Talk:Denial of the Holodomor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
The subject of this article is (or has been) the subject of heavy propaganda campaigns.

All editors are advised to be careful of possible additions of biased or factually incorrect information from such campaigns. The usual policies of using legitimate sources, using sources and objectivity and impartiality apply as always.
Ukraine Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Denial of the Holodomor is part of WikiProject Soviet Union, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Soviet Union. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the class scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 1 January 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Talk:Denial of the Holodomor/Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Vagueness and bad citations

Usually, Holomodor refers to an intentionally inflicted famine. But the article doesn't say that a "Holomodor denier" is someone who denies that the USSR intentionally inflicted the famine, in fact it doesn't ever specify what a Holomodor denier is. It certainly isn't someone denying that a famine occured, in which case almost all of the people listed wouldn't be deniers.

If it actually refers to someone who denies an intentionally inflicted famine, then Robert Conquest himself would be a Holomodor denier. Page 441 of The Years of Hunger by Wheatcroft and Davies says 'In correspondence Dr Conquest has stated that it is not his opinion that "Stalin purposely inflicted the 1933 famine. No. What I argue is that with resulting famine imminent, he could have prevented it, but put Soviet interests other than feeding the starving first- thus consciously abetting it"'

His use of "1933 famine" is odd but there is no way to interpret this which makes it seem like he is breaking up the famine and saying earlier deaths were deliberate but not in 1933.

Of course Wheatcroft and Davies, major sources in this article, would be Holomodor deniers as well since they argue (and this is the only claim supported by the evidence) that the Soviet leadership didn't want the famine and made relief efforts, but industrialization was a higher priority which came into conflict with famine relief/prevention.

Also, the article claims that Wheatcroft and Davies have refuted Tauger, but the source (#68) is an article by Tauger responding to their claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.113.181 (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] The Stalin Society

I objected adding The indeopendent's op-ed critical piece to this article. There's wikipage describing this organization and anything and everything about society itself should be there. If casual reader happens to become interested in this group, s/he could follow the link and educate her-/himself. Otherwise we're stepping at very slippery path. Would any of wikipedians arguing to keep description of the Stalin Society in this article be thrilled to see note on R. Conquest being paid anticommunist agitator accompanying his every statement? Unlike opinion piece in The Independent, Conquests's past as salaried anticommunist politrabotnik is proven fact. RJ CG (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As there's an article on the Stalin Society, suitably Wikilinked, might I suggest we leave the article at the current state (per RJ CG's revert) and put the "schism" commentary in the Stalin Society article where it would be of more use? This latest round of reverts isn't doing much to advance the state of the article. —PētersV (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
strong support RJ CG (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reliance on Conquest

RJ CG's point about Conquest being paid does bring up another one. I think as a community of editors we've agreed that Davies and Wheatcroft's work on the Great Famine is one of the seminal works of the current generation. Various editors have positioned it as discrediting Conquest, making him obsolete, and so on. So, with regard to our topic here (in the context of Soviet authorities denying the famine, thereby not soliciting foreign aid...):

  • Davies and Wheatcroft state they disagree with Conquest on interpretations of history. They do not disagree with him on facts and events and do not dispute the oral histories Conquest collected (and, in fact, reference those positively).
  • D&W explicitly shy away from interpretation, to the point where they discuss how during Lenin's rule and even back into Tsarist times, Russia let the world know about its famines and gratefully accepted outside aid, but D&W don't say a single word about Stalin in that regard—as you read D&W regarding Lenin and earlier times, it's as if someone accidentally cut out the next paragraph where they should have discussed Stalin and Soviet foreign policy regarding the Great Famine. The omission is painfully obvious.
  • D&W never really show where they specifically disagree with an interpretation by Conquest. D&W simply state that records of discussions and decisions are still classified and so they prefer not to speculate--to the point that, as regards foreign policy and external aid, they compare the Great Famine to earlier famines by omission. —PētersV (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I've been reading D&W a section at a time as needed, so if there is someplace they discuss Soviet foreign policy regarding the Great Famine and outside aid, please let me know. Haven't found it yet and not for want of reading through the index, twice. —PētersV (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


I found a scholarly source indicating that Tottle pushed the line that Conquest was working for the British secret service in order to discredit him. I added some text to Tottle's section accordingly. Martintg (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, could you bring specific quotes here that Tottle pushed the line? That it was done to discredit Conquest? Can you also place it in conquest? I see yet another Canadian sources. I think I am going to stick a global perspective on this article.
Note also that, while I don't have access to this article at the moment, the abstract seems to imply this Commission of Inquiry was produced by the same Council of Free Ukrainians that was central to the remembrance of the Holodomor; and that even then, the final results were "sharply divided". This is not relevant except that (a) were they divided in the matter of Tottle? Finally, to what degree did the Commission spend time on Tottle? Does the source mention him for a couple of pages or one line and a footnote? Does the source say anything about his importance as a source of "denial"? Relata refero (talk) 08:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The actual commission chaired and report written by a Swede, see http://www.ioir.se/ukrfamine.htm. Is that global enough for you? It goes into detail of Tottles allegations, which obviously were intended to discredit Conquest. Martintg (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
No, it remains the case that this is something closely linked to Ukranian-Canadian sources. This is extremely problematic.
Please answer my remaining questions and bring specific quotes before reinstating the material. Some of it may need to be rewritten. Relata refero (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Nope, I don't believe Professor emeritus Jacob Sundberg is a Ukrainian-Canadian. Are you questioning his integrity? The fact is the commission he chaired examined Tottle's work. This examination is mentioned in a secondary source, an article written by Hobbins and Boyer (I don't believe they are Ukrainian-Canadians either) in the refereed Dalhousie Law Journal (which isn't a Ukrainian-Canadian publication BTW), makes reference to the commission's examination of Tottle's work and its conclusion. The Hobbins Boyer article devotes a whole chapter to the Commission's deliberations in regard to Tottle and his book, finally concluding, to quote: "Finally, because Tottle's book was well documented, he (Sundberg) pointed out that in "its detail this book suggests that the author has had access to classified information at a scale indicating resort to Soviet sources". So what is this issue in your mind that is "extremely problematical" Martintg (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
In fact Tottle was a significant component in regard to Holodomor denial, Hobbins Boyer article quotes Sundberg: "if you connect this with the line going back to Tottle, the interest becomes intelligible. The connection between Marxist ideology and genocide is a crucial point in the considerations of the International Commission, and it is therefore a natural point of attack for those interests who would like to sabotage and impede the advance of the Commission's reasoning on this point" Martintg (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Why should someone being Ukrainian-Canadian=problems with his integrity? That's not what I mean at all. All I was saying is that the Commission was organised by a community org, and the Dalhousie Law Journal is Canadian as well. Which is why I think we are over-reliant on Canadian sources. This is not surprising, because the memory of the Holodomor and co-ordinated debunking of those who minimised it/ questioned its intent etc., was something that appears to have been central to the Ukrainian community in Canada in particular. (Or so I gather from whatever reliable sources have actually discussed it.) Which is why a "worldwide view" problem exists.
Canada was the primary (speaking of "global") battleground in the 1970's and 1980's in particular as the Soviets put on a full-court press to discredit the entire exile Ukrainian diasaporic community and with a particular vendetta for the Canadian community. Canada as center of the Ukrainian-Soviet conflict is as much to be expected as the Arab-Israeli conflict to be centered on the Middle East. —PētersV (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you explain what a "whole chapter of a paper" is? I find myself confused.
I also am unsure that if the Commission was "divided" and it was set up like a court of inquiry, we are quoting it accurately.
To catch up, on reliable sources so far about Tottle we have (1) An op-ed in the Kyiv Post (2) A mention in a Canadian law journal. Neither attests to its importance in terms of the battle for the Holodomor's memory - or at least, if the latter does, the quote hasn't been given to us. Relata refero (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Aha, thanks for the update with the quote. Except what "interest" is he talking about in the first sentence? And what is "this" that must be connected? And what is the "point" on which the Commission is reasoning? Relata refero (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
A section of the paper is devoted to Tottle, which is noted in the table of contents of the article which is 53 pages in length. The "point" is the connection between Marxism and genocide, and "this" being the campaign spanning back to Tottle to discredit this link. The fact the UN Under-Secretary for Human Rights and the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe both accepted the Comission's final report sufficiently internationalises the significance of conclusions of the report, which include the role played by Tottle. Will you now restore that part of the text you deleted here: [1] ? Martintg (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Please be patient on the restoration, I will certainly restore the material once we've thrashed it out.
What does "accepted" mean? Did they endorse it? Or did they merely receive it and say "the Holodomor was a tragedy, and we appreciate efforts to investigate it"?
(I'd also point out that my concerns about the worldwide perspective of this article continue to exist even if/when this is put back in. There are too many connections to a particular subset of the Ukranian expatriate community for me to be comfortable about the global view here.)
About the quote: I think you may have told me the definition for the wrong "this". I mean the "this" in the first line. If we substitute what you suggest we do, it makes no sense, as its a duplication, not a connection. Relata refero (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The actual commission chaired and report written by a Swede who was on the crusade to prove the link between Genocide and Communism, as he himself clearly states in pre-face. Alliance between anticommunists and Ukrainian nationalists seems pretty logical, but to me it more or less destroys NPOV status of the document produced by the alliance. I don't understand why should we trust it more than rugs produced by numerous USSR-sponsored left thinktanks during the same Cold War. That is, unless one subscribes to "anything is good to destroy the enemy" POV, but that again kills any NPOV posture. RJ CG (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Irrelevant. Nowhere in the article have I attempted to push the Swede's Marxism=genocide viewpoint. The Comission was set up to examine whether a famine existed at all, not to push some political line. The issue is that Tottle's denial was significant enough and in scope of the Commission's purpose to consume a part of the Commission's time, and important enough for refereed paper in a Law Journal to discuss the Commission's deliberations of Tottle's work. This somewhat kneecaps Relata refero's argument that Tottle is insignificant. Martintg (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Not quite. Did indeed the paper discuss the deliberations of Tottle's work, or only mention it in a couple of sentences? Relata refero (talk) 08:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replies to Coplon?

