western reporters reported the famine conditions as best they could due to Soviet censorship and restrictions on visiting areas affected by the famine, Duranty acted more like a spokesman for the Soviet government than an independent reporter for a Western newspaper.

As the New York Times notes: "Taking Soviet propaganda at face value this way was completely misleading, as talking with ordinary Russians might have revealed even at the time."^[1]

According to some historians, Duranty's reports from Moscow were crucial in the decision taken by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to grant the Soviet Union diplomatic recognition in 1933.^[2]

British journalist Malcolm Muggeridge characterised Duranty as "the greatest liar of any journalist I have met in 50 years of journalism."^[3] Others have characterized Duranty as "the number one Useful Idiot for Lenin first, and later or Stalin.^[4]

Initially critical of the Soviet grain procurement program because it created the food problem, Fischer by February of 1933 adopted the official Soviet government view, which blamed the problem on Ukrainian counter-revolutionary nationalist "wreckers." It seemed "whole villages" had been "contaminated" by such men, who had to be deported to "lumbering camps and mining areas in distant agricultural areas which are now just entering upon their pioneering stage." These steps were forced upon the Kremlin, Fischer wrote, but the Soviets were, nevertheless, learning how to rule wisely.

American Communists resorted to violence in an attempt to silence the Ukrainians.^[5][6][7] On November 18, 1933, in New York City, 8,000 Ukrainians marched from Washington Square Park to 67th Street, while 500 Communists ran beside the parade and snatched the Ukrainians' handbills, spat on the marchers and tried to hit them.^[8][9] Five persons were injured.^[10] Only the presence of 300 policemen on foot and a score on horseback leading the parade and riding along its flanks prevented serious trouble.^[11][12].

In 1934 the British Foreign Office in the House of Lords stated that there was no evidence to support the allegations against the Soviet government regarding the Famine in Ukraine. The testimony of Sir John Maynard, a renowned famine expert who visited the Ukraine in the summer of 1933 rejected tales of famine-genocide propagated by the Ukrainian Nationalists^[13].

The height of manipulation was reached during a visit to Ukraine carried out between August 26 and September 9, 1933, by French Prime Minister Edouard Herriot, who denied accounts of the famine. The day before his arrival, all beggars, homeless children and starving people were removed from the streets. Shop windows in local stores were filled with food, but purchases were forbidden, and anyone coming too close to the stores was arrested. The streets were washed. Just like all other Western visitors, Herriot met fake "peasants," all selected Communists or Komsomol members, who showed him healthy cattle.^[14] Herriot declared to the press that there was no famine in Ukraine, that he did not see any trace of it, and that this showed adversaries of the Soviet Union were spreading the rumour. "When one believes that the Ukraine is devastated by famine, allow me to shrug my shoulders," he declared. The September 13, 1933 issue of Pravda was able to write that Herriot "categorically contradicted the lies of the bourgeoisie press in connection with a famine in the

Orwell clearly knew of a press cover-up about the famine as in his 1945, Proposed Preface to Animal Farm he wrote:

“…it was considered equally proper to publicise famines when they happened in India and to conceal them when they happened in the Ukraine. And if this was true before the war, the intellectual atmosphere is certainly no better now.”^[15] For an interesting 'work-in-progress' including a discussion on the influence of the Ukrainian Famine and Holodomor denial by Duranty on Orwell's book "Animal Farm" see Nigel Colley's article Was Gareth Jones's surname behind George Orwell’s naming of ‘Farmer Jones' in Animal Farm?.

In 1987 the Canadian trade-unionist and activist Douglas Tottle, published the controversial book Fraud, Famine, and Fascism: the Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard, where he claimed that the Holodomor was "fraudulent", and "a creation of Nazi propagandists".^[16] By the author's own account, his book is only carried by 28 libraries around the world. His book, published by the pro-Communist Progress Publishers in Toronto, appeared practically at the same time Ukrainian Communist party leader Volodymyr Shcherbytsky publicly acknowledged the Famine, in December 1987, and the book was subsequently withdrawn from circulation.^[17] Nevertheless, the book is available on the internet, and continues to be cited as an "invaluable" and "important" book by groups such as the Stalin Society in Great Britain, author Jeff Coplon, and others.

---

While other Western reporters reported the famine conditions as best they could due to Soviet censorship and restrictions on visiting areas affected by the famine, Duranty acted more like a spokesman for the Soviet government than an independent reporter for a Western newspaper.

As the New York Times notes: "Taking Soviet propaganda at face value this way was completely misleading, as talking with ordinary Russians might have revealed even at the time."^[1]

According to some historians, Duranty's reports from Moscow were crucial in the decision taken by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to grant the Soviet Union diplomatic recognition in 1933.^[18]

British journalist Malcolm Muggeridge characterised Duranty as "the greatest liar of any journalist I have met in 50 years of journalism."^[19] Others have characterized Duranty as "the number one Useful Idiot for Lenin first, and later or Stalin.^[4]

Campaigns were launched in 1986 for the retraction of the Pulitzer Prize given to The New York Times. Despite the fact that the Times admits that the fraudulent coverage led to it receiving the prize, they have refused to relinquish it.^[20] The Times acknowledges that "some of Duranty's editors criticized his reporting as tendentious", and that "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."^[1]

Initially critical of the Soviet grain procurement program because it created the food problem, Fischer by February of 1933 adopted the official Soviet government view, which blamed the problem on Ukrainian counter-revolutionary nationalist "wreckers." It seemed "whole villages" had been "contaminated" by such men, who had to be deported to "lumbering camps and mining areas in distant agricultural areas which are now just entering upon their pioneering stage." These steps were forced upon the Kremlin, Fischer wrote, but the Soviets were, nevertheless, learning how to rule wisely.

Fischer blamed poor weather and the refusal of peasants to harvest the grain, which then rotted in the fields.

American Communists resorted to violence in an attempt to silence the Ukrainians.^[21][22][23] On November 18, 1933, in New York City, 8,000 Ukrainians marched from Washington Square Park to 67th Street, while 500 Communists ran beside the parade and snatched the Ukrainians' handbills, spat on the marchers and tried to hit them.^[24][25] Five persons were injured.^[26] Only the presence of 300 policemen on foot and a score on horseback leading the parade and riding along its flanks prevented serious trouble.^[27][12].

In 1934 the British Foreign Office in the House of Lords stated that there was no evidence to support the allegations against the Soviet government regarding the Famine in Ukraine. The testimony of Sir John Maynard, a renowned famine expert who visited the Ukraine in the summer of 1933 rejected tales of famine-genocide propagated by the Ukrainian Nationalists^[28].

The height of manipulation was reached during a visit to Ukraine carried out between August 26 and September 9, 1933, by French Prime Minister Edouard Herriot, who denied accounts of the famine. The day before his arrival, all beggars, homeless children and starving people were removed from the streets. Shop windows in local stores were filled with food, but purchases were forbidden, and anyone coming too close to the stores was arrested. The streets were washed. Just like all other Western visitors, Herriot met fake "peasants," all selected Communists or Komsomol members, who showed him healthy cattle.^[29] Herriot declared to the press that there was no famine in Ukraine, that he did not see any trace of it, and that this showed adversaries of the Soviet Union were spreading the rumour. "When one believes that the Ukraine is devastated by famine, allow me to shrug my shoulders," he declared. The September 13, 1933 issue of Pravda was able to write that Herriot "categorically contradicted the lies of the bourgeoisie press in connection with a famine in the

Orwell clearly knew of a press cover-up about the famine as in his 1945, Proposed Preface to Animal Farm he wrote:

“…it was considered equally proper to publicise famines when they happened in India and to conceal them when they happened in the Ukraine. And if this was true before the war, the intellectual atmosphere is certainly no better now.”^[30] For an interesting 'work-in-progress' including a discussion on the influence of the Ukrainian Famine and Holodomor denial by Duranty on Orwell's book "Animal Farm" see Nigel Colley's article Was Gareth Jones's surname behind George Orwell’s naming of ‘Farmer Jones' in Animal Farm?.

Douglas Tottle and Holodomor denial

In 1987 the Canadian trade-unionist and activist Douglas Tottle, published the controversial book Fraud, Famine, and Fascism: the Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard, where he claimed that the Holodomor was "fraudulent", and "a creation of Nazi propagandists".^[16] By the author's own account, his book is only carried by 28 libraries around the world. His book, published by the pro-Communist Progress Publishers in Toronto, appeared practically at the same time Ukrainian Communist party leader Volodymyr Shcherbytsky publicly acknowledged the Famine, in December 1987, and the book was subsequently withdrawn from circulation.^[31] Nevertheless, the book is available on the internet, and continues to be cited as an "invaluable" and "important" book by groups such as the Stalin Society in Great Britain, author Jeff Coplon, and others.

- - In a review of Tottle's book in the Ukrainian Canadian Magazine, published by the pro-Communist Association of United Ukrainian Canadians, Wilfred Szczesny wrote: "Members of the general public who want to know about the famine, its extent and causes, and about the motives and techniques of those who would make this tragedy into something other than what it was will find Tottle's work invaluable" (The Ukrainian Canadian, April 1988, p. 24).^[32]

- In his book, Searching for place, Lubomyr Luciuk comments: "For a particularly base example of famine-denial literature, see Tottle, Fraud, famine, and fascism...".^[33]

In a review of Tottle's book in the Ukrainian Canadian Magazine, published by the pro-Communist Association of United Ukrainian Canadians, Wilfred Szczesny wrote: "Members of the general public who want to know about the famine, its extent and causes, and about the motives and techniques of those who would make this tragedy into something other than what it was will find Tottle's work invaluable" (The Ukrainian Canadian, April 1988, p. 24).^[32]

In his book, Searching for place, Lubomyr Luciuk comments: "For a particularly base example of famine-denial literature, see Tottle, Fraud, famine, and fascism...".^[34]

On Feb 12 Relata refero added:

This entire article may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (March 2008)

This article may contain an unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources. Please help Wikipedia by adding sources whose main topic is "actual studies of a campaign to minimise acceptance of the scale of the Holodomor". See the talk page for details.(March 2008)

On Feb 14 Relata refero removed the whole section:

===Douglas Tottle and Holodomor denial === In 1987 the Canadian trade-unionist and activist Douglas Tottle, published the controversial book Fraud, Famine, and Fascism: the Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard, where he claimed that the Holodomor was "fraudulent", and "a creation of Nazi propagandists".^[16] By the author's own account, his book is only carried by 28 libraries around the world. His book, published by the pro-Communist Progress Publishers in Toronto, appeared practically at the same time Ukrainian Communist party leader Volodymyr Shcherbytsky publicly acknowledged the Famine, in December 1987, and the book was subsequently withdrawn from circulation.^[35] Nevertheless, the book is available on the internet, and continues to be cited as an "invaluable" and "important" book by groups such as the Stalin Society in Great Britain, author Jeff Coplon, and others

In a review of Tottle's book in the Ukrainian Canadian Magazine, published by the pro-Communist Association of United Ukrainian Canadians, Wilfred Szczesny wrote: "Members of the general public who want to know about the famine, its extent and causes, and about the motives and techniques of those who would make this tragedy into something other than what it was will find Tottle's work invaluable" (The Ukrainian Canadian, April 1988, p. 24).^[32]

In his book, Searching for place, Lubomyr Luciuk comments: "For a particularly base example of famine-denial literature, see Tottle, Fraud, famine, and fascism...".^[36]

Bandurist 17:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you put in my edit comments as an explanation? And put in a reflist so everyone can see precisely what this is sourced to... Relata refero (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What a good idea Please make a contribution and add them. Bandurist 18:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Friend, you're the one that wants to waste time on this, why should I encourage you? You should instead be answering the question above: "which independent, mainstream, reliable sources do you have that state that the Tottle book is a non-marginal, important, encyclopaedic part of a genocide denial movement?" That question is the first of many to be discussed, so we should get started. Relata refero (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If any good faithed edit is again called Vandalism, the incident will be reported. For now the entire article is OR. The definition of the phenomenon even is ORish. Relata tried to question the most questionable part, the use of the questionable book as a source. Here is the dilemma. The book is an acceptable source on its author's view, I agree to that. The real question is whether the author's views are of any significance to be included in this article. There are all sots of cranks who publish all sorts of theories. Do views of the most extremist racists belong to the Race article? Try to answer. No one questions using such "sources" in the articles about their subjects themselves. Please opine. --Irpen 19:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No. A lot of wikipedians worked here in a good faith. This article is in good shape. It is sourced to reliable secondary sources, such as books by Robert Conquest and other reliable sources. Please use conflict resolution procedures, such as an RfC about this article, instead of RR warring. As about your "race question" (which is not related to this article!), using sourced statements of racists in articles about these racists is perfectly acceptable.Biophys (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in the article about racists themselves, but not the Race article. You are free to fill Tottle's article with his quotes. But you have to show that his opinion is notable to add his quotes to the articles on other topics. That "Stalin Society" relies on him is not exactly a sign of his notability. --Irpen 22:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is not about Holodomor. It is about Holodomor denial. Hence it about "racists", not about "race" using your analogy.Biophys (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Every racist is not quoted on Racism. Demonstrate that Tottle is notable using some reliable secondary sources. Relata refero (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you imply "Undue weight" or what? We have an article Douglas Tottle. So, he is notable.Biophys (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Notable enough to have an article and notable enough to be quoted in an another article are two very different things. Several racists will have articles who are not notable enough to be quoted in racism, right? Relata refero (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Resources

Competing Memories Of Communist And Nazi Crimes In Ukraine by Roman Serbyn Université du Québec à Montréal

A Canadian commission focusing only on war crimes committed by the Nazis and their collaborators was a windfall for Soviet anti-Ukrainian propaganda. Ukrainian diaspora’s claims of Soviet man-made famine could be undermined by discrediting its proponents. It was only necessary to put together suitable material and present it with a convincing argument to show that the promoters of the famine yarn were criminals and that their stories were a fabrication. The Soviets would provide the “expertise” on the history of the 1930, if Canadian Communist (especially Ukrainians and Jews) would help put it together in a presentable form. Canadian Communists seem to have developed the same strategy. In September 1985 A. Cherniaev, assistant director of the International department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union sent a manuscript A. Kapto, secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine, with the following message: “In connection with the anti-Soviet campaign unfolding in the West regarding the so-called ‘artificial famine in Ukraine in 1932-1933’, Canadian communists have prepared counter-propagandistic material, which exposes that falsification. We request your opinion on the enclosed manuscript.”30 The enclosure was sent to the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, where it was reviewed by the Institute of History and minor changes were suggested31. The final recommendation for publication was signed by Arnold N. Shlepakov, director of the Institute of Social and Economic Problems in Foreign Countries, Vasyl Yurchuk, director of the Institute of Party History, and Yuriy Kondufor, director of the Institute of History in the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR.32

The Communist Party of Canada expected the Canadian Ukrainian Kobzar Publishing Company to put out the book, but by this time the leadership of the Ukrainian communists was divided on the issue of the famine and the demand was rejected.33 It was finally published in 1987 by Progress Books, under the authorship of Douglas Tottle, a communist trade unionist34. Whatever the part played by this self-styled “jack of all trades” in writing the book, the richly illustrated and abundantly footnoted diatribe was a masterpiece of propaganda. The cover carried a slick alliterated title "Fraud, Famine and Fascism. The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard". Its cover was illustrated with a photo of an emaciated child sitting in a woman’s lap and hovering over the picture was a hand dipping a painter’s brush into a blob of paint pouring out of a swastika adorned tube. To enhance the book’s credibility, blurbs on the back cover from two history professors praised Tottle for exposing “the ways and wiles of anti-communist propaganda” and “the viciousness surrounding the theory of the Ukrainian genocide”.35 The book’s argument was one of ingenious simplicity: Ukrainian bourgeois nationalists, who had collaborated in Nazis extermination of Jews and others during the war, accuse the Soviet authorities of starving Ukrainians to deflect attention from their own crimes. To prove their genocide, Ukrainian nationalists try to pass off photographs of the Russian famine of 1921-192,2 caused by drought, for a deliberate man-made starvation against the Ukrainians in 1932-1933.36 These photographs, argued Tottle, were first used by the Nazis and the Hearst publications and then were picked up by the Ukrainian nationalists. The chapters on “Collaborators and Collusion” and “War Criminals, Anti-Semitism and the Famine-Genocide Campaign” attacked the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), the Waffen SS Division Halychyna and other alleged Ukrainian “criminals” who stood behind the famine-genocide “mythology”. The book attacked “Harvest of Despair” and The Harvest of Sorrow for relying on such fraudulent testimonies and anachronistic photographic material. Tottle became a forceful spokesman against the “Harvest” film and book in the Canadian mass media. Eventually Tottle’s book lost credibility in all but the fringe Stalinist circles, but in the late 1980s material from it appeared in the American “Village Voice”37 and various student newspapers in Canada38, and did irreparable damage to Ukrainian-Jewish relations in North America. The Soviet Embassy in Ottawa took advantage of the situation to court Jewish organizations. An Embassy meeting, on 29 October 1987, hosting 70 members of a Jewish organization was an occasion for the distribution of 70 copies of “information-propaganda literature, including [...] 4 copies of ‘History warns’ about the treacherous collaboration of Ukrainian bourgeois nationalists with the fascists during the years of World War II — all in the English language”.39 The shadow of suspicion cast on the Ukrainian diaspora by the hunt for Nazi war criminals and the need to help the victims of the Chornobyl’ nuclear disaster divided the resources of the Ukrainian community and diverted much of its attention away from the Holodomor. This in turn prevented the Ukrainian diaspora from taking greater advantage of Gorbachev’s glasnost’. Only after the implosion of the CPSU, the breakup of the Soviet Union and the independence of Ukraine was the trend reversed in the approach to the famine. The opening of Soviet archives and the publication of secret documents and new research made it impossible to deny the horrendous loss of life due to starvation or to ignore the responsibility of the Stalinist regime. Yet the interest of Western scholars and the general public in Communist crimes remained far behind their preoccupation with Nazi crimes. Nazi Germany has left a uniformly negative impression in the Western psyche, but the Soviet experience continues to be viewed in more ambivalent terms, heinous crimes are juxtaposed with great achievements, not the least of which being the “liberation” of Eastern Europe from Hitler. An illustration of this was the controversy in the academic circles sparked by the publication, on the 70th anniversary of the “October Revolution”, of a collective work titled Le livre noir du Communisme, later translated into a dozen of languages.40

Тоттл - gives me 777 hits on Google. They seem to enjoy quoting him, particularly on the Russian sites

Papers such as [www.kti.ru/forum/img/usersf/pic_260.doc Историческое напёрстничество] Канадский журналист Дуглас Тоттл скрупулезно вскрыл все эти фальсификации в своей книге «Мошенничество, голод и фашизм. Миф о геноциде на Украине от Гитлера до Гар-варда». Эта книга опубликована в Торонто в 1987 г. В ней Тоттл доказал, что устрашающие фотографии голодных детей сделаны во время гражданской войны. Примером разоблаче-ния херстовской лжи является следующий факт: журналист, долгое время снабжавший хер-стовскую прессу фотографиями и репортажами из голодных районов Украины, Томас Уол-кер — человек, никогда не бывавший на Украине. Этот факт был раскрыт московским кор-респондентом американской газеты «Nation» Люисом Фишером.

More visible sources are newspapers such as К вопросу о голоде в 30-е годы Оба этих факта, скорее, говорят о том, что все «германо-нацистские данные» - плод фальсификации с очень ясным политическим подтекстом. Кстати, такие или даже именно эти «диапозитивы» описал как фальшивые Дуглас Тоттл в своей знаменитой книге "Fraud, famine and fascism. The Ukrainian genocide myth" («Жульничество, голод и фашизм. Миф об украиунском геноциде») [6,7].

From what I have seen on the various internet sites it seems that more copies of Tottle's books made it to Russia than stayed in Canada or North America. Bandurist 15:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work! I do note that the original passage you cite is from an unpublished conference paper (again!) that specifically says "draft, not for citation", but at least we're on the right track! Truth to tell, if this book indeed played a part in Soviet propaganda in the manner this author envisages, there must be additional reliable sources out there.

Unfortunately, since the person who wrote the paper doesn't think its reliable enough to be quoted, we must continue looking.

I will ask on WP:RS/N what people's opinions are about something like this. For what its worth, there was recently a discussion here that you should look at. Relata refero (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Taras Kuzio is a resident fellow in the Centre for Russian and East European Studies, and adjunct professor in the Department of Political Science, University of Toronto.:Soviet crimes remain unpunished

Western denial

The widespread antipathy for Conquest among mainstream academics echoed the views of Western Communists such as Canadian Douglas Tottle, who wrote "Fraud, Famine and Fascism. The Ukrainian Genocide Myth From Hitler to Harvard" during the late 1980s. Writers in New York's Village Voice and the London Review of Books claimed that the mythical famine was part of the anti-communist campaign against the Soviet Union unleashed by Ronald Reagan. Conquest's book was placed on a par with Hollywood films like "Rambo" and "Red Dawn."

Here is a Russian article Может ли “Голодомор” повториться в России - 2 that quotes from Tottle:

Фальшивка с фотографиями изможденных людей была разоблачена в самих США. Этому посвящена книга Д. Тоттла «Обман, голод и фашизм: миф об украинском геноциде от Гитлера до Гарварда» [3]. Так, например, большинство фотографий, на которых якобы изображены сцены трагедии Украины 1932-1933 гг., было сделано в Западной Европе периода Первой мировой войны.

3. Tottle D. 1987. Fraud, Famine and Fascism: The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard. - Toronto: Progress Books.

Curriculum Resources/General Archive/U.S. Congressional Commission on the Ukrainian Famine/1 - Report to Congress

In the Soviet Union, largely because of the stimulus of scholarship in the West, modest progress has been made in coming to terms with the Famine. In January 1988, an article in News from Ukraine, published by the Soviet Ukrainian Society for Relations with Ukrainians Abroad, admitted that the Famine took place and placed much of the blame for it on Stalin. But the extent of the Famine was minimized, the Communist Party was portrayed as doing what it could to ameliorate the situation, and actions by the Communist Party and Soviet state which exacerbated the Famine were ignored. 106 At the same time, Communist spokesmen in Canada have begun a major campaign of disinformation and denial of the Famine’s historicity by claiming that those who have studied it are either Ukrainian nationalist war criminals or their spokesmen. 107

107 Capitalizing on the fact that some Ukrainians have at times misattributed photographs of the 1921-1923 famine to 1932-1933, a Canadian communist from Winnipeg has argued that such “plagiarized” photos are the basis of a “Ukrainian genocide myth” and that those publicly bear witness to the Famine are former “Ukrainian Nazis” and that non-Ukrainians who have studied it are their front men. He concluded, The “Evil Empire’ image rests—if only in small measure-on the interpretation of the 1932-1933 Famine as a deliberate, pre-planned genocide of millions of Ukrainians. Cold War confrontation, rather than historical truth and understanding, has motivated the famine-genocide campaign. Elements of fraud, anti-semitism, degenerate Nationalism, fascism and pseudo-scholarship revealed in this critical examination of certain key evidence presented in the campaign, of the political purpose and historical background of the campaign’s promoters underlie this conclusion.” Douglas Tottle, Fraud, Famine and Fascism: the Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard (Toronto, Progress Books, 1987), p. 133. Members of the Ukrainian community in Canada are currently attempting to have legal proceedings initiated under the Canadian law which bans “hate literature” in that country.

Bandurist 22:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

New York Times, quoted in Tottle, op. cit. , p. 50. Famine, Lies, Justice and Ukraine

Bandurist 00:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• it's getting ridiculous I think. Instead of spamming articles with multiple tags, can't anybody just make one tag for cases like that, for example how about "this article is censored by Soviet Goskomizdat". --76.168.108.240 (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, right. See WP:NPA and log back in. Relata refero (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to keep things going, so far we've found

• A brief mention - not by name - in the Congressional Report of the Famine Commission in 1988.
• An article in the English-language Kyiv Post - this is actually the most persuasive for me among the acceptable sources.
• A blog.
• An conference paper, marked "not for citation".

Of these only the second is useful. You do see the problem now? Relata refero (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm still looking for something to be provided here. If none is, I will be forced to remove this section. Relata refero (talk) 09:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting.... Silence is consensus, you know. Relata refero (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I evidently switched to non-caffeinated beverages too soon today, what are you waiting for? And, actually, that reminds me, I wonder if the anti-Ukrainian Soviet propaganda pamphlet I have tucked away somewhere mentions the famine... —PētersV (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting for someone to provide few reliable sources that indicate that Tottle is worth mentioning at all, otherwise we're performing original research - such as quoting from a pamphlet we found lying around. Relata refero (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what's possible on Tottle. My "pamphlet" (if you referred to it) by the way was a small book published as a supposed reference by some scholar which was really Soviet propaganda that the Ukrainian nationalists are all Nazis, specifically targeting Canadian lawmakers at the height of U.S./Canadian deportation hearings to discredit the Ukrainian exile community. —PētersV (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Do you consider as significant/noteworthy web sites like that of the Progressive Labor Party (www.plp.org) which states "We are adding a new section to the web site where we will be publishing important topical material that we do not have room for in Challenge. The first addition is a PL supplement exposing the BBC repeating Nazi lies about the Soviet Famine of 1932-3" and is full of famine hoax materials also featuring Tottle? (They even have an Email address for their little branch apparently ensconced at Columbia University.) I want to understand where you consider the "bar" to be. It's not just the original publication, it's the phenomenon of Internet propagation that counts as well. Enter "Tottle Ukraine" in google and the PLP site is #2 and #3. —PētersV (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tags one by one

Hello

Could somebody please explain the first tag - that this article is not neutral? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Many of what sources are provided are advocacy groups, and the prose is not written in a neutral voice. Relata refero (talk) 09:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree regarding the neutral voice, in fact as I've said before I still think the name of the article is problematic. It is, in effect, a charge, and therefore serves to poison the well as the protagonists have already effectively been tried and found guilty. So I think until that is fixed the article will not be neutral.

Also, cases against individuals such as Duranty are not presented neutrally. Duranty may well have been a scoundrel, but it's not the role of an encyclopedia to make such judgements. We are supposed to present information neutrally, and there are alternative views of Duranty, as evidenced by the fact that he was not stripped of his Pulitzer and that the NY Times has defended him. Gatoclass (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been working quietly on the Duranty article (I'm not going to actually update until I've gotten at least through his coverage of the Baltics). That should make that less of a coat-rack. However, where Duranty's conduct is pertinent to the topic here, he did report "no" while privately confiding "yes". There is no editorial requirement to represent the whole persona of Duranty (or any other person who has been documented to have denied the existence of the famine), only what he (or they) specifically reported within the context of this article's topic.

   The whole Pulitzer affair has been a red herring from the beginning, it was an award for reporting done prior. Efforts to strip Duranty because of his famine reporting of an award for reporting not related to the famine was objectively bound to fail, regardless of howls of righteous indignation to the contrary. That Duranty was not stripped posthumously does not say anything either way with regard to the topic here. —PētersV (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And I have to observe that "The Holodomor in public discourse" (potential title suggested elsewhere) is at least to me white toast imbued with the air (not substance) of neutrality. There is no Wikistandard which states that untoward conduct cannot be called (in titles and articles) what it is called in the academic world and elsewhere by reputable sources. —PētersV (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I see very few reputable sources and practically no academic sources. Relata refero (talk) 09:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It is fine to have "Criticism", "Denial", and "Pseudoscience" type articles in WP. We have whole categories of such articles. Marking an article with POV and other similar labels, simply because it belongs to a certain type of articles, is inappropriate. If someone has been involved in a disinformation campaign (like Duranty), and this is supported by multiple reliable sources, that should be stated per WP:NPOV, as it is right now. Doing otherwise would be against the policy.Biophys (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong in this occasion. I see no reliable sources saying that Duranty was actively involved in a disinformation campaign. I see several sources saying he passively repeated Soviet propaganda.