I believe Jeff Coplon's article in the Village Voice was answered by Robert Conquest and James Mace in correspondence over the next few issues. Does anyone have references and quotations which can be included in the entry? Hecht (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tottle

Mentioned in this Coplon article http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/vv.html Bandurist (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality Tag

Relata refero (disp.) 20:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

To sum up the discussion from the archive, a few arguments have been put forth which explain this tag. However, the arguments have been dealt with, in the following order:

First, the title. An argument has been put forth that the title of the article is confusing. However, no clear link has been shown between Denial and Denialism. Denialism is not a well-known term, and a regular reader would likely not be familiar with it. Note that define:denial gets more than 23 hits to various on-line dictionaries which give various explanations [[2]]; define:denialism gets one - to the wikipedia definition [[3]]. Therefore, the average English speaker would not find any ambiguity whatsoever between these two terms. Also, the term itself is explained in the lead of the article. Three separate references are provided.

Second the "tone" of the article. An argument was put forth that this article passes judgement on people. As unfortunate as this may seem to some, this article deals with people who said or say that the Holodomor did not take place. This article does not say that they are guilty. Their saying that the Holodomor did not happen makes them guilty.

Other problems with this article have been put forth, however they do not deal with neutrality. Therefore, the POV tag should be removed. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome
That is by no means an accurate summary of the discussion.
The arguments have not been dealt with.
"The average English speaker" would find ambiguity between these terms in the context of an encyclopaedia and an alleged genocide. That context is precisely the one in which denialism is used. To claim otherwise is absurd.
"Three reliable sources" - actually, just two, and neither of which defines the term.
"The tone" - your interpretation is novel. Extensive examples have been provided of a problematic style, all of which are detailed in the prematurely archived section, and which are indeed still in the article.
Relata refero (disp.) 11:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, first, would you explain how an average reader would find any ambiguity between denial and denialism? Please keep in mind that this is the Wikipedia, and is written for the general pubic, not specialists. There is no evidence to show that anybody outside a very specific group of history students has heard of denialism. If you want to write articles about denialism, please get in touch with the Oxford UP.
Second, please stop using words like "absurd" to describe opinions that you don't agree with.
Third, this is not a place dealing with "reliable sources". Just POV. Let's deal with one issue at a time.
Fourth, the POV tag, and claim that the tone is not neutral is your interpretation. Nobody besides you had any issue with "tone" before. Therefore, it appears that you are the novelist. Again, please provide specific issues, or, better still, improve them. Please note that improvemene =/= deletion. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome.
First, for many reasons, but above all because of the connection with Holocaust denial, which is a familar term to the average reader. Also, I think you underestimate the "average reader". Can you substantiate your claim in any way?
Second, I'm afraid that if you believe that the word "absurd" is off-limits, you had best practice what you preach by cutting down on "get in touch with OUP.." Which is amusing, because that is the sort of source we should be aspiring to emulate, not the dregs of google searches piled into an article.
Third, you were the one who brought up sources. Look up.
Fourth, I count half a dozen editors in this and in the archives of the last couple of months making the same point about POV.
Incidentally, in some cases, improvement=excision of inappropriate, unencyclopaedic and poorly referenced material. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


Hello, if you make a claim that the "average reader" would confuse denial and denialism, you need to substantiate it. I have explained many times that denial =/= denialism, because there is only one definition of denialism on the internet, and that is on Wikipedia.
There is no definition of denialism in the Oxford online dictionary. Let's emulate that.
Incidentally, did you actually read the article on Holocaust denial? It clearly states that there are two separate things to discuss - denial and revisionism. Denial means it didn't take place, while revisionism means it happened just a little. There is no mention of denialism in that article, either. In the third paragraph, it actually says: Scholars, however, prefer the term "denial" to differentiate Holocaust deniers from historical revisionists. There is no mention of denialism. Where did you get the idea that anybody would confuse the two terms? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It is not a dictionary.
"Only one definition of denialism on the internet..." you are, of course wrong.
Please see Category:Denialism, which is the super-cat for Category:Holocaust denial. (The wikilink appears to have been removed by recent tendentious editors, possibly by the banned Vermont Public Library editor. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.)
Unless you can bring effective sources to the table indicating that there is a sufficient parallel between the movements to justify the name, I am afraid that it will remain a problem. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, have you tried to find a definition of denialism on-line outside of Wikipedia? Please try that. How many dictionaries can you find online that describe denialism? I'm not talking about denialism.com or Aidsdenialism.com. Just dictionaries that explain the term.
What exactly do you mean "you can bring effective sources to the table indicating there is a sufficient parallel between the movements"? That's exactly what I have been trying to get from you. I am saying that there is no connection, and the name is not an issue.
Also, did you actually look at the Holocaust denial page? Once again, there is no mention of denialism.
Following your logic, anybody could find a link between anything. An Ebonics scholar could claim that Cleopatra be da queen of denial.
Unless you can bring effective sources to the table indicating that there is a sufficient parallel between the movements to justify the tag, it will be removed. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome, but please try harder to follow.
Unless you can bring effective sources to the table indicating that there is a sufficient parallel between the movements to justify the tag Eh? How does that make sense? Tags dont have to be justified by sources, statements in articles do. Tags are justified by talkpage discussion. Which is on here.
If you want to compare this project to a dictionary, you are on the wrong project. (Wiktionary is under-staffed.) We are an encylopaedia, where you should consult academic sources in this field, where denial is used in quite a different manner. This is the fifth time I have made that point, and you have not yet got over your puzzling fascination with dictionaries.
Again: Holocaust denial is part of cat Denialism, and there was a long-term mention of denialism in the lead that was removed by a tendentious editor and has been since replaced. Which is, of course, exactly what I said above. I am amazed by my patience. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Hello, yes, don't you just hate tenatious editors who apparently have nothing else to do but remove things from articles? (By the way, the Holocaust denial article still includes absolutely no mention of denialism). Now, just to review, you said: "Unless you can bring effective sources to the table indicating that there is a sufficient parallel between the movements to justify the name, I am afraid that it will remain a problem." I asked: "What exactly do you mean?" You did not answer.

The reason I brought up dictionaries was to explain that there is no link between denialism and denial. You claim that there is an inherent connection, and therefore the title is POV and "a problem". I am showing you why the average reader would not confuse the two terms. No such connection exists.

Also, as hard as I tried, I could not find any mention of cat denialism. I think everybody acknowledges the existence of cats. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about the Holodomor. Now, please try harder to follow. If there is no connection between denial and denialism, there is no problem. With the POV of this article, I mean. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