This title is inappropriate for the subject matter you wish to include, but that's another matter. Relata refero (talk) 09:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

he did report "no" while privately confiding "yes"

Actually that's one of the issues I have with the Duranty section. That is no more than hearsay - anyone can make a claim about something they supposedly heard privately. So that part of the article should say that Eugene Lyons claimed that Duranty privately confided that millions had died.

Another problem with that section is that it says Duranty reported to the British embassy that "seven million had died". But what the despatch actually says is that Duranty said the population had "decreased" in those areas by seven million - a very different statement. Gatoclass (talk) 03:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"Claimed" is too weak and implies speculation, one can "claim" the moon is made of cheese. Is there a reason not to use the words "related" or "reported"? Is there any reason to doubt the veracity of "reports" of Duranty's statements and news wires? I'm not on the crucifixion bandwagon, but let's not invoke understatement as neutral representation. —PētersV (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it may be "weak" but so is the evidence. When you only have one witness to a statement, then "claimed" seems appropriate to me, especially when the assertion being made is publicly denied by the other party. Gatoclass (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Relata, instead of slapping tags, please feel free to improve the article by

A)Adding sources that are not from what you think "Advocacy groups";

B)Helping to improve the "tone" to what you think would be neutral. However, large scale deletions help nobody, and just make people angry. In case you missed it, there was a whole bunch of discussion going on here, everything from the name of the article to what images should be included, so please be kind, rewind, and read before tagging.

Hello, Gatoclass, from your statement, I see you have issues. Looking at one of your examples in more detail, perhaps you are not clear on what this article is about - this is about people denying the existence of the Holodomor. Duranty denied it. However, later he said that there was a "population decrease" - a brilliant statement, worthy of the Order of Lenin. What you seem to miss is that statement is exactly "Denial Of the Holodomor". In that statement, he said that seven million people ceased to exist, at a time when there was no food, but there was no connection between those two facts.

Hopefully this will help you understand why this article is neutral. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The only improvement I think this article can make at this point is by removing poor sources, rewriting after they're gone and changing the title. While that process is underway, tags should inform our readers that this is a poor article with severe problems. Relata refero (talk) 09:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm sorry to hear that you don't like the article. However, that doesn't mean that the article isn't neutral. Your answer says nothing about "neutral voice", nor any steps that you have taken in good faith to improve the article. If you think that removal means improvement, then I have to disagree, and so will everybody else who contributed positively to the article. Please improve the article, don't simply remove things that you don't like. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point Horlo. The article says that Duranty stated that seven million had "died". But according to the source provided, he said there was a "decrease in population". They are potentially very different statements, because population can decrease for all sorts of reasons. For example, IIRC Stalin had hundreds of thousands of kulaks and other dissenters deported to Siberia. People also no doubt left the region voluntarily. How do we know Duranty was not referring to population movements, or to a decline in birth rates, as well as to deaths by starvation or disease? Gatoclass (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, actually, I think that you are missing the point. The whole idea of Holodomor Denial is claiming that people left voluntarily, were deported, or that there was a decline in birth rates. Anything but death by famine. It's exactly arguments like that which need to be presented to show people what happened. Luckily, there are very few people who actually believe that these days. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Horlo, but that is completely irrelevant. I am simply talking about what the source says Duranty said versus what the article says he said, nothing more. The source says Duranty said the population "decreased by seven million". The article says Duranty said "seven million died." The article misrepresents the source. That is the point I'm making. Gatoclass (talk) 09:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems like one minor point. Please change it, and remove the tag. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

tags should inform our readers that this is a poor article with severe problems ...as a reader, the only thing the tags inform me about is that there are still holodomor deniers around and some of them edit Wikipedia.--76.168.108.240 (talk) 05:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

One more offensive comment like that and you will be taking another trip to AE. Gatoclass (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So, are there any real arguments against removing the neutrality tag? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Many of what sources are provided are advocacy groups, and the prose is not written in a neutral voice. Relata refero (talk) 07:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And believe me, I am familiar with those who have contributed poorly sourced non-neutral material failing to understand that its excision from an article is a net improvement. Relata refero (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, again, please work to improve the article. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean you go around deporting them. And believe me, the only thing that I believe you about is that you know how to use the delete button. Please don't make yourself out to be some righteous defender of the truth, when you don't want to contribute anything but simply censor. If you don't want to positively contribute, it will be a sign of bad faith, and I will have to remove the tags. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, removing vast amounts of poorly-referenced cruft-like non-encyclopaedic OR will only work to improve this article. Re-adding it, however, worsens it. This is an absurd point to make. If I think an article has inappropriate material in it, removing it is bad faith? Ha. Relata refero (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Last deletion

A new text included by Bandurist has been deleted. It is relevant, and it is sourced. What is the problem?Biophys (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No reliable secondary sources have been provided indicating its importance or relevance, or that it is anything but a marginal online text by a Swedish communist. Relata refero (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is article about Holodomor denial, and the text was about Holodomor denial. What else do you need?Biophys (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The same objection as to Tottle, which is yet unanswered. What is remotely encyclopaedic about a book that is completely and utterly non-notable? Relata refero (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You did not provide any valid arguments proving that Tottle and this segment of text do not belong to the article.Biophys (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The material actually was in the article previously. Before removing it, please discuss it. Bandurist 16:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No, please discuss it before restoring it. I have agreed to leave the article at a particular state, and you are violating our agreement to avoid editwarring by inserting this material. Relata refero (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what "agreement" you are talking about, but I am not a part of any "agreement".Biophys (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So noted. Will you attempt to explain why you believe this non-notable book is encyclopaedic? Also, please note that unless I receive an answer to Tottle, above, that will also have to be deleted. Relata refero (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It satisfies WP:Source, and it is exactly about subject of this article. That is sufficient. There is no any reason to delete good faith work by Bandurist, as you do. Plese note that you also deleted "Holodomor in University courses" part included by Bandurist - without any justification or discussion. The selective elimination of sourced texts is against WP:NPOV policy.Biophys (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't. What makes you say that?

And please inform me what satisfies WP:RS and WP:V about the new addition? Nonsense.Relata refero (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Relata refero, I'm also mystified by "agreement." Let's not declare something and then portray that as consensus. That's just a sign of POV pushing. Mario Sousa is prominently featured on many current communist sites. It's indicated that more than 10,000 copies of "The Lies Concerning the History of the Soviet Union" have been published. Sousa basically says that Ukrainians who did die died of the flu, that the famine is a lie, and that the famine was inflicted by Stalin is most especially a lie (but not the topic discussion here). Most of all, that the portrayal of a famine occurring is all a manufacture of lying Ukrainian Nazis. This is symptomatic of the very real and very current cult of neo-Stalinism painting all anti-Stalinism/Sovietism as Nazism and absolutely notable and relevant. On that basis, I expect to revert your deletion. Your "see talk page" edit note did not point to any specific comment by you regarding Sousa on this talk page, rather, it was a case of delete now, discuss later. Let's neither add nor delete based on blanket assertions or unilateral declarations of "agreement." The article is already tagged. If you want to engage in edit warring, that is your choice, it's not an act forced by any action of any editor here. —PētersV (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC) P.S. Editted before current restoration...

All that you say is original research. The Mario Sousa book is not a reliable source, is a primary source, and unless you provide a reliable secondary source asserting to its importance, it will continue to be removed. Please see the Tottle discussion above for further reasoning along these lines. Also read WP:PSTS and WP:RS, and WP:CANVASS. Relata refero (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sousa is a widely cited author in a circle of people holding his position. We do google searches to verify significance all the time on Wikipedia, it's verification, not original research. Half of Wikipedia would be thrown out based on the bar you set. —PētersV (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but the bad, unencyclopaedic, WP:FRINGE half. Relata refero (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Sousa is specifically mentioned in "Historical Fabrications on the Internet: Recognition, Evaluation, and Use in Bibliographic Instruction" by John A. Drobnicki and Richard Asaro. An academic source. Took less than 5 minutes to find. —PētersV (talk) 04:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Quote please. And if you think a single source that happens to mention Sousa is the same as "asserting its importance".... Relata refero (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sousa was a section of this article on Jan 12 here. It seems to have disappeared with the mass deletions when Relata joined us.

Whether the Sousa book is a reliable source regarding the Holodomor is secondary here. In an article about the Holodomor I would consider it an unreliable source, however when discussing the phenomena of Holodomor denial it is valid.

Holodomor denial is an interesting phenomena which in my opinion can be classed like things such as the flat earth society. It exists. I may personally think it is wrong, but it still exists and will continue to exist. When doing a Wikipedia article you avoid putting your own feelings into an article and you rely on reviews by eminent people.

Personally, working on the article has been an eye-opener. I never thought that works such as Tottle's would be quoted so much, particularly in Russian forums. Sousa has had his articles translated into 12 languages and they are all available on the internet. Having a compendium here gives a different slant on the subject and on the scholarship behind it period. Bandurist 12:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Bandurist. That Sousa has been translated, appears widely quoted, and has made it into a book on unreliable sources (by Drobnicki, an eminent scholar on the phenomenon of denial) is more than enough to include him on a list of those that deny there was ever a famine. One does not need a list of 100 scholars rushing to attack Sousa. If our goal is for Wikipedia to be a reliable source--it will undoubtedly pop up if someone looks for further information on Sousa--then editorial integrity demands we mention him here appropriately in the context of this article. —PētersV (talk) 12:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. I don't want a 100 scholars attacking him, I want a couple telling me that Sousa is a notable, important example of this phenomenon. None of this "but Russian forums quote him!" is good enough. Relata refero (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Let's have some academic references which debunk the existence of denial of famine, then

If editors spent a tenth of the time on creating content they do deleting it without discussing (except in general terms) we could all be more productive. Quite frankly, I didn't have an opinion either way before working on this topic. I was certainly aware of views of the Holodomor as genocide (as in, intentional by Stalin & co.)--and have my own personal views which I keep separate from my editorial views. But I was more concerned that editing on the Holodomor article presented synthesized summaries (ameliorative to Stalin) of events reported by Davies and Wheatcroft in their text in place of D&W's own stated summaries (rather different) of those very same events--stated right alongside the recounting of said events. That is not a demonstration of editorial integrity.
   Edits have been made pushing the view Stalin was trying to be helpful. Well, denial that a famine took place was very real. That denial prevented the kind of aid that had been provided to the USSR earlier. That denial continues today. There is nothing about documenting the existence of this denial which is original synthesis. The organization and writing style of the article can be improved so it's a bit less of an inventory of denialism, but that's not going to happen when editors come along and delete sections of the article en masse under the guise of improving it.
   Any editor wishing to delete referenced examples can feel free to produce reputable references dismissing Tottle, et al. as not having not been quoted by anyone anywhere in the context of purporting there was no famine. —PētersV (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It works the other way around, Vecrumba, and you know it full well. Academic sources are needed to assert something, for example denial, rather than debunk non-academic fringe theories. If somebody publishes in his blog that the famine was caused by the alien invasion, you are unlikely to find an academic bothering to spend time to debunk such theory. Same here. We have a bunch of non-notable sources that write bullshit that clearly deviates from the truth. That by itself is not the reason to have an article about such fringe theory with Wikipedian's themselves deciding whose "Moon is made out of cheese" theory it should include. Are there academic sources devoted to the denial of the famine? Please bring them in. Do these sources discuss Tottle and Sousa? Quote please. And so on. --Irpen 17:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

To your point, the reference which mentions Sousa is one dealing with misinformation the Internet. The principal author is actually an acknowledged (as in trained in library sciences/history) expert primarily on Holocaust denial. I do hope you're not insisting I go out and buy yet another book rather than it being sufficient to verify that Sousa and his book containing the famine denial are used as examples of bad information.

   There are fringe theories which are obvious fringe theories (I admit I've overused the moon/cheese analogy), and then there are others which are not so obvious to the uniformed (as in, to what extent was there a famine or not, to what extent was it ameliorated or exacerbated by those who reported on it and by those in positions of authority,...). As I've said, the Holodomor differed from prior famines in a very specific way: famine was admitted to and foreign aid made possible in the 20's, while official denial of the Holodomor, abetted (regardless of motive) by reporting such as Duranty's, prevented that aid when famine recurred.

   So, are you:

• saying the whole notion that the famine was denied, both during and after, is a "fringe theory"?

   The actions of the Soviet authorities--with regard to what was presented to the West--alone is sufficient for an entire article, let alone those who contemporaneously or later chose to portray the extent of famine as less than it was (or non-existent). I apologize that I genuinely do not understand what you consider to be "fringe" here.