I agree. I would like to put forward the motion that the neutrality tag and POV be removed. Bandurist (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to have the POV removed, but till then the tag must stay. Relata refero (disp.) 11:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I support the motion. This has become one editor pontificating, calling other editors' work "dregs of google searches plied into an article" and "inappropriate, unencyclopaedic and poorly referenced material". The tag must go. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
As extensively pointed out, the tag has been placed and argued for by at least half a dozen editors while the article has remained essentially unchanged. I would prefer to focus on the problems of the article than on cosmetic changes like removing a tag. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
As extensively pointed out, the tag has been placed by half a dozen editors who appear to have nothing else to add to this article. If you consider a POV tag a simple cosmetic change, then it should not be so difficult for you to live without one. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
And as I and others have extensively pointed out, once the more unencyclopaedic poorly-referenced non-neutral parts are removed or rewritten, there is much improvement to be made. Unfortunately, sometimes pruning is necessary first, and that is not yet being permitted by this article's owners. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Since only parts are an issue for you, an article level tag is not necessary. Section level and inline tags are more constructive at this stage. Surely you cannot expect other editors to step inside your skull and see the issues you perceive, so how about placing inline tags to identify "the more unencyclopaedic poorly-referenced non-neutral parts". I think generally editors who refuse to utilise inline and section tags and insist on using article level tags at this stage of article development are being disruptively obstructionist. Martintg (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
PS, in regard to Relata refero's main argument against this article: "but above all because of the connection with Holocaust denial, which is a familar term to the average reader", does he also believe the average reader would confuse Climate change denial with Holocaust denial? Martintg (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Reliable sources have in fact studied climate change denial as a form of denialism, and those sources are cited in the lead of that article.
About whether sectional tags are appropriate, I think when over two-thirds of the sections are problematic, one might as well tag the whole article, no? --Relata refero (disp.) 23:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, it seems again that your opinion is against the consensus on this page. That is not discussion, that is one editor trying to push a POV. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What consensus, Horlo? And who is pushing POV? --Irpen 09:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen, welcome back to the discussion. There is a consensus of editors, and there is disagreement on the part of Relata Refero and you. The questions that Relata Refero has asked have been answered. The fact that the answers that have been put forth by more than half a dozen editors who helped develop this article do not satisfy Relata Refero really smack of "I don't like it". Terrible, editors who seem to ask the same question over and over and over again, regardless of how patiently things are explained to them - and then the same editos take on a haughty air. Don't you think?
Unfortunately, there are other editors who seem to be trying to push a POV into this article by adding sections called "Sad Sight", and "Frozen meat of kulaks and sunken barges full of Ukrainian by nationality children", and adding POV tags without explaining anything NPOV about this article. That really looks like somebody trying to discredit this article for no reason.
Just to keep it clear, please see the discussion below for the scope of this article. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Martintg and Horlo that tag is not justified.Biophys (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Why? You don't see a disagreement over neutrality here? --Relata refero (disp.) 15:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I see a disagreement, but I do not see any valid arguments that article is not neutral. It is as neutral as an article on such subject can be.Biophys (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Really? "The height of manipulation was reached..." sounds like a non-neutral tone to you? --Relata refero (disp.) 20:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. Could you annotate the text with inline tags so we can fix any issues, it would be much more productive than blind placement of an article level tag, otherwise your non-cooperation in this area may be seen as disruptive. Martintg (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, what would be disruptive would be my placement of neutrality tags over dozens of sentences! Also "this opinion needs balancing" tags, "biased source" tags and so on.
I believe we need to move beyond the pointless issue of the tag and focus on the article itself. Can we please do so? --Relata refero (disp.) 13:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Hello, actually, putting a tag and asking the same question again and again, even after more than half a dozen editors explained the reasoning, rationale, and references behind all the arguments, is disruptive. It really smacks of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. I believe that many people would edit this page, the same people who built the article, if there was no editor who would immediately come by and make mass deletions of their edits. Also, if you think that the tags are a pointless issue, you will have no problem in their being removed. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I note several changes have been made to this article over the past two months, which I have not personally touched. See the bottom of this talkpage.
Please start discussing the actual issues now. You must have that avoiding them is not helping. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, I ask you to please explain what you mean: "You must have that avoiding them is not helping."
Again, I ask you to help improve the article, don't simply remove things, or add tags. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scope of the article

Originally, it was agreed that the scope of the article is the denial the very existence or trivialization of the catastrophic famine causing deaths of millions people. It is indeed a marginal theory and using such a strong term as denial seems to be warranted.

On the other hand the views that Holodomor was an ethnic genocide are not marginal and using the word denial here is absolutely not neutral. If we accept this we should accept Denial of perestroika being an ethnic genocide, Denial of disintegration of the Soviet Union being the major humanitarian catastrophe of the XX century, Denial of Iraq War as ethnic genocide, etc.

I want either removal of the material of consideration Holodomor was an ethnic genocide or using a more neutral term like Apprehension of Holodomor (it would also solve possible BLP problems over labeling some modern living Western academics as denialists). Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I completely agree - the scope of this article should be exclusively the denial of the existence of the Holodomor. Or, as the lead states, "the famine never took place". This is not about the growing acceptance of the genocide. That has never been the issue here.
Therefore, it is clearly denial. Again, I don't see what the problem is - the lead clearly explains the term and scope of the article, and it is fully referenced. If there is mention about as a genocide, it should be removed. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you bring a reliable source buttressing that interpretation of the lead? All three "references" are not relevant to this point that you claim.--Relata refero (disp.) 08:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Horlo and Alex, no problem. Let's remove this. I thought this insertion was O'K. Perhaps one needs a separate article about it.Biophys (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The piece I inserted actually belongs to a wider subject of Repressions of ethnic minorities in Russia (Russian Empire, Soviet Russia, and Post-Soviet Russia). Russia was rightly called a "prison of nations". Naturally, the repressions have been denied. It was denied that such repressions ever existed (like in this article), or it was claimed that repressions have not been directed against ethnic minorities (e.g. Holodomor and Katyn were not recognized as acts of genocide).Biophys (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Suggested Lead:

Holodomor denial is the claim that the genocide of Ukrainian farmers in 1932-1933—usually referred to as the Holodomor did not occur in the manner and to the extent described by current scholarship.

Key elements of this claim are the rejection of any of the following: that the Soviet government had a policy of deliberately targeting Ukrainians especially the farmers identified as Kulaks for extermination as a people; that between three to ten million people were systematically starved to death by the Soviet government; and that genocide was carried out by expropriating all farm produce and blocking access to other food.

Many Holodomor deniers do not accept the term "denial" as an appropriate description of their point of view, and use the term Holodomor revisionism instead. Scholars, however, prefer the term "denial" to differentiate Holodomor deniers from historical revisionists, who use established historical methodologies.

Most Holodomor denial claims imply, or openly state, that the Holodomor caused by natural conditions or by economic hardship imposed by the “collectivization” process. The methodologies of Holodomor deniers are often criticized as based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores extensive historical evidence to the contrary.


with appropriate sources does this meet with everyones approval - Speak now. Bobanni (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No. I think it is convoluted and is not clear. Holodomor denial is not genocide denial. This is a seperate issue. Bandurist (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Main subject of this article should remain the denial that Holodomor ever took place. At the same time, one could also briefly mention in the end of the article other related controversies, such as (1) denial that Holodomor was a genocide against Ukrainians, and (2) denial that Holodomor was a terror-famine, a repressive policy of Soviet government rather than a result of poor climate. These distinctions between different denials are not clear for a reader, unless they are clearly stated. That is why I included the segment above. I still think that was an improvement.Biophys (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Depends. Can we find sources that clearly differentiate propaganda of the three types? --Relata refero (disp.) 21:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
That should be probably another article, something like Disputed genocides in the Soviet Union, such as Holodomor and Katyn.Biophys (talk) 05:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
How about a new article "Hololomor genocide question" with one section from the Genocide POV and another from the non-Genocide POV? Bobanni (talk) 07:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) (edit conflict) Hello, thank you but I have to agree with user:Bandurist here. In the proposed lead, the issue gets very easily convoluted and mixed up with genocide denialism. That is a completely different issue.

Personally, I agree with everything you said, but that is not what this article is about.
Also, I think that if this article has to be very clear about what is being denied: there are people who say that the holodomor never took place. There were people in 1932-33 who were saying that, there were people all through the Soviet mistake saying that, and there are people saying that now. ThatBold text is what this article is about, and it should be very focussed and clear. I think that there is a critical mass about Holodomor-genocide denial to start an article. What do you think? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Horlo, you've said "this is not what this article is about" several times. Remember, we haven't actually settled what this article is about. Half the discussions on this page are about what this article is about. Not just from me. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


Hello, Relata Refero, everybody but you has agreed that this is what the article is about. Other people either don't understand English or are trying to mix beans and cabbage (trust me, don't do that either).

You don't like it. That's too bad. I'm sorry.

You think that this is about denialism. It is not. Again, IT IS NOT. I understand that typing in caps is like screaming, but you don't seem to get it. THIS IS NOT ABOUT DENIALISM. THIS IS ABOUT PEOPLE WHO SAY THAT THE HOLODOMOR NEVER TOOK PLACE. Build a bridge. Get over it. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can type in caps if you like, but people seem to disagree with you. See above, where people other than me are disagreeing what this article is about. You see, when articles are poorly defined, this sort of thing tends to happen, and leads to screaming of the sort you just did.
Can we return to the subject of sourcing the different things various people believe this article is about now? --Relata refero (disp.) 10:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, again, you seem to miss the point. Nobody is disputing what the scope of the article is. If you actually took the time to read the debate, you would see that people disagree about things like "frozen meat of Kulak children" and "campaigning on the bones of famine vicitms". Nobody disagreed about the scope of the article until you started confusing denial and denialism because of what you thought you read into it.
Please read the lead of the article to see just how poorly defined it is. Actually, I will paste it here: Denial of the Holodomor is the assertion that the Holodomor, a manifestation of the Great Famine in Ukraine (Ukrainian SSR) claiming millions of lives, did not occur. Which part exactly is poorly defined? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 05:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
One could define the subject of this article as follows: "Denial of the Holodomor is the assertion that the Holodomor, a manifestation of the Great Famine in Ukraine (Ukrainian SSR) claiming millions of lives, did not occur, or denial that Holodomor was an act of genocide, or attempts to minimize the scale or death toll, or claims that famine has not been intentionally created by the Soviet authorities". That would increase the scope of the article and bring it from the "denialism" to "controversies" category. This is just a thought. I do not vote for anything. But this prolonged dispute should be resolved somehow.Biophys (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I would return to the beginnings of the discussion, where it was discussed and agreed that this article be about those who deny the fact that the Holodomor took place, nothing else. I do not want to politicize this issue, as difficult as that may be for some editors to accept. The point is that the Soviet authorities claimed that there was no Holodomor, some western (soviet friendly) newspeople said that there was no Holodomor, and even now some (soviet friendly) freaks say that there was no Holodomor. That is the scope of this article, nothing more. That is exactly why there is no POV with the title, there is no question of denialism, just a whole bunch of people who say that the Holodomor never took place. Much to the chagrin of some, the Holodomor is a topic which now, on the 75th anniversary, has become important again, and many scholarly sources are re-examining it. In Ukraine, in the US, and in Canada. That is why this article is important. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What "Holodomor" are denied or why knowledge of history is important for WP