   Editors have disputed the article just because it's called denial of the Holodomor and academic sources discussing the denial of the famine prior to the wider adoption of the term "Holodomor" do not use that specific word--but I don't read that as your "fringe" objection here, so, again, I remain puzzled. —PētersV (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in "Extreme mass homicide: From military massacre to genocide" ([29]) authors write: "The Russians went to great pains to keep the extreme human carnage a secret".--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Very useful! Any other details from it? The more reliably sourced information the better. (Tragically, I suspect that the more reliably sourced information arrives, the less likely the current title is to fit, which might explain the strange reluctance to source reliably...) Relata refero (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that may be useful: Himka, "War Criminality: A Blank Spot in the Collective Memory of the Ukrainian Diaspora" ([30] or [31]). "In an internet debate in the spring of 2002 the historian Mark Tauger denied that the Ukrainian famine was artificially contrived. Ukrainian-diaspora scholars countered that this reflected “widespread double standards,” “a strong refusal among academics and journalists to place Soviet and Nazi crimes against humanity on the same level.” The comparison was made to Holocaust denial.[19] More recently a contributor to E-Poshta stated that for denying that the Ukrainian famine was genocide, Tauger as well as Lynne Viola and Moshe Lewin should be “relegated to hell’s dung heap of history reserved for the most morally bankrupt liars and propagandists.” To him, their views were of one cloth with those who claimed that “no one really died in the gas chambers at Auschwitz.”[20] Tauger’s substantive argument, that the famine was in part generated by a change in the way Soviet authorities estimated harvest size,[21] has not been confronted by diaspora scholars or publicists." The refs 19 and 20 are worth pursuing: 19 - Taras Kuzio, “Denial of Famine-Terror Continues Unabated,” RFE/RL Poland, Belarus, and Ukraine Report, 4, no. 23 (12 June 2002); 20 - Peter Borisow, “So-called Omissions in the Ukrainian Famine Bibliography,” E-Poshta, 22 May 2003.; David Marples, “In Defence of the Ukrainian Famine Bibliography,” E-Poshta, 22 May 2003. It should be noted that the stance of Ukrainian historiography is quite notable (we should probably have a section on Holodomor in various historiographies).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging abuse

I believe that the tagging has been done by people who are not interested in contributing positive and in good faith anything to the article and is being used as a tool to harass the editors of this article and to deflect anyone interested in this subject. Bandurist 20:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and remember No personal attacks. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not realize that someone placed a tag to dispute other tags. That just looked ugly, so I removed a couple of tags.Biophys (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no personal attack in the Bandurist statement and he is only required to AGF until evidence of bad faith is apparent. 162.27.9.20 (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

My view is that it would be a lot more constructive to place inline level tags to precisely pinpoint the disputed areas, rather than apply an article level tag. There is a whole range to chose from here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Inline_Templates. Martintg (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

From Irpen's comment above about fringe-iness to which I responded, perhaps we should go back and start with the basics. Regardless of current title and content (let's pretend we're contemplating a brand new article), do we have consensus that the existence of the famine which came to be called the Holodomor was, in fact, denied to the outside world both by Soviet authorities and by others? I would also personally add as significant that Soviet authorities did admit to the outside world of earlier famine and received foreign food aid as a result. Two points:

• If we don't even have that consensus, there's not much use arguing over tags and we might as well just leave them.
• If we then do leave all the tags, I would respectfully request that the editors who placed them there refrain from wholesale deletions of content and permit other editors to constructively work on specific objections to specific bits of content. It's not possible to improve content attempting to react to blanket statements of disapproval.

However, if we can at least have a consensus that the Soviet authorities denied the existence of famine to the outside world, we could remove some of the tags on top and substitute for them by adding the same tags on the contemporary and/or modern denial sections, which appear to be the biggest sticky areas. I think that could help us all move forward even if it meant multiplying the total number of tags as they get replicated across more than one section. At least then we could deal with the article section by section. Dealing with the article as a whole, assuming good faith on the part of all participants here, has clearly been pretty much a polarized and abject failure. —PētersV (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

do we have consensus that the existence of the famine which came to be called the Holodomor was, in fact, denied to the outside world both by Soviet authorities and by others?

I think that misses the point. It goes back to WP:Words to avoid which has a section entitled Admit, confess, deny - words that presume guilt. The problem with a title like "Denial of the holodomor" is that the guilt of the parties concerned is already presumed in the title. That's why I've argued for a more neutral title that allows the actions of the various protagonists to be discussed, pro and con, rather than presented to the reader as if they were established facts. Gatoclass (talk) 05:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

We have a number of "denialism" articles and whole Category:Denialism, which belongs to pseudoscience, propaganda and disinformation. There is nothing wrong with having articles on propaganda and pseudoscience subjects. What alternative name for "disinformation" would you suggest?Biophys (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"Denial" to the outside world that there was a famine is hardly accusatory if it is properly descriptive. If Soviet authorities are described in reputable sources as having denied to the outside world the existence of famine, there is no impediment to using the same to describe that conduct here. A more "neutral" title is appropriate only if there were some doubt as to whether famine existed, which doubt there is not. —PētersV (talk) 06:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. My question does not miss the point, my question is the point. So, to Gatoclass's point that I missed the point, is said denial--let's start with just Soviet authorities' representations to the outside world--"established fact" or not? —PētersV (talk) 07:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Denialism is a particular attitude and has particular connotations. Is it generally accepted by mainstream scholars of the Soviet Union that the policies of that government were shaped by that attitude? Or was their attempt to hide the death of millions merely part of the paranoid secrecy with which they carried out much of their affairs? Do we have reliable sources commenting on this issue? Using a plain English word is not enough. It is the equivalent of looking at every use of the word "gay" in the past and assuming that that means that the author is talking about homosexuality.

Incidentally, I have never seen this "neutrality of tags" thing before, and it is patently absurd. I'm thinking of reporting that for further input somewhere. Relata refero (talk) 07:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the "tag commenting on other tags", I too think that is absurd and was thinking of raising it at AN/I myself. I think a tag like that can only make Wikipedia look silly. Gatoclass (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think our mission here is to examine whether or not the denial of the famine is part of some larger denialism conspiracy on the part of Soviet authorities. It's quite cut and dried, starting with: there was a famine, authorities prevented that information from reaching the outside world by denying there was a famine. If there are comparisons to be made, they should be to earlier famines and the earlier conduct of Soviet authorities under similar circumstances. —PētersV (talk) 07:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Read denialism. Read Holocaust denial, which states upfront that it is a political movement. Etc., etc. If you want to use the word "denial" in the title, you will have to understand that merely "denying" something is not enough, especially when we're talking about the Soviet Union, which denied everything. Otherwise we change the title to something which doesn't have the same problems. Relata refero (talk) 08:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) On the tagging, it was already over the top with three tags, far more than required to register disapproval, it's a potpourri of all possible tags that could be applied. One more makes little difference. Perhaps we can all agree to leave them there for now and concentrate on content and whether "denial" is an established fact, if so, then the the title is not accusatory (i.e., convicting parties that are potentially not guilty). —PētersV (talk) 07:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No, not if it makes any sense. And most articles with so many problems have three or four tags. Genuine ones, not made up ones. Relata refero (talk) 08:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tags one by one ... again

Hello, I would just ask one more time - are there any arguments besides "If I think an article has inappropriate material in it, removing it is bad faith?".

Here's the answer - YES. Perhaps you didn't notice, but there has been extensive discussion about this article. There has even been an attempt to have it deleted. The unanimous decision was to keep it.

Please read the discussion page, and let the editors who regularly contribute to this page know your difficulties with this page, rather than just impose your judgment. At least try to improve the article. Otherwise, it appears that you are simply trying to discredit an article that you don't agree with, without trying to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have informed you of my difficulties above. Please respond to them, without any further accusations of bad faith. Relata refero (talk) 10:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Continuing the latest title discussion

Follow on to my most recent interchange with Gatoclass.

I was considering earlier suggestions for non-accusatory titles, something along the lines of "Public discourse on the Holodomor" or "Views of the Holodomor." These are some reasons why I believe such titles are inappropriate as compared to the current "Denial of the Holodomor."

1. Views are differing perspectives and interpretations held by people of good faith regarding an established set of circumstances or facts which typically also involve differing conclusions as to how that set of circumstances or facts was arrived at and what the future course of events might be.
2. Discourse describes a conversation by those same people of good faith holding such views who find themselves in opposition to each other.

So, to the title, and I'll use two examples of two different circumstances to hopefully make my point so we can achieve a consensus and move to the content.

• "Denial of the Holodomor as genocide" — This title fits the guidelines which Gatoclass cites. There are a set of circumstances surrounding the Great Famine which people of good faith can, on the one hand, take as an intentional infliction of famine; certainly there are examples where personal movement was restricted and aid not provided. However, there are also contradictory circumstances: one case comes to mind where nearly all the grain of an area is taken, leaving them with a mere fraction of what's needed for the next planting let alone having anything to eat until the next harvest versus another where aid was requested and the amount requested granted.

"Genocide" speaks to intent. "Man-made" speaks to ineptness, stupiditiy, negligence,... including denial to the outside world that a famine was occurring thus preventing outside aid,... and so on. The proper title for an article discussing this topic is "Discourse on the Holodomor as genocide" or, even better as to Gatoclass's concerns, "Discourse on the causes of the Holodomor." Such a title is completely appropriate.

• "Denial of the Holodomor" — This title does not fit the guidelines which Gatoclass cites. The deaths of millions upon millions of Ukrainians and others unfortunate enough to live in the region is an established fact. The reason for those deaths, death by starvation, is an established fact. Starvation on a widespread scale is a famine, regardless of how many die. That millions upon millions did die underscores the severity of the famine.

Based on the famine now named the Holodomor having occurred being an established fact:

1. Statements by Soviet government officials that the established fact of famine was not occurring fits the definition of denial. (Especially as in earlier famine, the Soviet authorities admitted to famine and received aid.)
2. Contemporary or later/modern statements that famine was not occurring or did not occur may or may not fit the definition of denial:

With regard to accounts by other than the Soviet authorities at the time, we can engage in good faith editorial discourse over whether the timing and content of a particular statement stating there is/was "no famine" indicates denial in the circumstances of knowing otherwise:

• Where contemporary statements are concerned, if one was not aware of famine, saying it didn't exist is merely a statement. If one was indeed aware of famine, saying it didn't exist is a denial.
• Where later/modern statements are concerned and there is no longer the exculpatory (yes, I use that word intentionally) circumstance that the existence of famine was not yet an established fact and may not be known to an individual or institution, all statements that the famine did not occur are a denial.
• Regardless of exculpatory circumstances, any statements made in support of Soviet denial constitute exactly that, escalating to direct denial if the person themselves is shown as having been aware of the famine.
• Stating the belief that the famine did not exist by disputing the facts of the circumstances also constitutes denial.

Certainly, denial was exercised by the Soviet authorities. Admitting to the famine was criminalized, etc. Therefore it is paramount that the title stand. To title it anything else is to cast doubt upon the established fact of the famine. "Discourse on the existence of the Holodomor" is the most inappropriate of titles. And, worse, "Discourse on the Holodomor" inappropriately mixes the two completely different dialogs I've described: discussion of root cause versus "discussing" whether the famine ever existed in the first place.
   I invite the participants here to acknowledge that the topic is noteworthy and the current title appropriate for that topic. With that as a consensus, we can then editorially debate what fits and what does not fit as content. Without this foundation consensus the rest of our discourse here is at a standstill and ultimately quite pointless as we will simply continue to talk at each other. —PētersV (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. I will provide a few similar ones in response before I get back to asking for references for the relevance of some of the stuff in the article.

1. "Statements by Soviet government officials that the established fact of famine was not occurring fits the definition of denial." Please cite with relevant peer-reviewed scholarship.
2. "Where contemporary statements are concerned, if one was not aware of famine, saying it didn't exist is merely a statement. If one was indeed aware of famine, saying it didn't exist is a denial." But not denialism, which is an aspect of revisionism. If it is supposed it is, please cite relevant peer-reviewed scholarship saying so.
3. "To title it anything else is to cast doubt upon the established fact of the famine." Why? There's a logical leap there.
4. There are several related points here. Are we discussing the refusal to admit that deaths occurred on a particular scale? Or the belief that the deaths were intentional rather than negligence etc.? Or the belief that if the deaths were intentional, they were still not genocide defined as it was at Nuremberg (which is more than just intent to commit murder on a grand scale)? Or a deliberate attempt to extinguish a class - as the Marxists would say - and not an ethnicity? And so on. This article as it stands explores none of the political and scholarly strands behind each of those beliefs, which is the minimum that an outside observer would expect.
5. As it stands, the title - and thus the implied topic - itself fails on several levels.
6. If we want an article that shoehorns in Soviet propaganda, Western response to that propaganda, modern attempts to revisit that response, the memory of the famine as a source of strength and determination in expatriate communities and their use of it against the Soviet state in publoc opinion, what the few dozen Stalinists still left in the world think about on the internet, and so on - then, very simply, that article cannot exist under this current title without being both incoherent and original research. Relata refero (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to briefly (or perhaps not so briefly) respond to clarify some of my points (quoted text in italics mine, plain italics and "you" and "your" = Relata refero)

1. "Statements by Soviet government officials that the established fact of famine was not occurring fits the definition of denial." This has been covered before, references are not an issue and should be in the article.
2. "Where contemporary statements are concerned, if one was not aware of famine, saying it didn't exist is merely a statement. If one was indeed aware of famine, saying it didn't exist is a denial." The article title is not "Denialism and the Holodomor". It starts with contemporary denial by Soviet authorities and moves on from there. One can consider subsequent or current denials of the famine as symptomatic of denialism, but that is a different topic to be discussed on a case by case basis if applicable.
3. "To title it anything else is to cast doubt upon the established fact of the famine." The section of my explanation following indicates why. It's not a "leap", it's a logical and direct consequence. We can discuss further.
4. To your related points. I had rather hoped my discussion of two titles employing the word "denial" would clarify.
   • Are we discussing the refusal to admit that deaths occurred on a particular scale? Potentially included if the discrepancy with reputable accounts is significant (hundreds versus millions, or millions died but it wasn't famine).
   • Or the belief that the deaths were intentional rather than negligence etc.? Intent and cause are both outside the scope of this article. If a denial incorporates an argument regarding cause, that is fodder for the "other" article (that is, discourse on the cause of the Holodomor).
   • Or the belief that if the deaths were intentional, they were still not genocide defined as it was at Nuremberg (which is more than just intent to commit murder on a grand scale)? Again, outside the scope of this article.
   • Or a deliberate attempt to extinguish a class - as the Marxists would say - and not an ethnicity? Again, outside the scope of this article.
   • This article as it stands explores none of the political and scholarly strands behind each of those beliefs, which is the minimum that an outside observer would expect. None of that exploration is within the scope of this article, that is another discussion for another article, my afore-mentioned "Discourse on the causes of the Holodomor." This article is about what was reported by the authorities and others as to the existence of famine at the time it was occurring and what authorities and others have stated since then as their position as to whether the famine occurred or not. It's not about motivations or causalities.
5. (#6 above) If we want an article that shoehorns in Soviet propaganda, Western response to that propaganda, modern attempts to revisit that response, the memory of the famine as a source of strength and determination in expatriate communities and their use of it against the Soviet state in publoc opinion, what the few dozen Stalinists still left in the world think about on the internet, and so on - then, very simply, that article cannot exist under this current title without being both incoherent and original research.

I think your questions (all valid, I should add) and conclusion (your #6) clarify the issue. I believe you (and perhaps other editors) see this article as a "Discourse on the cause and nature of the Holodomor" article. In that regard I can heartily concur that this article is abjectly lacking. But that is because this article is about the simple denial of the existence of the Holodomor, no more. The scope and issues you describe are a far more complex article.
  Perhaps the real issue is that we need to have two articles: this one, and the "Discourse on the cause and nature of the Holodomor" (or similar) if that area of discussion in the main Holodomor article has expanded to where it merits becoming its own article linked to from the parent. However, this article is not that article, nor is it a POV fork of such content. Does this help? —PētersV (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Motivations are in scope but only narrowly with regard to scholarship as to why, for example, Soviet authorities would deny the existence of famine versus admitting as earlier. Motivations regarding who did/did not get aid, who was/wasn't confined to a geographic area void of food and thus effectively sentenced to starvation, the general handling of the famine, that is all outside of the scope here. —PētersV (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I will respond in detail later, but if "this article is about what was reported by the authorities and others as to the existence of famine at the time it was occurring and what authorities and others have stated since then as their position as to whether the famine occurred or not", then it should not use the word "denial". It should be "Soviet cover-up of the Holodomor" or something. Denialism, negationism, has a very specific meaning in history, historiography and philosophy, and if we're not going to explore that here, then this article is mis-titled. Relata refero (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

then it should not use the word "denial". It should be "Soviet cover-up of the Holodomor" or something. thatone is a very opinionated statement that would drive this article towards WP:OR. And since it's OK for the Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, citation provided in the refs, to speak of the denial of the famine, there is nothing wrong with calling it so on WP. "Soviet cover-up of the Holodomor" would be a chapter of the denial at best.--76.168.108.240 (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Quote please. The EGCH called it denialism? Or happened to use the word "denied"? Relata refero (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Relata refero, I think I see the problem here. It seems to me that you are looking at this article as a scholar, a historian. I don't disagree that in that field, denialism has a very specific meaning. However, this article is not written for historians, historiographers, or philosophers. It is written for regular people - and for most people, denial means saying something didn't happen [32]. Please keep in mind that that is the person for whom this article is meant.

I think that your statement about a specific meaning of denialism, may indeed be flawed, as the only definition that I could find on-line about denialism was a Wikipedia link, (and the references there were almost exclusively about AIDS or global warming), and I could not find any references about negationism at all. I'm not saying that they don't exist, but I think that they may be known by too specific an audience. This article, like all Wikipedia articles, is not written for specialists. Therefore, I don't think that the title or the tone of the article is not neutral. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid, while these articles are not written for scholars, we still need to follow the conventions they've laid out. If the scope of the article is merely to be "what was reported by the authorities and others as to the existence of famine at the time it was occurring and what authorities and others have stated since then as their position as to whether the famine occurred or not", then I encourage all of you to search for a title that does not cause this problem. Relata refero (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm afraid not. Again, perhaps you are not familiar with the article. The article informs readers about a variety of sources - from the communist system disinformation apparatus to Soviet apologists to current day fringe groups - that claimed that there were no starving people, everybody was happy, and that the famine (known today as the Holodomor) never took place.

This reminds me of a discussion that I had on the "gerund" discussion page - a linguist disagreed with me about the definition of a clause vs. phrase, and her/his argument was something along the lines of "well, modern linguists call it a phrase, but unexplicably, they still call it a clause in schools". The article still uses "clause", even though "modern linguistics" calls it a phrase.

To most people, denial means something like, and I quote, "the act of asserting that something alleged is not true" [33]. That is what everybody did. If you think that the article would benefit from an explanation of the terms "denialism" and "negationism" as used in modern scholarly historiography, please include it.

Also, please refrain from statements like "I encourage all of you to search for a title...", because they don't help anybody, but simply serve to antagonize other editors. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

We are writing an encyclopaedia. We use the words scholars use. We do not misuse the scholarly terms, as is being done in this article. Every simple use of the word "denial" does not translate into denialism or negationism, which is generally a movement with political ends. If you wish to preserve the article in something similar to its current form - or the form you describe - please search for alternative titles. I do not see what is antagonistic about that. Relata refero (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, we are writing the Wikipedia, which is not written for specialists. Negationism is a politically loaded term, which is not really yet clearly defined (as it is a straight translation from a French word), and not relevant here. Denial is denial, denialism is denialism. Please stop trying to read more into this.

Please let me explain the reasons such statements are antagonistic is that they make you out to be some wise scholar who knows everything and does not need to either explain herself/himself or actually do any work. Neither of those is true. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

RE Relata refero Quote please? The quotes have been in the article refs all the time. But since it seems these are so hard to find here you go once more: Denial of the famine declined after the Communist Party lost power and the Soviet empire disintegrated @ Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity. ISBN 0028658485
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 By Samuel Totten, William S. Parsons, Israel W. Charny ISBN 0415944295
--76.168.108.240 (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So, again, just a use of a simple English word and no connection with Denialism, then? Relata refero (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, as difficult as this may be for you to believe, yes. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Then it isn't relevant. Relata refero (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, exactly, denialism is irrelevant. Believe it or not, if you google denial, you get almost million hits, but if you google denialism you get fewer than 90 thousand. I just can't see most people linking denial and denialism.

Again, I would like to draw your attention to the first sentence of the article. It states: Denial of the Holodomor is stating that the Holodomor, the disastrous manifestation of the Soviet famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine (at the time, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, in the Soviet Union), which claimed millions of lives, never took place.[1][2][3]. (note the three references - italics mine). It explains to the reader what they will read in this article. Is this linked to denialism? Is this linked to negationism? This is the first sentence. The FIRST. SENTENCE. Now, do you see why your argument isn't relevant? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say that when you google denial you get almotst TEN million hits, vs. fewer than 90K for denialism. THanks, Horlo (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I still think you are missing the point that this is an encyclopaedia, not a random website. Relata refero (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that the point is that people come here to get information. That's why people visit wikipedia. The first sentence explains what the article is about. Then, there is an explanation of the history of Holodomor denial. There's no mention of denialism. I don't think there is even a link to denialism. It's just plain denial. Doesn't matter if this is a random website or what, it is what it is. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Horlo is right. Relata refero, please look over WP:TITLE. "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists". --Greggerr (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Also WP:TITLE, " Please, do not write or put an article on a page with an ambiguously named title as though that title had no other meanings." Relata refero (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, why do you think that the title is ambiguous? It is called Denial of the Holodomor. Not Denialism and the Holodomor. Denial does not equal denialism, and unless you can prove that it does - to readers/a general audience and not specialists, I think that the tag should be removed. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) "Cover-up" is certainly an excellent term and works for a section title (the initial Soviet cover-up). After sleeping on Relata refero's suggestion and considering that it might work, "cover-up" doesn't apply as a whole to all occurrences of denial that the famine was occurring/had occurred. Plenty of references refer to the denial of the famine--"cover-up" isn't very scholarly. More to the point and to Relata refero's concerns, histories that express denial, that is, "denialism", do fall into the scope of the article where they have to do with the existence or not of the famine. There is no impediment to using the word "denial" with regards to statements and histories where facts to the contrary are well-established. Is any editor here advocating that there is any reputable scholarly doubt as to whether there was famine? If not, then we have met the criteria for using denial in the title and describing it as such (per wording in cited reputable sources). —PētersV (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Organised historiograpic movements that are attempting to ignore well-known facts are indeed denialism. They may be covered in this article when discussed as such in reliable sources, sure. But the problem is that that is not all that is being covered. Until we agree that we are doing the first and not the second, or, if we are doing the second, that the name changes, we have a problem. Relata refero (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, from what I see in this discussion, it appears that most people don't have a problem. Again, this article is about people saying that the Holodomor never took place. That is denying the Holodomor. The article is not titled Denialism of the Holodomor, because frankly I think that most people would be confused about what denialism is. Denialism isn't even mentioned in the article. Please stop trying to read an ulterior motive into this article, because there is none. The article very clearly and neutrally states that it happened, and some fringe groups even today deny the existence of the Holodomor. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no impediment to using the word "denial" with regards to statements and histories where facts to the contrary are well-established

Facts to the contrary are well established now, but were they well established back then? That's the problem I have with some aspects of this article. It is basically retrospectively judging people based on what is known today rather than what was known then.

My main problem right now is with the way Duranty is written up (and the same problem exists on several other Wiki pages). This guy is being denounced and condemned on this page, when in fact it is not agreed upon by reliable sources that he knew about and deliberately "covered up" the famine, or whether he simply got it wrong. He still has defenders, including the Pulitzer people and the NY Times, so in my view it totally violates NPOV to be presenting his case in this POV way.

As for the article name, that is a difficult issue because it isn't easy to come up with a satisfactory alternative, but my concern is that the use of the word "denial" effectively encourages users to engage in polemics as the subjects have already effectively been condemned. Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the issue of Holodomor denial is a current issue. In 2007, the Ukrainian President proposed a Law to prosecute public denial of Holodomor. There is an outgoing discussion within the Ukrainian society whether the denial should indeed be banned or not. Thus, the issue of denial of the Holodomor is a valid issue, and this article is written to cover the issue, and not something else. --Greggerr (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, nobody is judging anybody. This is not a court, it is Wikipedia. Now, before we go one, let us establish what we are talking about. First, if you think that one section of the article, for example the section about Duranty, needs improvement, let's talk about it. Please improve it, and we can work together. Second, if you think that the title is an issue, let's talk about it. As I have said many times before, constructive help and discussion is always welcome. However, the two items that I mentioned are separate things, and neither is directly connected to the tags. If you actually agree with any of these tags, that would be a completely nother issue. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue of original research and synthesis is also a problem, as is the tone of the article, which is why the tags are up there.

Hello, that is a different tag. I was hoping to make this discussion as clear as possible by staying on one tag at a time. Please keep the discussion here about the neutrality tag. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? I wonder why nobody mentioned to me we were talking about the neutrality tag... anyway, as I said, the article is not written in a neutral tone. Relata refero (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm sorry, I should have titled the section tag #1 - Neutrality as opposed to the more ambiguous tags, one by one. In my opinion, discussing the tags one by each is the most straight forward way of moving forward. Otherwise, the arguments get all convoluted and no real progress can be made.

Anyways, as I said, the article is written in a neutral tone. The only argument that you had against neutrality was with the title, which is neutral (to non-specialists, and persons who have not studied negationism or denialism).

Do you have any other specific things in the article to which you could point, or can we simply remove the "neutrality" tag and talk about other issues? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Many, many things. The entire article's completely non-neutral.

Consider this poorly-written sentence in the introduction: "The Soviet party line was supported at the time by Soviet-friendly journalists from the West, such as Walter Duranty and Louis Fischer." Not only does it show an ignorance of the different between a party line and official soviet policy, but it uses the word "Soviet-friendly" gratuitiously. I love the "height of manipulation" paragraph as well. This entire article is laughably non-neutral, and does the encyclopaedia and any affected off-wiki movements no service. Believe me, without drastic rewriting, there's no way even one of those tags is coming off. Relata refero (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, just something to consider - just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it not neutral.

Let's take a look at your link to "party line" - Please explain to me the difference - in the context of a totalitarian government which is ready to kill any opponents, not a democratic one - the difference between a "party line" and "official Soviet policy". Perhaps you are not familiar with the consequences of non-adherance to the "party line" in the USSR. There is a great explanation of what happened to some people who did that here [34] or here [35]. "party line" = "soviet policy".

Next, your comment about the gratuitiousity of "Soviet-Friendly": How is that gratuitous? You may consider reading the rest of the article to find out how exactly both Duranty and Fischer said whatever the Soviet government did.

One last time, please cease the flippant attitude towards the contributions of other editors. Just because you disagree, doesn't mean other editors are ignorant. Please stop saying that. "The entire article is laughably non-neutral" doesn't help anybody, except those who would just summarily remove the tag. Again, your doesn't make the article non-neutral. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether you are ignorant, merely that the article is terrible. If you cannot deal with criticism of or merciless editing of your contributions...

"You may consider reading the rest of the article to find out how exactly both Duranty and Fischer said whatever the Soviet government did." You are backing one NPOV statement by reference to an on-wiki NPOV passage? Ha.

And about your remarks on the party line and Soviet policy, they miss the point. The Kennanesque image of a monolithic party-set policy following straight on from What Must Be Done has taken a battering academically in recent decades. Not only that, as written the text implies that Duranty was parroting what a party told him to, not passing on the official statements of a national government. Which, although they might be the same thing in certain circs. (though, as I said, that is doubted now) is not the same thing when written in terms of neutrality.

The entire article is stuffed with such nonsense. Starting, of course, with the absolutely inappropriate title. Relata refero (talk) 09:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Great, thank you for expressing what you really think about this article - that it is terrible.

Also, great, please understand that what you think the article implies.