Group of fellows would like to state what Holodomor is:

  • Ukrainian famine/genocide of 1932-33
  • 1932-33 famine was engineered by Soviet authorities under dictator Josef Stalin to force peasants to give up their private plots of land and join collective farms.
  • to crush Ukrainian nationalism
  • Seven million Ukrainians were killed by starving to death
  • Frozen meat of Kulak and NKVD in 1933 (Mace)
  • Sunk barges full of Ukrainian (Conquest)

and rest very "reliable data" from "reliable" source

So what history and historians spoken about 1932/33

  • Holodomor – 1933 lasted till end of spring mid of June 1933 (see Kulchitskyy "Голод 1932 р. в затінку голодомору-33" http://www.history.org.ua/Journal/2006/6/4.pdf Thus - Holodmor 1932-33 does not exist as historical fact but exist Holodomor -1933
  • There no cannibalism and starvation in USSR and Ukrainian SRR in second half of August 1933 – as mentioned Theodor_Cardinal_Innitzer as also a later.
  • All over collectivization was complete in Ukrainian SRR by mid October 1931 (see here [4] and [5]) – So peasants already join collective farms by end of 1931 (Note – Holodomor 1933)
  • There no OUN in 1932/33
  • Total probable estimated death exceed for 1927-38 together with voluntary out-migration numbered 2.583 for whole Ukrainian SRR population – said to us demographers (see more here http://www.ined.fr/en/resources_documentation/publications/ined_cahiers/bdd/publication/79/)
  • There no NKVD nor private freezers in 1933
  • Statistics for barges available for 1927-37 – there no decrease in quantity for 1932/33
So please decide first -which Holodomor were denied by Kalinin and Litvinov together with rest mentioned here names. Jo0doe (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enormous Problems

Discussion on the history of Russia in the scholarly community does not include the term "Holodomor." All competent scholars whether in Russia or the West look at the 1933 famine in Russia as embracing the entire country. The historian Viktor Kondrashin documents very clearly the extent of famine and explictly repudiates the Ukrainian Nazi narrative of the famine's alleged focus on Ukraine. The famine affected all of Russia including the Moscow region, the Volga basin, the Central Producer region, the Urals, Turkestan, and Siberia. Whether or not this is the intention, this attempt at creating a "Holodomor denial" is a cynical attempt to trivialize the Holocaust.

Concerning "Holodomor Denial", the examples used in this article are disingenuous. Not a single text under discussion claims that there was a total absence of famine in Russia and elsewhere. Rather, like all competent historians on the subject, they merely repudiate the idea that the famine constituted some kind of genocide against Ukraine. The "Stalin Society" deriving its information from Tottle says very explicitly [6]

While drought was a contributing factor, the main cause of the famine was the struggle around collectivisation of the countryside in this period.

It is especially problematic to suggest that the scholarly community fully agrees with the view that famine in Ukraine and elsewhere was man-made. Scholars such as Dr Mark Tauger have confirmed that the famine was not artificial or "man-made". The 1932-33 famine was the result of a genuine shortage.

Concerning the reliance upon Robert Conquest for information, it would be dishonest to present his views as though they are representative of the scholarly community. See, for example the reviews of Conquest's work in the London Review of Books by J.Arch Getty and R.W. Davies in the journal Dentente. Mark Tauger said about Robert Conquest[7]

...the famine of 1931-1933 was by no means limited to Ukraine, was not a "man-made" or artificial famine in the sense that she and other devotees of the Ukrainian famine argument assert, and was not a genocide in any conventional sense of the term. ...Mr. Conquest's book on the famine is replete with errors and inconsistencies and does not deserve to be considered a classic, but rather another expression of the Cold War.

With respect to Walter Duranty, the section about him amounts to slander with selective quotations and innuendo. Walter Duranty never denied that there was a food crisis in Russia and even acknowledged that some three million people had died as a result of the food crisis, as he writes in an August 1933 article for the New York Times

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 in the grain-producing provinces--that is, the Ukraine, North Caucasus, the Lower Volga region--has, however, caused heavy loss of life.... Although it is pure guesswork to attempt any estimate of the loss of life so far, not so much from actual starvation as from manifold diseases due to lowered resistance and to general disease in the last year, approximations are now possible. Among peasants and others receiving bread rations conditions were certainly not better. So with a total population in the Ukraine, North Caucasus and Lower Volga of upward of 40,000,000 the normal death rate would have been about 1,000,000. Lacking official figures, it is a conservative to suppose that this was at least trebled last year in those provinces and considerably increased for the Soviet Union as a whole

Drabj (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for speaking on behalf of the competent scholarly community. No doubt it is an honor that they chose you as their spokesperson. Your long-winded sermon about "famine in Russia" and "Ukrainian Nazi narratives" reveals much. Please remember, Wikipedia is not vehicle for communist propaganda. Thanks a bunch, Ostap 23:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there any content to that last statement, or is it merely a sarcastic personal attack? --Relata refero (disp.) 23:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Self-published sources

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." Bobanni (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yes, a link to a personal site/blog

Please follow WP:Verifiability. This link is personal blog:

"Some scholars allege that Conquest's book on the famine is replete with errors and inconsistencies. [1]". Such sources are only admittable in articles about themselves.Biophys (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Read WP:SPS. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Two problems. "Some" is more than one. Tauger is a known quantity, his position is the famine was not influenced by man, and is of itself controversial. I've read some of his scholarship and personally am not that impressed. But it's not about my opinion. You can write something like: "Mark Tauger, a scholar who contends the famine was purely the result of natural circumstances (need book ref), alleges... (need quote ref)". Moreover, that "quote ref" should come from a published source, not from Tauger's writings (and I'll accept from face value they are his) on some blog site. What people write in TALK is written to a different standard from what they write in AN ARTICLE. Scholars included. Tauger quoted in a reputable journal saying the same of Conquest is fine. —PētersV (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
That was Tauger himself summarising his entire work on the subject. He valued that summary enough to put it on his site years after he wrote it. It is probably one of the most reliable sources in this entire shoddy article. I can't believe you're advising we remove it. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Since Tauger disagrees so vociferously, it shouldn't be difficult to find his position stated similarly elsewhere, no? We shouldn't need to resort to a poorly formatted blog saved somewhere where there's no distinction between polemics and scholarship. As I mentioned, there is also the problem of Tauger not being put into context, rather remaining a faceless "some" doing "alleging." For what it's worth, I wouldn't support something saved on some blog that Conquest wrote, either.
   Your evaluation of Tauger as "one of the most reliable sources in this entire article" is your editorial opinion, of course, and it could be right, it could be wrong. Therefore, Tauger's contentions, as published in reputable journal (peer-reviewed as worthy of consideration), are the appropriate source; by taking on determining whether or not to include Tauger's blog, we appoint ourselves as qualified to conduct an academic peer review. —PētersV (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, why don't we limit the entire article to peer-reviewed journals. No? Then read WP:PARITY. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Tauger is (being represented as) an authoritative scholar. Is it really that difficult to find a better source for Tauger's opinion? I support Tauger's scholarly opinion being positioned and represented in the article. Whether I totally agree or not isn't material. —PētersV (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
It would also seem general statements/criticisms should be in the main article. If Conquest, for example, states that circulation of information was suppressed (pertinent to this article) on a particular occasion, general statements by Tauger regarding Conquest do not necessarily apply. —PētersV (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is another problem. This citation of Tauger is simply irrelevant. We are talking about the following segment: According to Robert Conquest, the denial was the first major instance of Soviet authorities adopting Hitler's Big Lie propaganda technique to sway world opinion, to be followed by similar campaigns over the Moscow Trials and denial of the Gulag labor camp system. [4] Some scholars allege that Conquest's book on the famine is replete with errors and inconsistencies.. If Tauger disputed anything in this specific statement by Conquest ("Big Lie", Gulag, etc.), the citation of Tauger would be all right. But Tauger does not dispute this specifically if I understand correctly. He simply through dirt on Conquest. Hence the citation of Tauger is irrelevant "well poisoning".Biophys (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, given how dependent this entire article is on our Robert, I'd think that a contrary view in the lead is the least we can do. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) With reference to Conquest, Davies and Wheatcroft don't pillory him the way Tauger does (in fact the opposite). They do state their purpose is not to investigate motivations or to draw conclusions regarding motivations (which was one of Conquest's purposes, to understand the dynamics of the entire process), and they acknowledge the value of Conquest's work. Tauger's outright denunciation of Conquest as a mere Cold War motivated hack (per blog) is not mainstream. —PētersV (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Worrying that Conquest was fighting the Cold War is pretty mainstream actually, about as mainstream as worrying about how much the New Historians of the 1950s were minimising Stalinism. There's a reason why Conquest's facts are always attributed. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Just because it was the Cold War doesn't mean it's immediately suspect as pure POV. Conquest isn't a wholly discredited source as some have argued here. Davies' and Wheatcroft's assessment actual rather compliments Conquest on his gathering of information (personal accounts, etc.). D&W do not discredit or obsolete Conquest, as has been argued here. D&W simply make the point that their own work intentionally avoids the decision makers and decision process. —PētersV (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
P.S. The very first denial, by Soviet authorities to the outside world, started it all and isn't subject to interpretation. But you knew that. :-) PētersV (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not understand why people pay so much attention to Conquest. I easily added three more scholarly books by other authors on this subject. More can be found if needed.Biophys (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Sigh* The solution to a possible lack of balance by quoting Conquest is not by adding Richard Pipes. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
No, a solution of insufficient sourcing is always adding more reliable secondary sources per WP:Verifiability. I cited Richard Pipes and Edvard Radzinsky who are notable historians and published numerous books, specifically about Russian history. You can not find better sources about Russian history. Please do not delete again perfectly sourced texts.Biophys (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I can certainly delete sourced texts if necessary. In this case, don't think that supporting one cold-war-inflected historian with another is appropriate for balance. --Relata refero (disp.) 01:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
According to WP:Verifiability, "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers". I am using exactly such sources, that is "books published in university presses" and "books published by respected publishing houses". Furthermore, these are books published by notable historians - we have WP articles about them. WP rules do not tell anything about "Cold war".Biophys (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Very good. Now read WP:NPOV. I can't rewrite the policies to explain individual applications of them to you, I'm afraid. --Relata refero (disp.) 02:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I know this policy. Unfortunately it is you who removes sourced and relevant views on the subject. This is obviously a violation of WP:NPOV. Biophys (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Sourced and relevant =/= balance. Please repeat that to yourself as often as necessary until you get it. --Relata refero (disp.) 03:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Right. To be balanced, an article should include all sourced views on the subject. That is exactly what I am doing here. And you are welcome to include alternative sourced views on this subject, if you think it is not balanced.Biophys (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
No. To be balanced, an article should contain sourced views in a proper balance of all major points of view. Relata refero (disp.) 17:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Right, and you are welcome to include anything sourced what is missing, exactly as I do, instead of removing sourced texts you do not like. If there is nothing you can add, it means, the proper balance had been achieved.Biophys (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Not how it works. We demonstrate the balance a priori, and then choose between reliable sources. We don't add sources madly and the resultant mish-mash is considered the proper balance of perspectives! That's totally inappropriate, and fails NPOV. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Holodomor Template