However, neither of those points are really important. Please see the discussion below. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

They certainly are from the point of view of tagging the article. Also, you will note that specific objections have been raised several times now, which you are choosing to ignore rather spectacularly. Bad show. Relata refero (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I've been "up to my eyeballs" but do hope to finish updating the "Soviet Union" section incorporating the later and somewhat repetitive but somewhat different perspective bit from "Modern denial." I'm hoping that once that's done we can discuss just that one section, achieve at least a grudging consensus (they usually are) and move on. I'd expect the lead (and tags) will stay until we work through the content. What I do ask is that editors continue to display patience and not simply delete content that hasn't been cleaned up yet.—PētersV (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sidebar on Duranty

Unfortunately, there is precious little on Duranty's life. I've been slowly piecing together a narrative from his autobiography and whatever tidbits I can find, for example, comments on his coverage of the earlier famine. I have to say that despite concerns over the tone here and the coatracking tag on his bio (which will have to stay until there's more to say about him other than about the Holodomor), I've only seen concern over how he is portrayed on WP. The polemics "out there" rather eclipse whatever editors are identifying as polemics here. As for Duranty's potential defenders, the Pulitzer Board's rather terse commentary, from what I've read, did not even address the famine (since it was not pertinent to Duranty's Pulitzer). Mention of Duranty here does not have to present a balanced view of Duranty's career, that's properly reserved for his bio. What is presented here should be what reputable sources say about what Duranty said, or didn't, and when. —PētersV (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree. So why aren't the comments by the NY Times in the article - for example when they said critics should take into account the fact that his articles were subjected to censorship by the Soviet authorities?

And what about statements like "Duranty acted more like a spokesman for the Soviet government than an independent reporter"? That is an opinion, and as such it should be attributed to a source - and if there's no source for the statement, it should be deleted. But in the article, it is just made as an absolute statement. That is editorializing, and it has no place on Wikipedia. Gatoclass (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that language needs improvement, not 100% sure on the first point as I haven't seen anything where Duranty privately said "famine" (that word, which would confirm he might have used in reports if not censored), which is different from just saying how many he thought had died. Ref'ed defenses can be included, of course. You are completely correct on the second point, criticisms should reflect what was said and how it was said and attribute: e.g., "Duranty has been criticized for acting more like..." + citation of who said what... insuring characterization and citation match. —PētersV (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to have a shot at fixing it then? I guess I could have a go at it if no-one else wants to, but this area is a long way from my primary fields of interest and I really have more than enough wikiprojects on my plate right now. Gatoclass (talk) 12:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A bit of reorg (Soviet Union section)

Only minor changes to total content, mainly consolidating duplicated information and correcting some chronological problems. Hopefully it's an improvement. —PētersV (talk) 21:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

So, if anyone (still) has major issues with this section only, please bring them up. —PētersV (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, not done yet, the Soviet part of "Modern denial" needs to be moved and integrated. It's covered twice—and inconsistently. —PētersV (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Peters:) You've able to find a lend-leased bulldozers? [[36]] WP:ISNOTSOAPBOXJo0doe (talk) 07:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• P.S. I recall Wikipedia indicated 8,000 or so. :-) —PētersV (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm completely confident in my original source, haven't felt an urgent need to look for U.S. government figures--but haven't forgotten :-), it's on the very very long Wiki-list. —PētersV (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I'll mention though that the source indicates Lend-Lease tractors burying the dead as a U.S. vice president in the neighborhood admired the Soviets' accomplishments in Siberia--referring to U.S. Vice President Henry Wallace's visit to Siberia, where his highly orchestrated visit carefully avoided the forced labor camps. —PētersV (talk) 15:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Does he has any keen with JWB-junior?Jo0doe (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Can't say which one was a worst judge of character (Wallace/Siberia versus George W./looking into Putin's soul). —PētersV (talk) 04:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Take two. I've taken all the 80's and subsequent Soviet-related materials and consolidated them. My apologies to prior editors for cutting out bits of detail that were detracting from readability without adding much in terms of information. I also added a bit of narrative to take us through to the post-Soviet era to complete that time line. Can folks live with the section in its current state or would some of us still be tag-happy? —PētersV (talk) 04:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should mention that I don't play the "If I don't hear objections I'll consider my work golden and acclaimed by consensus" game? —PētersV (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Some minor improvements. Problems like "Given documented falsification of records, we can expect the official death toll and associated conclusions regarding the nature of the famine to remain at odds with the findings of modern Holodomor researchers." - OR and crystal-gazing - and overdependence on a single source - Robert Conquest - still remain. Also the Canadian domestic politics angle should be reduced. It is non-notable from the point of view of the article as framed. Much remains to be excised from that section. Relata refero (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments. Perhaps some Davies and Wheatcroft would help. I rather thought the "crystal" gazing was simply a statement that conflicts and falsification in "facts" will continue to be source of controversy. Not a problem to change. I do, however, most heartily disagree with your assessment of the Canadian angle because of the prominence and activism of the Ukrainian community there going back to the early 20th century, and more specifically (I assume this is the incident you refer to) that Soviet authorities were directly supplying denial materials--which makes it completely notable and appropriate to the article. —PētersV (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• I would also mention that Davies and Wheatcroft do reference Conquest and support his command of facts. D&W do state that their work intentionally avoids politics since much archival information regarding decisions still remains sealed and takes pains to avoid conclusions regarding events--which Conquest does not. There is absolutely no impediment to using Conquest where relating events is concerned, contrary to some of the wholesale denouncements of Conquest which have been posted on WP. —PētersV (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, Conquest is a recognised authority on the Soviet Union. However, in the matter of intellectual responses to Soviet "Big Lies" he is himself a participant - as he was at the centre of enormous storms on the subject through the 1970s - and so should be used with caution. D&W would certainly help.

Remember: this article purports to be not about the Holodomor, but about the campaign carried out to suppress knowledge of its scale (or of its intent, or of its existence, or of its effectiveness given intent - this is unclear, which is the central problem, actually). Given that, we should be focusing on secondary sources that discuss the campaign, not conducting our own research by noting where people have not mentioned the deaths or their scale, or denied that they took place on a certain level.

I have done a little more reading on this now; about the Ukranian-Canadian community, you may be right, but not in the way you mean. Notability emerges not from the USSR external information cell involving itself passing on material - any student of the USSR will tell you the external information cell was involved in passing on all sorts of material in most parts of the world - but because the very term Holodomor and the political movement dedicated to preserving its memory and using it as a call to nationalist solidarity among Ukranian expatriates is closely linked to the internal politics of Ukranians in Canada. (In actual fact, what makes this article notable is as an article on this reaction, not as a hodgepodge of the original claims of obfuscation.) That being said, I still will claim that sourcing stuff to primary sources such as the Ukranian Echo etc. is inappropriate. Relata refero (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, apparently again there is a misunderstanding about the focus of this article. This article does not purport to be about anything. This article describes the many people and/or institutions that have, are and likely will deny the existence of the Holodomor.

The fact that the Ukrainian diaspora in Canada has had the chance to get organized and publish articles, papers, and encyclopedia about various topics concerning Ukraine is not relevant at all to this article.

The fact that people all around the world deny the existence of the Holodomor, on the other hand, is.

It may be interesting to have an article about the fact that Canada is tolerant enough to allow the likes of Tottle and Zundle to publish.

That being said, we have many articles in Wikipedia which cite sources such as newspapers (The Ukrainian Echo, The Guardian) and magazines (The Economist). This does not make the article less important or less neutral. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.

There is indeed a misunderstanding. You're committing it. See below

The Ukrainian Echo =/= the Guardian. See WP:RS for the obvious differences. Also see WP:PSTS.

Again, what makes this article notable is as an article on this reaction, not as a hodgepodge of the original claims of obfuscation. Relata refero (talk) 08:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, there are many misunderstandings here. The latest one seems to get back to what we're discussing here.

We're talking about one thing at a time - first, the POV tag. Unless issues are handled one at a time, it's very easy to get into finger-pointing.

If you are unaware of the importance of the Ukrainian Echo, please ask, and I will gladly explain it.

Finally, your reaction may be notable to you, but I doubt that it would make a good Wikipedia article. Remember, Wikipedia is not a repository for random information. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.

I don't mean my reaction. I mean the movement that coalesced around the belief that the Holodomor was being denied is actually pretty much the only reason there is any notability whatsoever to this article.

I have been asking for some time that you stop sourcing things to community newspapers. If the Ukranian Echo is a notable independent source, you should have presented arguments already. Please do so in light of WP:RS and WP:PSTS.

The matter of the POV tag can be settled once the questions of POV have been solved. Discuss those questions, deal with them, and then we can decide about the tag. This is standard practice. See WP:NPOV. Relata refero (talk) 11:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, first, about your point on notability, perhaps you should read the article and become familiar with the sources, and how the Holodomor was denied - first, by the Soviet Union, second, by Soviet friendly journalists, and today, by some writers, such as Douglas Tottle.

Second, about your point on the Ukrainian Echo, please don't mix apples and cabbage. I want to discuss the tags one by one, the first of which is POV. The fact that the Ukrainian Echo is a respectable source has nothing to do with POV. I will present my arguments about that when I think it is necessary.

Again, please focus on the issues one at a time - otherwise, it really looks like rather than trying to improve this article in particular and Wikipedia in general, you are just trying to make both what you like. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.

about your point on notability... I have in fact made the supreme sacrifice and read the article several times. Perhaps you could read WP:N sometime to realise why your statement is irrelevant?

This section is not about the tag. I was responding to someone else when I brought up the Echo. Although discussing the tag is your main contribuion to this page, it does not mean that everyone else shares your passion. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to remove "Neutrality" tag

Hello,

I think that this discussion has come to an end. The arguments for keeping it are vague and not based on anything other than opinion. It seems to me that there are no concrete arguments for the tag.

I move that it be removed, unless specific reasons can be shown for its being kept. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Specific reasons have been provided above. Unless you make the effort to clean up this article per the suggestions I make above or to stop obstructing others efforts to do so, the tags stay, as they reflect the fact that in its current pathetically poor state the article violates several of our core policies. Relata refero (talk) 09:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Relata refero ([[User talk:Relata

Hello, "stuffed with such nonsense" and "inappropriate title" are not specific reasons. This, coupled with your A) wholesale deletions of entire sections of the article, and B) comments such as "what is this crap" (the title of the diff) are not suggestions, they are simply reflections of the bad faith of the editor making such comments. I think they speak for themselves. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the tag be removed. It has only been added as a nuisance. If the above editor has issues with the "pathetically poor state the article" he should make some effort to improve it, rather than sit on the sidelines and say how "pathetically poor state the article" is. Concrete examples to "neutralize" the article would be welcome although I doubt that they exist. Bandurist (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I did improve the article, and my changes were reverted wholesale. Since then I have been waiting for information on reliable secondary sources for Tottle. Neither of you has participated there recently; I am not one of the people choosing to keep this article miserably unencylopaedic and non-neutral. Tag stays, start discussion. Relata refero (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, as difficult as this may be for you to understand, deletions of entire sections of the article, which were worked on and improved by many editors, does not constitute improvement.

Also, it has become quite clear that this has become personal to you, and therefore any changes in good faith made by other editors with whom you disagree will simply be put down as "unencyclopedic" or "non-neutral".

Please keep in mind, that if you have difficulties with specific referenece or sections, they should be dealt with not by placing a neutrality tag, but through discussion on this page, and improvement.

Please keep in mind, however, that referring to other editors' work as "pathetic" and miserable is a clear sign of bad faith. Please keep that out of our encyclopedia. Thanks,Horlo (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if the sections were terribly written and violate our core policies, it is an improvement.

I have neither any personal investment in this topic nor in this article, so your claim is puzzling, and not backed up with any facts.

And your interpretation of when a tag is necessary is also incorrect.

And do read WP:AGF. I have nowhere accused any editor of pursuing nationalist vendettas through the selective manipulation of sources. That would be bad faith. Noting that an article is really terribly written and sourced - that's not bad faith at all. Repeated accusations of bad faith - now that is bad faith. Keep it out. I've told you three times before.

Please deal with the specific points I've asked above, about Tottle, so we can deal with that and then move on to the seven or eight other problematic sections. I am tired of talking about these inconsequential matters. Relata refero (talk) 07:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I (at least) didn't start with Tottle first, I thought that a less contentious section might offer more of an opportunity to move things along in a positive direction. Comments on the revised Soviet Union section welcomed above. Personal circumstances limit my Wiki-time over the next few weeks, that said, I'll volunteer to work on Duranty next since I've been doing some work for his bio article. I'm assuming there's no preference on the order that article sections are addressed as long as there's progress—and thanks for your patience. (I did also do some minor work on the intro.)

   Alas, Horlo, I think we'll have to live with the tags as they stand until we methodically work through each section of the article and then, lastly, the intro. —PētersV (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

PetersV, please don't apologize. I think that you have shown Good Faith throughout this discussion. However, could you point to something GENERAL, which permeates this entire article, that could be misinterpreted as non-neutral? Does this article seem non-neutral to you? Please keep in mind that this is very different from the other tags, which will be addressed?

Relata Refero, do read up on consensus and drive-by tagging.

Upon reading my comments and your comments, I think an apology is in order. Assuming that you are taking this personally was a mistake on my part. I'm sorry. Perhaps you are just naturally rude to everybody.

The arguments you put forth cast doubt on one section at best, and not on the neutrality of the entire article. Therefore, the tag will be removed, unless you can provide an argument showing why it should not.

And please, no more "I've already shown you" arguments, because, frankly, you haven't. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually wasn't rude to you. I was rude about the article. If you're so personally invested that you got confused between the two, read WP:OWN and take a few steps back.

Please address the specific points I've made, which are merely a start. It should be obvious that issues with the slant in seven or eight sections is more than enough to indicate a general problem. Please return to more productive discussion. Relata refero (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, you were just being rude. That's enough. It doesn't matter who you were rude to. Just stop. That has no place on our Wikipedia.

Frankly, your attitude is starting to get tiring. "It should be obvious" is just another example.

You have made no arguments about the neutrality of the article, and the tag will be removed. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Plain speaking about blatant original research very definitely has place on Wikipedia. ("Our" indeed.)

Arguments have been made already that the entire article gives undue weight to marginal sources. There have been problems with the phrasing pointed out already - see, for example, the "height of manipulation" paragraph. The Duranty section is written as if there are no sources at the time or currently that have defended or explained his coverage. Instead little Catholic magazines are quoted. There is little or no discussion sourced to reliable secondary sources.

This entire page is about nothing other than such problems. I don't think that you should be wasting any more time trying to get a tag removed, but instead dealing with the objections I've raised. Return to Tottle, above. Relata refero (talk) 13:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, again, finally the problem surfaces - this is not an issue with neutrality, it is an issue with OR.

All the arguments were answered - see, for example, the discussion on the "Duranty sidebar". Again, this is not the section to discuss content, but let me just say that no, at the time, there were no sources that defended or explained his coverage - sources that were not from the Soviet Union.

Again, it seems that you have missed the point - don't disrupt Wikipedia, improve it. If you think that the article can be improved, please do so - otherwise, don't vandalize it. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 05:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

To repeat, "There have been problems with the phrasing pointed out already - see, for example, the "height of manipulation" paragraph. The Duranty section is written as if there are no sources at the time or currently that have defended or explained his coverage. Instead little Catholic magazines are quoted. There is little or no discussion sourced to reliable secondary sources." To make it clearer, this means that we do nt have a discussion "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" which is what NPOV requires. "at the time" is very particularly not mentioned. The remainder of your complaint I am afraid I think tediously irrelevant and misguided. Best to stop editwarring over a justifiable tag and actually start improving the article from its current regrettable mess. Relata refero (talk) 09:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

To repeat, please solve problems, don't try to make yourself out to be the only person who cares about Wikipedia. Perhaps you did not notice that this article was rated B-class, and had been worked on by almost a dozen editors.

To make it clearer, there were no sources that defended or explained Duranty's coverage because he was the only one who had direct access to Stalin.

Unfortunately, it seems that you have again missed the point - non of the issues, until this last paragraph, had anything to do with neutrality. Again, instead of deleting and complaining, please add to the article. Please add all of the available secondary sources from the time of Duranty which supported his opinion. And remove the tag. Thanks Horlo (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of this article is unsalvageable, and large parts of it will have to be deleted in order to bring it in line with our basic standards. Many articles worked on by many more than a dozen editors have had large unsalvageable parts before. For that matter, many articles worked on by many more than a dozen editors have been deleted as unencyclopaedic.

I am not familiar with the methods used by the wikiproject in question to rate articles. I do however suspect that they need overhauling. (I would also not be surprised to note that there is some small overlap between the "dozen editors" who worked on this article and those who assess articles for the wikiproject in question.)

Tag stays till issues are worked out. Please return to the discussion above on secondary sources demonstrating Tottle is notable and encyclopaedic, or on how to wean this article away from dependence on small, unreliable community-based sources. Relata refero (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, back to the wonderful intellectual, good-faith based arguments like "unsalvageable" and "our basic standards". Again, please stop making yourself out to be the one true source of Wikieverything.

Here, for the first time, I will second Irpen's argument - asking the same question again and again until you get the answer you want will not work.

You have to understand once and for all that this article does not make Duranty look bad. The fact that he denied the Holodomor and said exactly what Stalin told him to makes Duranty look bad.

Get this once and for all - Tottle is not the point of this article - the fact that straight from the beginning, people denied the existence of the Holodomor is. Tottle has his own article on Wikipedia - if you don't like him, go argue there. However, in this context, he is actively denying the Holodomor. Therefore, he is in this article. Everybody mentioned in the article denied the holodomor. That's what this article is about. Denying the Holodomor. Not Denialism. Not how denial of the Holodomor might be on some level confused with Denying the fact that the Holodomor took place.

It might be difficult to believe, but people said that the Holodomor was not happening. That's what this article is about. What secondary sources do you need? Why? So that you can quote what somebody said about what somebody said? How encyclopedic is that?

And do read how articles are assessed. If you know better than everybody else, then please go contribute to that discussion. Perhaps you can improve the system.

One last time - how are your arguments related to Neutrality?

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome.

If Tottle is not the point of the article, we should certainly remove him.

About why secondary sources are needed, please read WP:OR. Overdependence on sources close to the subject of the article is OR; we need reliable secondary sources attesting to their encyclopaedic importance. Find some for Tottle, please.

Wikipedia is not a repository for indiscriminate information. "Some people denied this happened, and we will put all of them on an article on Wikipedia" is precisely what WP is not. "There is a studied subject on the propaganda surrounding the great Ukranian famines of the 1930s, and we will write an article on what scholars have said on the subject" is what WP is. Please update your expectations accordingly. Relata refero (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, please read WP:Civil and update your attitude accordingly.

Tottle is not THE point of the article, he is a point of the article. The article is about denial of the Holodomor. Tottle denies the Holodomor. Therefore, he must be mentioned.

Again, through your pontificating, you seem to have missed the point of Wikipedia. Wikipedia, like every other encyclopedia, describe what has happened or what is happenning. However, one of the advantages of Wikipedia is that it is not limited by the number of pages, and can actually become the repository of the sum of all human knowledge. (Guess who said that?)

Now, what kind of logic are you proposing - that we not have an article about Manchester United simply because there have been no scientific or scholarly studies about it? That's absurd! It exists, it existed, and it likely will exist for a long time. As difficult as this may be for you to believe, Holodomor denial existed, exists, and likely will exist. Stating that people do it is not WP:OR, it is what Wikipedia is.

Also, again, perhaps you did not notice the references to the idea of Holodomor Denial. Please spend a few moments and get acquainted with the article. Perhaps then you will realize that this article is neutral, that the Soviet government denied that people were starving to death, that Duranty really did deny the fact that the people were being starved to death by said Soviet government, and Tottle still denies that people starved to death. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.

Please note that it has been pointed out that I have been unfailingly civil to you. Later readers of this talk page will be struck dumb in amazement at how civil I have been given provocation.

There are no "references to the idea of Holodomor Denial" in the article.

The article is about denial of the Holodomor. Tottle denies the Holodomor. Therefore, he must be mentioned. No, because Wikipedia is not a repository for indiscriminate information. If you disagree, go and argue on the linked policy page. Suppose omeone's grandmother in Texas has written a webpage saying nobody died in the 1930s. Shall we mention her as well? No. Why not? Because its unencyclopaedic. How do we know something is encyclopaedic? Because neutral independent secondary reliable sources tell us it is. Now, return to finding sources justifying the inclusion of Tottle, or out it goes as unencyclopaedic and non-notable. Relata refero (talk) 08:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Hello, please note that you have said that you are civil, not that it has been pointed out. You don't have to directly insult me to be insulting.

With regards to your repeated statement that Tottle is not worthy of being called encyclopedic, perhaps you failed to notice this: [[37]] - an entire Wikipedia article about him. You don't really get more non non-encyclopedic than that.

With respect to referencing the idea of Holodomor Denial, if you look very very carefully, you will see three little blue numbers in square brackets (which are also blue) after the first sentence. They show three separate sources where the idea of Holodomor Denial was mentioned.

Again, could you explain how any of this is related to Neutrality? This article is about denying the Holodomor - people who claimed that it never took place. You keep harping on one point about Tottle, and nothing about the evenness of this article. Now, you start talking about the encyclopediosity of this topic. What does that have to do with neutrality? Nothing. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.

The three little numbers in blue take me (miraculously!) to three places where the word "denial" is used. That doesn't help me.

About neutrality, I have made the points above: "There have been problems with the phrasing pointed out already - see, for example, the "height of manipulation" paragraph. The Duranty section is written as if there are no sources at the time or currently that have defended or explained his coverage. Instead little Catholic magazines are quoted. There is little or no discussion sourced to reliable secondary sources." To make it clearer, this means that we do nt have a discussion "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" which is what NPOV requires. "at the time" is very particularly not mentioned.

Your sole response: "no sources available on Duranty, because only he had access to Stalin". Not only does this not make sense, it is also demonstrably untrue on two levels.

Get back to finding a reliable secondary source on Tottle. Relata refero (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, you said that there were no referneces to the idea of denial. I showed you thre

With respect to "we do not have a discussion...", obviously you did not understand what I was suggesting all those times when I said "please help improve the article". I will make it very clear - ADD SOME SOURCES. And remove the tag - if you add some, or if you can't find any.

Tottle doesn't need more sources - get over it. Thanks, 67.71.176.26 (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC) (not logged in - that was me Horlo (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC))

You're welcome.

Three references to a word, not to an idea.

It isn't my job to add sources to that section; I believe other issues are more pressing. If you want the tag off, rewrite that and all the other sections till there's a consensus that the tag is no longer required.

Tottle needs more sources: Read WP:OR. We are not a repository of indiscriminate, unimportant information. Relata refero (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, let me quote (from said sources): The Soviet Union dismissed all references to the famine as anti-Soviet propaganda. Denial of the famine declined after the Communist Party lost power and the Soviet empire disintegrated and 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. Please let me know which part is unclear about the denial of the existence of the famine. The idea, I mean, not the word.

Could you please explain the whole "it isn't my job to add sources to that section" comment? If you can't be bothered to improve the article, then don't complain, and especially lose your attitude.

This is starting to get tiring. This article is not a repository of indescriminate, unimportant information. If this is not important to you, then please find other things that are. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.

I can certainly explain that comment. We are volunteers. I believe that certain important things need doing in this article. Removing the neutrality tag is not at the top of my list of things to do. If it is yours, then you need to rewrite that and all the other problematic sections. I have already pointed out what the problems are, at least in that section.

I would prefer, however, that we returned to the more important problems of finding reliable secondary sources to back up your claim that this article is not a repository of indiscriminate information, but represents the product of analysis by secondary sources, as is required of any Wikipedia article. Spending any more time trying to remove a manifestly required tag is indeed a waste.

About your quotes from the sources, where does it indicate that refusing to admit that people died in a famine constituted a programme of denialism, as the use of the word "denial" in an encyclopaedia article implies? Where are the scholarly sources attesting to this as a concrete, defined phenomenon - with the title Holodomor denial - that are present in other such articles, such as Holocaust denial? These points have been made before, and unanswered then. Can I presume we have moved on to discussing that and have given up on the tag? Relata refero (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground. If a user does not want to help improve the article and instead just tags away, then this is useless and the "tag neutrality" tags should go back up. Ostap 22:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see above for my various recommendations for improving this article. Relata refero (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Relata Refero, do yourself a favour and stop this now.

About your first comment, you are correct - we are all volunteers. However, as the issue of neutrality is obviously important to you, as it is to all of us, for the last time, FIX THE PROBLEM. Then we can discuss your changes, and work towards consensus. Don't say "that's not my job", because you're the only one here who has an issue with it.

Next, please keep your attitude in check. It took you a whole two paragraphs to get an admonition about it here [[38]].

Next, about your question regarding denialism: please read the discussion above, where I clearly and patiently answered your questions about denial vs. Denialism.. One more (and final time) denial DOES NOT MEAN denialism to most people. You are making a false assumption. There is no mention of denialism in this article. The only mention of denialism is the one you brought up on this discussion page. That's it. Nowhere else. At all. Just to make sure, google denialism and google denial. When I did that, I got a score of 104K for denialism, and 30.6 million for denial. Why would yo assume that people would confuse the two terms? There is no reason to assume that for the common reader this article would read denialism into this article, because there is no reason to assume the common reader would assume denialism. If you feel so strongly about the issue, why don't you improve the article and add a link to the lead stating that there is a difference between this article and denialism? Or do you have better things to do?

Finally, for the last time, if there are no other reasons put forth for keeping the "neutrality" tag, I will remove them. If that is undone, I will consider it vandalism, and it will be reported as such. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.

I am not required to fix every problem on wikipedia. The issue of neutrality is indeed important to me and to the many other editors who've commented, but I feel it will be easier to fix when the issue of original research and fringe sourcing is hammered out. It is unusual for the defenders of an article to want someone else to fix it. Please also note that all caps is considered universally rude. This is the fifth time you have used it.

Could you give me an example of "attitude"? It would be interesting for me to hear. Thank you for the link: I don't see an admonition, I see frivolous forum-shopping.

Please refresh your memory about what we are writing here. We are writing an enyclopaedia article on a historical subject. It uses scholarly language. If you are incapable of dealing with that, there are articles on Pokemon.

The common reader, on actually reading this article, will actually think nothing more than "Wikipedia sucks". However, if they were to cursorily glance at it, they would be led to believe that Holodomor denial is an organised movement, sufficiently studied and well-defined, to limit and minimise, for well-understood and specific reasons, a known historical fact. (This is what denialism is.) Unfortunately, if that is the case, it is not referenced.

Again, I do not intend to waste my time adding spurious invented notices, when I am aiming for more useful solutions. However, feel free to try. Have you done any article writing in a month, or merely sniped on this talkpage? Perhaps you should move on, and accept the many editors who believe that the tag should stay on till issues are worked out.

Return to Tottle? The process of improvement might be slow, but it will be gratifying, unlike this. Relata refero (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, nobody is telling you to fix every problem on Wikipedia - just the ones you have, and I don't. Please note that I wasn't insulting you.

Here's an example of "attitude": "It isn't my job to add sources"; here's another: "The casual reader, upon reading this article, will think Wikipedia sucks"; here's another: "Please update your expectations accordingly"; here's another: "There are articles about Pokemon".