Holodomor Template was added to this article strictly for background information of related articles in Wikipedia. The Holodomor template is patterned after the Holocaust Template and the Armenian Genocide Template.

The template, if any, should meet the consensus by its content. So far it is a random and strange collection of stuff someone might have "heard" or something. It cannot be used in articles. --Irpen 05:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
No objection to template on its talks page - Holodomor Template was added to this article strictly for background information of related articles in Wikipedia. The Holodomor template is patterned after the Holocaust Template and the Armenian Genocide Template.
Current version of the template includes a "Holodomor denial" section. So, it is only logical to include this template into all aricles it links to (and especially this one). Irpen probably wants to question if we need such template at all, and if we need to include "Holodomor denial" as a part of the "Holodomor" template. This should be discussed at talk page of Holodomor template rather than here.Biophys (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some scholars allege that Conquest's book on the famine is replete with errors and inconsistencies

"According to Robert Conquest, that was the first major instance of Soviet authorities adopting Hitler's Big Lie propaganda technique to sway world opinion, to be followed by similar campaigns over the Moscow Trials and denial of the Gulag labor camp system"
"Some scholars allege that Conquest's book on the famine is replete with errors and inconsistencies"

This criticism is out of place in this article. They are not challenging the accuracy of this statement. We don't know what part of Conquests work these scholars find inconsistent or in error, so adding this is your OR. Add this criticism to the Robert Conquest article. Ostap 23:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. The segment about Tauger is simply irrelevant. See that about Tauger. BTW, they had a heated exchange by letters with Conquest in Slavic Studies disputing various things (a rare scientific scandal). Hence, Tauger is also not a neutral source.Biophys (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow, you actually look at ratemyprofessors.
It should be quite obvious that that link is quite irrelevant, so I wont waste time on pointing out why.
As to the relevance of Tauger himself, he is talking specifically about Conquest's coverage of the famine; this article covers the coverage of the famine and relies extremely heavily on Conquest. I rather think that that makes a sufficient case for relevance. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
But this article is not about Conquest's book on the famine. Does Tauger dispute any of the specific material that is cited to Conquest in this article? Is any of the information attributed to Conquest in this article erroneous? If not, then this weaselish criticism should be removed. Ostap 07:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Reduce the amount this depends on Conquest, and we can avoid mentioning Tauger at all!--Relata refero (disp.) 07:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Few citation from Robert Conquest

http://zhnyva33.narod.ru/part3.html#b15

  • Коли проблема безпритульності стала завеликою для місцевих урядовців, безпритульних почали розстрілювати у великих кількостях.
  • 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). Але більшість дітей загинула від голоду. Існують більш-менш чіткі підрахунки кількості таких жертв.

Please remember, Wikipedia is not vehicle for anti-soviet propaganda and propaganda sources heavy usage. However - does group of editor decide which Holodomor denied [8]? - Jo0doe (talk) 06:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Most vehemently of all, these experts reject Conquest's hunt for a new holocaust. The famine was a terrible thing, they agree, but it decidedly was not genocide. "There is no evidence it was intentionally directed against Ukrainians," said Alexander Dallin of Stanford, the father of modern Sovietology. "That would be totally out of keeping with what we know -- it makes no sense." "This is crap, rubbish," said Moshe Lewin of the University of Pennsylvania, whose Russian Peasants and Soviet Power broke new ground in social history. "I am an anti- Stalinist, but I don't see how this [genocide] campaign adds to our knowledge. It's adding horrors, adding horrors, until it becomes a pathology." "I absolutely reject it," said Lynne Viola of SUNY- Binghamton, the first US historian to examine Moscow's Central State Archive on collectivization. "Why in god's name would this paranoid government consciously produce a famine when they were terrified of war [with Germany]?" These premier Sovietologists dismiss Conquest for what he is -- an ideologue whose serious work is long behind him. But Dallin stands as a liberal exception to the hard-liners of his generation, while Lewin and Viola remain Young Turks who happen to be doing the freshest work on this period. In Soviet studies, where rigor and objectivity count for less than the party line, where fierce anti-Communists still control the prestigious institutes and first-rank departments, a Conquest can survive and prosper while barely cracking a book. "He's terrible at doing research," said veteran Sovietologist Roberta Manning of Boston College." He misuses sources, he twists everything." Then there are those who love to twist, and shout --to use scholarly disinformation for their own, less dignified purposes

Should we use "crap and rubbish" as source for WP?Jo0doe (talk) 07:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Jo0doe's quote can be found at http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/vv.html by Jeff Coplan & Progressive Labor Party. Are they considered a realiable source? Bobanni (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Whom? Roberta Manning of Boston College? Lynne Viola of SUNY- Binghamton? Alexander Dallin of Stanford? the father of modern Sovietology?Jo0doe (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Few citation from Robert Conquest (in English)

Let's quote the English edition of the Conquest's book (1986, ISBN 0195051807) for the benefit of anyone who reads this page. All the quotes that correspond to the Ukrainian translations above come from p. 296 of this edition:

  • "When the problem became too great for local officials bespeizornie [sic] are reported shot in large numbers.<ref68>"
    • The ref # 68 cited by Conquest is no less than Alexander Orlov's " The Secret History of Stalin's Crimes (1953). You can click above for some material on this "scholarly" work based on "previously unpublished anecdotes", "an unofficial history, written without reference to primary sources or documents", "sometimes based upon gossip heard at the NKVD water-cooler or at a French cafe." When reviewed by an academic journal (International Affairs, Royal Institute of International Affairs, Vol. 31, No. 3 Jul., 1955, p. 389) it was called the "unsavoury book lives up to its sensational title."
  • "In the Lebedyn's Children's Centre seventy-six children are reported shot after getting glanders from horsemeat.<ref71>"
    • The ref # 71 Conquest gives to this fact is: Fedir Pigido-Pravoberezhny, "The Stalin famine: Ukraine in the year 1933" (1953). Note that the publisher of this source is ..."Ukrainian Youth Association" in London. This valuable SOURCE which Conquest sites repeatedly has whooping 72 pages and the Library of Congress, which even chose to have Tottle's masterpiece among its holdings, lacks this valuable Conquest's source.
  • "It is certainly true that unwanted children were got rid of by inhumane or lethal practices, though mainly by starvation in various centres; and it is also reported,, for example, that some were drowned in barges on the Dnieper, (a method also used with adults).<ref72> There is reasonably clear evidence of the numbers, if not the exact numbers, of the child victims."
    • The ref 72 for barge drowning is given in a way that hides any possibility to establish the publisher. It just says: "Seminar on Ukrainian Famine, 1933, Toronto, December 1981".

I hope this quotations display the strength of articles that are so Conquest-based. --Irpen 07:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

A researcher of history can use any sources including the unreliable ones, Soviet propaganda, professional disinformation cooked by General Orlov, and whatever. It does not mean he believes this is true. An example of disinformation can be cited as an example of disinformation. But we are not going to do original research to disprove reliable secondary sources.Biophys (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Let's simply follow the rules

According to WP:Verifiability, "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses;...Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science.".