You're welcome for the link - here is an example of how people react to you: Please refrain from ranting about the WQA or anything you might consider to be the "scourge of our society." I can't imaging how an assessment of "there is no incivility here" should be your cue to start being uncivil, but you need to stop. (from the Wikiquette notice board) and You know, for somebody who's been brought to the alertboard that deals with incivility, you should probably just hold your tongue when you feel like berating the people who are trying to help you settle your dispute (from the same board).

Obviously, you can't get over the fact that denial is not denialism, and you don't want to improve the article. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.

Given that the person in question felt that he had indicated that I had not been incivil and that I responded unfairly negatively to his archiving the thread, I am rather amused that you should bring that up. However, please feel free to quote further from any other interaction I may have had with anyone else. However, perhaps it would be best if we focused on this article, so it doesn't give, as I said, the casual reader the impression that perhaps he should indeed spend next month's rent cheque on the Britannica instead. There are other conversations starting on this page, and I will join them now. I believe this issue is closed for now. Relata refero (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Great, if you consider the tags removable, let it be so. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 05:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.

No, the tags aren't removable. The discussion, however, is closed until further notice. I think its been demonstrated that there's no consensus to remove them at this point, which is all that is required. Perhaps you can now try improving the article? Tottle calls. Relata refero (talk) 08:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, if you keep asking the same question, you will keep getting the same answer. Here it is once again - if there is something that you think needs improving, please improve it.

Perhaps now you can try improving the article? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. For my response to that pointless statement, see above.

I have tried improving this article. I continue to try. The best this article has ever been was after I removed the inappropriate parts of it earlier. Relata refero (talk) 08:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Horlo, your repetitive questions until you like the answer did not work and it won't. Nothing is "answered". Objections remain valid. Stop the mischief. --Irpen 06:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Irpen, unfortunately, again you seem to be having difficulty with the vocabulary - drive-by tagging without any attempt to improve the article is more mishievous than trying to remove unwarranted tags. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Article peppered with remarks smearing anyone who's views are not to author's liking, can not and should not be marked as Neutral. RJ CG (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - please feel free to improve the article, unsmearing anybody you like. Also, remember that this article does not make people look bad - the fact that they denied the Holodomor makes them look bad. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing in the discussion above that indicates the problem being resolved. Perhaps, Horlo would think that if he talks long enough, the objectionable action at the article's page becomes possible. That does not work. Objections are stated clearly and by multiple editors. One just needs to read this page. Please no more mischief. --Irpen 18:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen, I see nothing on this talk page or in the article to show that you have contributed anything other than comments like "campainging on the bones of famine victims" and more tagging. Also, what does this mean: objectionable action at the article's page becomes possible? Please, no more drive-by tagging - that is indeed mischeivous. Do you have any arguments as to why a tag belongs on this page? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Specific arguments from several editors are listed at this page. You cannot get away by merely repeating your questions, demanding everyone waste time repeating what is said already multiple times. Address the problems instead of removing the tag. --Irpen 05:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well let these other editors who have supplied specific arguments re-apply the label if they still have a concern. Acting as a drive by advocate is not helpful, as usually the discussion as evolved beyond the last time you drove by, and your action merely takes us back to square one. Martintg (talk) 01:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please lower down your rhetoric. If you care to read this page, you will see my objection as well. --Irpen 01:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen, your comments are very visible - especially in the first section entitled "sight" where you use such NPOV statements as "campaigning on the bones of famine victims". Since then, other editors' objections were answered repeatedly. If you have difficulty understanding the answers, please let me know, and I will explain them to you again. However, as you have made no other objections, there is no reason to keep the neutrality tag.

Also, you did not answer my question - what does this mean: objectionable action at the article's page becomes possible?

Please note, that I have tried to keep this discussion as straightforward as possible by trying to work through these tags one by one. If you have any opinions as to the other two tags, please state them in a separate section. However, it seems from the discussion here that the NPOV tag has no place on this article, so unless you can provide any further unanswered reasons why it should stay, it will be removed. Please do not put another one, or it will be reported as vandalism. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.

Please read the appopriate policy, especially where it says "...the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved." No such consensus has been achieved. As a reminder, the page also says "....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."

Move on. Relata refero (talk) 08:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, all of your questions, requests, and challenges have been answered here [[39]] and here [[40]].

Now, please do not begin your arguments with "irrelevant". That is not only being rude to the editor, it is being rude to Wikipedia. There are many things which are said in the heat of discussion, but disrespect like that has no place on our Wikipedia.

Furthermore, please read the explanations here [[41]] and here [[42]] and here [[43]] about any issues you may have with this article.

Now, please do not end your statements with "ha!" because that has no place, well, anywhere.

Then, please do read up on consensus. There was consensus about the neutrality of the article, and there is consensus about the neutrality of this article. You don't agree with it, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It means that you don't like it. That is a whole 'nother issue. Asking "the other parent" will not work.

Your issues may be valid, and they should be discussed. However, please never ever again make statements like "this issue is closed for now"

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You are having a discussion on the neutrality of this article. Several editors have restored the tag. I don't think there's anything more to say about whether its necessary or not; our policy states categorically that under such circumstances it is necessary. Relata refero (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, our policy clearly states that drive by tagging is strongly discouraged, but unfortunately, the "several editors" who have restored the neutrality tag have done just that. Perhaps they don't understand "drive-by", and that is not a problem. Tagging for the sake of tagging, however, is. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.

A long discussion has taken place, and continues, on the non-neutral tone and partisan/advocacy/non-independent sources used for this article. This does not constitute "tagging for the sake of tagging". Relata refero (talk) 10:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, there is no discussion. You keep asking the same question, people keep answering, and you keep disregarding their answers. That is exactly what our policies discourage - arguing simply because you don't like it. Then, other editors come by, put a tag on the article, and don't add to either the discussion or the article. That is what we call "drive-by tagging". Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.

No, I respond to all your answers. I notice you have been arguing on this page for nothing but the removal of various tags applied by various different people since 30 December. Instead of wasting time on removing tags against consensus, which is clearly forbidden by our policies, please attempt to improve the article. You can start by looking for more sources attesting to Tottle's importance. Relata refero (talk) 07:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, you 'respond' to all answers. However, that doesn't mean anything if your responses include statements like "it's not my job to add references". I won't waste my time and count the number of deletions you have made from this article, without any efforts to improve the 'tone' of the article.

What may be difficult for you to understand is that there is a consensus here, you just don't agree with it. That is fine, and necessary to the creation of a well-rounded article and encyclopedia, but deletions without improvements and beginning 'responses' to other editors with "nonsense" are not.

I suggest that instead of putting an POV tag on the article, you re-read it, and try to understand that this is not about an organized campaign by the USSR to deny the existence of the Holodomor, it is NOT about the fact that the Ukrainian-Canadian community used the word Holodomor a lot, it is NOT about Tottle, it is NOT about the Stalin Society, it is NOT about Conquest, it is NOT about denialism, it is NOT about re-writing history, but rather it is about the fact that people have, do, and likely will deny the existence of the Soviet famine in Ukraine which killed millions of people. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.

this is not about an organized campaign by the USSR to deny the existence of the Holodomor, it is NOT about the fact that the Ukrainian-Canadian community used the word Holodomor a lot, it is NOT about Tottle, it is NOT about the Stalin Society, it is NOT about Conquest, it is NOT about denialism, it is NOT about re-writing history," - if it isn't about some of those, good, they can be removed. If it isn't about others of that list, the title needs changing. ...fact that people have, do, and likely will deny the existence of the Soviet famine in Ukraine which killed millions of people.. is not a reason to dump every occasion when you think that has happened into an encyclopaedia article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

...count the number of deletions you have made from this article, without any efforts to improve the 'tone' of the article... - the deletions themselves, with the minor copy-editing that would have followed, would habe improved the tone considerably.

I see no consensus. I see many, many long-term editors objecting on this page. Relata refero (talk) 08:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Hello, you seem to be missing the point again. This is not about the Soviet Union. This is about how the Soviet Union denied the existence of the Holodomor. This article is not about Tottle. It is about how Tottle denies the existence of the Holodomor. This is not about the Stalin Society. It is about how the Stalin Society denies the Holodomor.

Again, there is no link between denial and denialism. If you think that there is, you should explain it.

Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information. However, to vast majority of the editors here there is no indescriminate information. You don't like the fact that some newspapers are used, but you seem to ignore that many international governmental and scholarly sources are also cited.

Perhaps you should also refamiliarize yourself with out policy about not being limited by space as a paper encyclopedia is. There is no practical limit to what can be covered. This must be tempered by what should be written, but that is up to consensus of the contributing editors. Whgich brings us to consensus: if you look again at what the contributing editors of many many years have added, you will see that there are only two who have actually added to this article who consider it POV. Others look in, comment, and move on. There are many, many, many, many long-term editors who are being very patient with you and trying to explain things in such a way that you will understand. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.

Every occasion when you think that someone has not accepted that the Holodomor happened cannot be dumped into an encyclopaedia article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

There is a clear link between denial and denialism. They're the same word. If you don't mean denialism, use a different word.

Hello, nobody is listing every occasion when somebody denied the Holodomor. Just google Holodomor Denial and see the over 5000 hits you get.

Also, just for future reference, Oxford Dictionary defines "denial" as "noun 1 the action of denying. 2 Psychology refusal to acknowledge an unacceptable truth or emotion." Denialism, on the other hand, is not even listed in the on-line dictionary. It is listed on Wikipedia, however, and defined as "Denialism is a term used to describe the position of governments, business groups, interest groups, or individuals who reject propositions on which a scientific consensus or widely-accepted historical evidence exists". If you still see a clear link, I will gladly explain it to you again. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Google indexes random websites. This is not a random website. If you wish to not make the connection that is made in scholarly sources, use a different word. Jargon is relevant on a scholarly project. For random indiscriminate collections of information that do not accept scholarly uses of words, there are blogs. Relata refero (talk) 11:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for the opportunity to explain this more simply to you. If you go to the google website, and then type in Define:Denial, you will be taken to various on-line dictionaries which offer definitions of the word denial. If you go to the google website, and then type in define:denialism, you will not. There is only one link on the internet which does that, and that is Wikipedia.

Now, let's re-read the Wikipedia guideline to naming an article, here [[44]]: (to save you actually going there, I cut the key principle and pasted it here for you: This is justified by the following principle: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists..

Hopefully, that is clear. There is no link for a general audience between denial and denialism. However, as I have said before, if you think that an explanation would help, please feel free to add one.

Hopefully, that will answer your questions about the confusion in the title of the article. Do you have any other such issues about the neutrality of the article? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.

You pointed out that key principle, but left out "with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity". This does not meet that standard. The use of the same word as in Holocaust denial and denialism implies that it satisfies the latter definition and is an organised attempt parallel to the first in scope. This implication is unsupported by sources.

Jargon is relevant on a scholarly project. For random indiscriminate collections of information that do not accept scholarly uses of words, there are blogs. Relata refero (talk) 08:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the existance of a "clear link" is your personal opinion. --Greggerr (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? What is a "personal opinion" is that Tottle, Duranty, the CPSU, the Communist Party of Ukraine and the "Stalin Society" are part of the same phenomenon. No sources are presented that stufied the phenomenon that is made a subject of the article. No academic definition of D of H exists. The political definition does exists and it is about the applicability of Genocide, though. The article is an ORish hodge podge of non-academically synthesiced dispate pehnomena each in itsef of a marginal notability. --Irpen 04:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Irpen, you seem to be having the same difficulty as RelataRefero - this is not an organized attack by a shadow government or the Illuminati to discredit the Holodomor. This is a phenomenon that has been going on since 1932, and unfortunately instead of simply acknowledging it, some people fight to pretend that the Holodomor was just an "oops".

Perhaps adding to your confusion may be the language issue. Perhaps you simply don't have the exposure to English materials - even though three are presented at the end of the first sentence.

Finally, thank you for joining the discussion, rather than just tagging the article. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to citing governmental or scholarly sources. Feel free to bring some here for discussion. I do not intend to remove any unless they are misrepresented or irrelevant. However, the article as written relies for most of its text on non-reliable or partisan or non-notable sources.

I have no idea what "many, many years" means, but the first time I edited Wikipedia, I think I remember Orthodox church being a redlink. So, don't worry, I have patience and perspective. Do you now want to address why Tottle is relevant, by bringing useful reliable sources attesting to his notability, or are we still complaining about a tag? Relata refero (disp.) 22:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The discusion here is going into a circle, with one party insisting on tagging the article and nothing more. I suggest to bring the issue to the next stage of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Greggerr (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead by all means but the very fact that discussion, as you point out "going into circles" is the best indication of a reasonable disagreement and this is what tags are precicely for. I am restoring it. The article needs a thorough revamp with the removal of much of the stuff. Since this is reverted by the article's ownders, there is no other thing I can do as to reinsert the tag. As for "next stage", go ahead by all means. --Irpen 04:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen, again you seem to be missing the point - you have not tried to improve the article, you simply tag and add comments entitled "sad sight". If you had helped constructively at the beginning, we would not be here now. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggest we table (removal of) tags to conserve energy

It's too early to tell if cleaning up section by section will work. But in the meantime, I don't think it makes any sense to argue to remove tags as no one is budging yet--at least we've had concrete items pointed out for additional editorial effort, which I view as progress. I see Irpen added an additional tag to the Holodomor article, so my suggestion holds for that article too. —PētersV (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we please just leave the tags for now? I appreciate Horlo believes everything that is stated is referenced, and I for one support the current scope of content, but I also agree with the editors here who characterize the article as still needing a lot of work, for example, on Duranty, which I'm willing to contribute to, as I've mentioned, I've been doing some researching for his bio article. I think "one side" leaving the tags be (as much as they'd like to remove them) while the "other side" refrains from mass deleting contents (as much as they'd like to eradicate large swaths)--thus allowing the article contents to be worked on and improved--is a fair editorial compromise and we should view that positively as both "sides" meeting the other half way. —PētersV (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)