Here we have a book published by Harvard University Press and written by Robert Conquest, a notable Western historian who authored about 25 books, most of them specifically on Russian history, such as The Great Terror and others. He is an internationally recognized researcher. If you know any historian who has a better record (20+ books) on Russian history of 20th century, please tell who he/she is. There are no more reliable secondary sources than his books - based on WP:Verifiability.

Obviously, everything in history is a matter of debate, and so his books. There is nothing special here. If Conquest tells something specifically about Holodomor denial, this can be cited here. If other reliable sources tell something, specifically about Holodomor denial, they can be cited too per WP:NPOV. My point was that Tauger did not tell anything at all about the Holodomor denial.

If you want to debate the Conquest book (which is not a subject of this article), one can create an article The harvest of sorrow about the book and include all criticizms there. That is what we always do.Biophys (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. However, a Conquest-heavy article needs balance; and Tauger was talking about Conquest's discourse on the Holodomor. Since this article purports to be about the discourse on the Holodomor, Tauger is relevant, unless we scale down our reliance on Conquest.--Relata refero (disp.) 15:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain what exactly Tauger tells about Holodomor denial? If he tells nothing, his opinion belongs to article The harvest of sorrow (I feel we should create it). Also using Tauger's blog is not a good idea. I am sure he published something in journals.Biophys (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
On your first point, since this article purports to be about the discourse on the Holodomor, Tauger is relevant, unless we scale down our reliance on Conquest. On your second, I have pointed out above that this is Tauger's chosen summary of his work on the subject. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Not reliable - but crap and rubbish see scholars opinions about "books". Quality of historical works based on source used and propose of publishing. In case of Robert Conquest we have well known cold-war anti-soviet pamflitist with "rubbish" in every book. I would like a point your attention on WP:REDFLAG policy. Jo0doe (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
You should read the beginning of this section, but I can repeat again. This is a book published by Harvard University Press and written by Robert Conquest, a notable Western historian who authored about 25 books, most of them specifically on Russian history, such as The Great Terror and others. He is an internationally recognized researcher. If you know any historian who has a better record (20+ books) on Russian history of 20th century, please tell who he/she is. There are no more reliable secondary sources than his books - based on WP:Verifiability. If you have any problems with this source, let's post this source at "Sources" noticeboard and ask for more opinions. If you have any other reliable sources that challenge Conquest conclusions on the Holodomor denial subject (so far there is NONE), we can cite them as well.Biophys (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
There are a dozen historians of the Soviet Union less controversial than Conquest. I don't see the point of the question. I am not questioning the reliability of his books as sources.
And since Conquest has never actually come to any conclusions about "holodomor denial" as the "concept" is presented in this article, other than by using the word "lie", I don't know where you're going with this.... --Relata refero (disp.) 21:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
This article cites several books by Conquest. If this is O'K (I thought that is challenged), I do not see any problems except citing blog by Tauger who does not tell anything specific about Holodomor denial.Biophys (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
Conquest books known for twisting and misusing the facts
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking.
see above

Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves

claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. Be particularly careful when proponents of such claims say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Any comments? Jo0doe (talk) 07:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Based on information provided, the three books by Conquest are mainstream ("majority") sources on Holodomor denial by Soviet government and others (books by a notable historian published in Harvard University Press and other places like that). If there are any other sources that dispute Conquest assertions, specifically on the Holodomor denial (rather than anything else), they can be cited in the article - no problem. So far, there is only one source, the blog by Tauger (who published much less on Russian history than Conquest), and even this blog does not tell anything specifically about the Holodomor denial. So, we have three academic books published by a notable historian versus a blog by a non-notable University professor which does not tell anything on the subject. Which view is mainstream? Once again, if you want to discuss one of Conqest books about the famine, this can and should be done in another article.Biophys (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Moreover, this article cites several other academic books by other notable Western and Russian historians and other sources that are completely consistent with claims by Conquest about the Holodomor denials. If you want to debate other claims by Conquest (there are lots of them), this should be done elsewhere.Biophys (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

None of those books are about any well-defined movement or activity known as "Holodomor denial". --Relata refero (disp.) 15:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No, EACH book explains explicitly how the existence of Holodomor has been denied. This article is not about a combination of words, it is about a phenomenon - denial the Holodomor ever happened.Biophys (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Not only it was "well defined" but it has been organized by the Soviet government according to these books.Biophys (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, that's your interpretation. Nothing in the quotes suggests that the authors believe it was targeted particularly at the Holodomor, as opposed to the usual unwillingness to let the West know that they weren't precisely achieving a worker's paradise. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
How come "nothing in the quotes suggests"? Current text tells the following: Stalin "had achieved the impossible: he had silenced all the talk of hunger... Millions were dying, but the nation hymned the praises of collectivization", said historian and writer Edvard Radzinsky[3]. According to Robert Conquest, that was the first major instance of Soviet authorities adopting Hitler's Big Lie propaganda technique to sway world opinion. Last part is very close to original text. O'K, I can easily provide more direct quotes later. Is that the problem? Both authors talked about Holodomor (Ukrainian famine of 1932-1933).Biophys (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, Stalin ensured that the failures of collectivisation were not advertised. Similarly, he did not talk about the displacement of nationalities, nor did Pravda have front-page stories on the Gulag. In any case, this quote refers to the "Big Lie" technique, which is not denial. It is, in fact, the inverse. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I simply cite the source. It tells that the intentional denial (a cover up) of the Holodomor was a "Big Lie" technique. That is what Conquest said. He may be wrong but that is what he tells.Biophys (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, only a big lie technique isn't denial. Its as if Holocaust deniers went around claiming that the Nazis liked Jews, and the number of European Jews increased by six million. That is in fact precisely the point Conquest is making. I trust you see the difference. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking.
Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves.
Once more - which kind of "Holodomor" - "drowned in barges on the Dnieper" or historical one?Jo0doe (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • A few points – collectivization process for Ukraine territories, in main, accomplished by August 1931. Main soviet newspapers in 1932-34 was full of about improper management and conducts in agriculture. In 1937-38 published a lot of about “crimes of spy’s” against soviet low.

Pravda got a front page story about GULAG – after Belomor-Baltisykiy channel completion. Most of information was published but in very specific way – in order to assess it you should be comfortable with “official language” of 30-s. Actually It’s not big lie – it’s understatement Jo0doe (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unexplained Deletions

Recent deletion of fully referenced material was deleted with the comment "defend your additions" - this is the reverse of collaborative editing. Need a really good explanation why these facts "unbalance" the article. Comments that characterize "not good enough" do not help advance the article. The other editors need to understand why it should be deleted. Bobanni (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Because they extensively quote primary sources? Because they rely entirely on a single non-English source? Because the section is already unbalanced? Because the article is already unbalanced, as demonstrated and tagged? Beyond that, in what circumstances is dumping an enormous set of quotes encyclopaedic? All this shouldn't require saying. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The book in question is by eminent Ukrainian historian Volodymyr Serhiychuk. It is published by the Centre of Ukrainian studies at the Kyiv State University named after Taras Shevchenko in Kyiv, 2006. The work has 392 pages of sources documents and analysis.

Serhiychuk"s analysis is a secondary source.

Apart from the analysis by Serhiychuk (pp 321-332) The following document are also published:

1) Report from the representative of the Ukr. SSR A. Holovko at the United Nations Oct 28 1973 (pp.333-335) (in Ukrainian) 2) Propositions of the Soviet Ambassador to Canada Alexander Yakovlev regarding the neutralization of Ukrainian emigre actions commemorating the Famine of 1933. Marked Secret. Dated March 23, 1983 (pp. 335-342) 3) The note of protest from the Soviet Embassy to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Canada dated July 5, 1983 (pp.343-344) 4) Letter from Danyliw and Associates regarding the setting up of an International Tribunal dated October 17, 1983 with a photo reproduction of the said document (pp.344-350) 5)Report from the Novosti Press bureau A. Podakin to P. Naumov regarding neutralizing the Ukrainian Emigre actions dated 9 January 1984 marked Secret (pp.350-357) In Russian. 6) Extract from a report regarding the conversation between Consular official A. Makarov and R. Halperin dated December 3 1984 In Russian (pp. 357-360)

Because the book was published in only 3000 copies and may be difficult to obtain, I am offering to scan the referenced pages of the publication for confirmation regarding translation and sources if you provide me with an email address where to send the scanned pages.

Bandurist (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • 3000 copies - actually reveal source as WP:SPS

WP:SPS - Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. So actually – does Volodymyr Serhiychuk - established expert on the topic of the article Denial of the Holodomor whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications? Jo0doe (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  • His Doctor of Science dissertation he defended in 1992 was on "The Ukrainian Cossack Army of the second half of the 16th - 17th century". ???

Moreover - some of his work "Symon Petlura and the Jews" (1999),"Pogroms in Ukraine. 1914-1920" (1998), The truth about Jewish pogroms" (1996), are whitewashing of well known criminals Jo0doe (talk) 07:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The books are published by Kyiv University. I have seen Serhiychuk's earlier works quoted in third-party publications. His latest, so far no, but this is probably mainly because they are recent works. JoDoe - I have noticed that you regard most Soviet materials as the "truth", even out and out fabrications. Bandurist (talk) 11:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Now evryone can be "published by Kyiv University" - so it's WP:SPS Jo0doe (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
But in his case, he actually works and teaches there. I also have more confidence in his sources than yours. He has bone fide credentials and has a real Doctorate, not a fake plagarised Russian one like Putin. What can you you provide to boost you credibility? Bandurist (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
So he got a discount on publishing :) - still it does not change WP:SPS status. Jo0doe (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Materials being repeatedly removed

[edit] Modern Soviet Denial

In February 1983 Alexander Yakovlev, the Soviet Ambassador to Canada, in a secret analysis "Some thoughts regarding the advertising of the Ukrainian SSR pavilion at the International exposition "Man and the world" held in Canada" prognosised a campaign to bring attention to the Holodomor spearheaded by the Ukrainian nationalist community. A. Yakovlev proposed a list of concrete proposals to "neutralise the enemy ideological actions of the Ukrainian bourgeoise nationalists"[2].

By April 1983 the bureau of the Soviet Novosti Press Agency sent out a special press release denying the occurrence of the 1933 Famine in Ukraine. This press release was sent to every major newspaper, radio station and television station and University in Canada and also to all the members of the Canadian parliament[3].

On July 5 1983 the Soviet Embassy issued an official note of protest regarding the planned opening of a monument in memory of the victims of the Holodomor in Edmonton[4].

In October 1983 the World Congress of Ukrainians lead by V-Yu Danyliv attempted to call a international court to judge the facts regarding the Holodomor. At the 4th World Congress held in December 1983 a resolution was passed to form an international tribunal[5].

A. Makarov from the Soviet Consulate in a discussion held December 3 1984 with the Canadian minister for foreign affairs Ron Halpin demanded that the Canadian government "use concrete measures to stop the anti-soviet campaign of provocations regarding the so-called "Famine", and stop aggressive actions of the Ukrainian emigre centres against the Soviet Union and to take legal action against war criminals who had committed crimes on temporarily occupied Soviet territory.[6]"

The Soviet Communist party approached the Canadian Communist Party to engage journalist Douglas Tottle to prepare counter-propaganda materials under the title "Fraud, Famine and Ukrainian Fascism". The official reviewers of the tome in Kyiv suggested that the name of the book be changed, as they stated in their explanation "Ukrainian fascism never existed", and suggested that the citations of Soviet authors K. Dmytriuk and V. Stryrkula be removed from the publication[7].

Bandurist (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely seems relevant, but based on a single source, and is far too long. Please summarize in 1/3 the space (additional sources would probably merit it being given more space). - Merzbow (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
May be this could be made shorter. Main point here: Soviet authorities continued the denial that Holodomor existed even in 1980s, and one of the "deniers" was Alexander Yakovlev, a very notable figure and an "architect" of perestroika. A majority of this text can be left in footnotes - as a reasonable compromise. I was surprised to see that Yakovlev did not tell a word about Holodomor in his memories. Now it is clear why.Biophys (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
While I agree with Merzbow that some mention of the Soviet campaign against Ukranian nationalism in Canada is necessary - it is the only really notable thing about this portmanteau article, after all - I continue to be deeply unhappy about the choice of the sources above. For example "issued an official note of protest regarding the planned opening of a monument.." What does that mean? Does that mean they objected to the monument? To the implications of the monument? To the words on the monument? Why did they object to the monument? Did they do so because they claimed that it perpetuated the "myth" of the famine, or because it claimed that the famine was intentional? Where is the context?
Is the sentence about Novosti really translated accurately? What did the release say? What does this history say of the motivation behind Yakovlev's statement? To what degree is he stating that the famine did not exist, and to what degree is he wishing to claim that memorialisation of it is "excessive" and ideologically motivated? (Cf the Chinese government today privately admitting deaths in 1950s Tibet, but refusing to allow commemoration). All this makes me very suspicious. If it is basically a sourcebook of primary materials edited by this individual, then quoting it as a properly structured secondary source is inappropriate. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
On looking at this more closely, it seems obvious that Serhiychuk, who has access to the archives, is merely presenting them as a sourcebook. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
It is difficult to look more closely without the book in question. All you have is a very brief summary of the man\in analysis, a list of documents republished relating to the material and one 2 page translation. It doesn't really give an truely adequate picture of the work. Bandurist (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The book is available online in an electronic version at


http://www.archives.gov.ua/Sections/Famine/Publicat/Fam-Serg.php

http://www.history.univ.kiev.ua/golodomor/32_33.htm

Bandurist (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note of protest from Soviet Embassy

Serhiychuk is a historian who analyses the data. It is a secondary source. The fact that he also includes a reprint of the source documents allows one to check his analysis. Obviously the topic is currently a heated one with the whole year marked as a memorial to the Holodomor.
The Note of protest from the Soviet Embassy is dated July 5, 1983.

It states:

The Embassy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics notifies the respected Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada and has the honour of turning the attention of the Ministry to the intentions of the Edmonton section of the "Committee of Ukrainians in Canada" to erect a monument to the so-called "victims of Famine in Ukraine of 1932-33". This action cannot not be viewed as a indecent anti-soviet action, whose goal is to turn away from the truth regarding the collectivisation of village farms in the USSR, to promote hatred to the USSR and the Soviet people. It is visible tht the plans to erect such a monument are supported by the city government of Edmonton, which passed a resolution to allow the erection of the monument in the central square of the city. Such activities attacking the USSR from the official government in association with activists of the right-extremist centres in Canada, including the union of War criminals of the so-called "Ukrainian Insurgent Army", the SS division "Galizien" and others cannot be supported. Attention is brought to the anti-Soviet manifestation in Toronto on May 29 this year regarding the so-called "Famine in Ukraine", which amongst its organizers was one of the leaders of the pro-fascist "League of Freedom for Ukraine" V. Didiuk, the head of "the brotherhood of former soldiers of the SS. Galizien division" O. Sokolsky and the participation of members of the federal and provincial parliaments.

Whatever formal excuses these former hitlerite cronies use to hide under under, the to mask their anti-Soviet actions in Canada, the patronage of the government officials makes a mockery of the millions of Soviet people, who became victims of German Fascism in the years of the Second World War.

The Embassy voices its protest against anti-Soviet for that reason of the erection of the above mentioned monument. It expects that actions will be taken in the prohibition of its construction.

The Embassy uses this occassion to remind the Ministry in its high and important regard.

6 copies

5 July 1983

1,2 - to addresses 3. - filed 4. 2EO 5 - Central Committee of Communist party of Ukraine 6. - Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ukr. SSR 27 June 1983 Ottawa

Bandurist (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, personally, I'm not at all surprised. The "so-called" is masterly, in that it commits them neither to denying that it happened - if questioned, surely they can claim they were questioning the semantics. Frankly, I would think that any source that saw this as outright denial is questionable.
About the secondary aspect, I have my doubts. The way that it has been translated, it sounds just like a brief, non contextualised or analytical, introduction to each documentary source. If there's an overall introduction where he lays out his interpretation of the datar, that might be useful. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It is easy to question a source, particularly if you don't have it underhand, however it is a secondary source and it is from a reliable source, and I have offered scans of the documents.

Oh the one hand what I wrote is too long, On the other it is scant. Keep in mind that what I selected was what I thought was useful for the article in question. The materials are there and laid out and can be further investigated and the article refined. The most interesting documents are the ones which are marked secret which are in some areas quite inflamatory and provide incite into how the Soviet Embassy functioned regarding the Ukrainian emigre organizations and particular individuals. These are worthy of translation, however they are quie long. Bandurist (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is too long from the point of view of weight in the article, and it is scanty in the sense that it is really little more than a list of titles of primary sources. I have no doubt that the specific propaganda actions take by the USSR to deal with the memorialisation of the Holodomor by the Ukranian-Canadian committee are encyclopaedic, but they have to be dealt with properly and in context. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What specific suggestions can you make regarding the condencing of the material? What would you like to see? Bandurist (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I would like to propose to mention which kind of “Holodomor” denied by Soviet – “7 million of Ukrainians starved to death by Stalin to force them to join kolkhozes”; “Lebedyn's Children's Centre seventy-six children are reported shot after getting glanders from horsemeat”; It is certainly true that unwanted children were got rid of by inhumane or lethal practices, though mainly by starvation in various centres; and it is also reported,, for example, that some were drowned in barges on the Dnieper, (a method also used with adults).

And mention what two last instance really happened in Ukraine – but in 1941-43 and with assistance and direct participation of ukrainian militia which in large extent represented at Ukrainian emigre organizations which claimed about “Holodomor” and “Holodomor denials” Accordingly to documents presented to the International Military Tribunal Ukrainian organizations (OUN(B)) which are working with Amt Abwehr have same (as Nazi’s) “objectives”, namely, the Poles and the Jews (IMT Vol III p.21). Such “objects” described as “all farms and dwelling of the Poles should go up in flames, and all Jews be killed” (IMT Vol II p.448) Moreover – cite Fabricate from Deception and especially Distractions - To get someone's attention from the truth by offering bait or something else more tempting to divert attention away from the object being concealed. e.i. – “Holodomor” with "7 millions" instead of “Poles should go up in flames, and all Jews be killed”.Jo0doe (talk) 07:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

JoDoe - Either make a serious contribution, or go somewhere where you can be appreciated. Your comments are silly and derogatory. Bandurist (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The Serhiychuk book is available in an electronic version.


http://www.archives.gov.ua/Sections/Famine/Publicat/Fam-Serg.php

http://www.history.univ.kiev.ua/golodomor/32_33.htm

Bandurist (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Please decide first which "Holdomor" denied before inserting hoax at WPJo0doe (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

So actually it’s a selected collection of archival documents rather then book – because I can’t find any logic or sense in wording before strange selection of archival documents (some of them already published in 1990-96)– however such documents contradict with name of book- “How we were starved to death” – see ЦК ВКП(Б) "О ПРОДРЕСУРСАХ УКРАИНЫ" Положение с продресурсами на Украине требует немедленного приостановления всякого вывоза пшеницы и ржи (в зерне и муке) из Украины. Чтобы не повторять опыта прошлого года, когда весной пришлось на Украину чрезвычайным порядком завозить хлеб, необходимо дать указание Комитету Заготовок при СТО о немедленном аннулировании всех вывозных нарядов из Украины по пшенице и ржи (в зерне и муке), а именно: ___на экспорт в ноябре и в союзные республики в ноябре и декабре: пшеницы и муки — 21.940 тысяч пудов и ржи и муки — 5.511 тыс. пудов, а всего — 27.451 тысяч пудов. ___Приложение: справка о потребностях Украины в продовольственном хлебе с 1/ХІ 1932-го года по 1/VП 1933-го года. ___Секретарь ЦК КП(б)У (Косиор). Прот. № 106, п.10 от 13.ІІІ.ЗЗ г. О ПРОДОВОЛЬСТВЕННОЙ ПОМОЩИ ___В целях оказания продовольственной помощи крайне нуждающимся отдельным районам и колхозникам ЦК постановляет: ___1. Обкомы и облисполкомы должны на основе проверки через ответственных товарищей, командированных из областей не позже 20.111. установить окончательно районы, которые настоятельно нуждаются в оказании помощи. ___2. Отмечая совершенно неудовлетворительное развертывание местной инициативы и использования больших возможностей для мобилизации местных ресурсов, ЦК обязывает обкомы и райкомы партии добиться необходимого перелома в этом отношении в районах и обеспечить развертывание руководства делом заготовок различного рода продуктов в своей области. ___7. ЦК особо обращает внимание обкомов на необходимость оказания помощи в первую очередь детскому населению. Для этой цели создать особый централизованный фонд, выделив в первую очередь 700 тонн муки (500 тонн за счет невыкупленных грузов, 200 тонн за счет экономии в хлебопекарнях), 170 тонн сахара (150 тонн за счет Наркомснаба, 20 тонн за счет невыкупленных грузов), 100000 банок консервов (за счет нераспределенного резерва Наркомснаба), 50 тонн круп и 500 пудов подсолнечного масла, изъяв его из Укрмлина. О решении бюро Днепропетровского обкома от 23.04.33 г. ком оказал продовольственную помощь Славутскому району, при чем районное руководство не приняло никаких серьезных мер к ускорению прибытия продовольственной помощи на место, а также не использовало местных возможностей (лесоразработки) для смягчения продовольственного положения в районе

19. VI 1933 г. ___Політбюро (Протокол № 118 пункт I) ___Слушали: заявление тов.Трилиссера ___Постановили: Констатировать, что Винницкой области была оказана за последние два месяца большая продовольственная помощь 26 апреля — 150 тыс. пудов 26 апреля — 260 -"- 1 июня – 135 -”- 13 июня – 180 -”- Из украинского фонда – 56 -“- Всего 781 тыс.

___Только в начале июня Винницкий обком оказал продовольственную помощь Славутскому району, при чем районное руководство не приняло никаких серьезных мер к ускорению прибытия продовольственной помощи на место, а также не использовало местных возможностей (лесоразработки) для смягчения продовольственного положения в районе. Strange - isn't?Jo0doe (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tauger's conclusions called into question

Prominent writers such as Wheatcroft question Tauger's conclusions. For example, in a comparison of the different viewpoints on the famine in (Wheatcroft, S. G.(2004) 'TOWARDS EXPLAINING SOVIET FAMINE OF 1931-3: POLITICAL AND NATURAL FACTORS IN PERSPECTIVE ', Food and Foodways, 12:2, 107 — 136)

"In contrast to these views of the dominance of political factors, Mark Tauger describes the famine as largely accidental and caused mainly by external exogenous factors. While I have some sympathy with Mark Tauger’s attempt to question these political interpretations, I would claim that he, in his turn, has over reached himself and has over simplified the problem, but in the opposite direction to the others."

I think readers should be alerted to the fact that Tauger's viewpoint represents, in Wheatcroft's words, "the opposite extreme" of arguing that the famine was totally accidental, and this viewpoint is not shared by other significant authors, such as Wheatcroft and Davies. The way the Refero represents Tauger's view on Conquest's work could be misleading to the reader if we don't indicate what other authors think of Tauger's work. Martintg (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Tauger isn't being used as a source on the famine itself, but on Conquest's position with ref to the thinking on the subject. If Tthe article was dependent on Tauger, or even used him extensively, I would certainly think that some information on this would be appropriate, but as it stands, no. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
All aspects of this disagreement by the sources must be included. Taugers disagreement with Conquest's view is a source for the article - your assertion about the article being dependent on a specific source is not logical. Remember Conquest was the FIRST academic researcher to write about this topic. Bobanni (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
He didn't actually write about "it", did he? He wrote about the famine. Relata refero (disp.) 14:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Tauger does not comment on "big Lie" statement by Conquest. Hence his citation is irrelevant.Biophys (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Remove the whole thing, then. Having one bit without the modification is unacceptable. Relata refero (disp.) 14:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The statement by Conquest is about Holodomor denial. Hence it is relevant. Statement by Tauger is not about Holodomor denial. Hence it is not relevant.Biophys (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
No. The statement by Tauger is about Conquest and the Holodomor; if Conquest is in the lead, that modification will be presented. So remove him from the lead. This would also increase readability, as all the people trying to add "big lie" to lead probably haven't read that article. That method is not "denial". --Relata refero (disp.) 05:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tauger's conclusions discredited

Tauger himself supports the claim that Wheatcroft and Davies have discredited his view on the famine. In the opening paragraph of Tauger's article "Arguing from errors: On certain issues in Robert Davies' and Stephen Wheatcroft's analysis of the 1932 Soviet grain harvest and the Great Soviet famine of 1931-1933", Europe-Asia Studies, 58:6, 973 — 984, he asserts:

"In their recent book, THE YEARS OF HUNGER: SOVIET AGRICULTURE, 1931–1933 (2004), a detailed study of the Soviet famine of those years, Robert Davies and Stephen Wheatcroft criticise my publications on the Soviet grain harvests of 1932–33 and the causes of the famine. In an appendix to their book and in a table located online, they attempt to discredit the evidence, methodology and conclusions from my article "The 1932 Harvest and the Famine of 1933" (Tauger1991) and certain other publications"

--Martintg (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, they say "attempt to discredit" then. And how is it relevant? He doesn't say that they attempt to discredit his view of Conquest's position with re the discourse on the Holodomor. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
If we want to include Tauger here (which I am not sure we want to do), then he looks like just another Holodomor denialist. Hence his criticism is appropriate. Agree with Martintg.Biophys (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
So - Wheatcroft and Davies called Tauger as "another Holodomor denialist"? Which Holodomor was denied? Originated from World Congress of Free Ukrainians ?Jo0doe (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tabled a law

Hey, there. In the midst of the more serious issues this article faces, I thought I might mention another: this excerpt from the lede: "...the government of Ukraine tabled a law...". "Table" as a verb is extremely problematic because it has the opposite meaning in U.S. English as Commonwealth English. This makes it difficult to determine which sense is intended and will likely mislead users of whichever form was not intended here. I'm not fixing this myself because I'm not sure which sense is intended. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about whether the law was good or not. I'm concerned about making the meaning of the sentence clear to all speakers of English. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Heimstern has a point. In American usage, "to table" means to suspend a motion, whereas in Commonwealth english it means to propose a motion. Quite opposite meanings here. I think in this case the Ukraine government proposed a motion. Martintg (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I added the section. My English is Commonwealth (from Australia). Change it to proposed a motion. Thank you JoeDoe for your comments re Yushchenko. I will forward them on to him when I see him on Tuesday. Bandurist (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. If only all the issues at this article were this easy... Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edmonton Memorial

see article: "On July 5 1983 the Soviet Embassy issued an official note of protest regarding the planned opening of a monument in memory of the victims of the Holodomor in Edmonton" picture is of this monument. Quoting the inscription on the monument and its point of view is no reason to delete the picture. Other points of views may need to be added. Bobanni (talk)

In addition, keep in mind that (possibly influenced by President Yushchenko's recent visit) the Canadian Government yesterday passed a private members bill to recognise the Holodomor as an act of Genocide. IMHO it cannot be classified POV if a monument to Genocide in Canada is recognised by the Government as being genocide. In fact I think your particular feelings regarding the subject are more POV, or more specifically that of a minority POV. Bandurist (talk) 11:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)