Talk:Holodomor genocide question

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Déjà Vu

Erm ... I think this reminds me of something? Anyone else got that feeling of déjà vu? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that page is about denial of the event. This is about the genocide debate. Ostap 18:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, as such massive violations of WP:SYN, both pages are about what the contributors decide to put in it. Just remove the OR "Holodomor genocide denialism should not be confused with Holodomor denial, which is the statement that the Holodomor never took place." and the distinction is gone.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV title

As it was discussed before, claims that Holodomor was not an ethnic genocide are not merginal (indeed they are close to mainstream) so using the word denial is inappropriate Alex Bakharev (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream? In the State Duma? How about Holodomor genocide dispute? Ostap 20:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that "denial" is not good. "Controversy" is better than "dispute". This is not a specific Russia-Ukraine dispute. The opinions of historians on this subject are also divided.Biophys (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I would support controversy. Ostap 21:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Lets change to controversy Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear God. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Not helpful. Please read WP:CIVIL. Ostap 21:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
You're kidding, right. Uncivil would be to say what I really think at this point. Merely expressing my amazement and awe in this manner is hardly uncivil. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
No. You are clearly causing "an atmosphere of conflict and stress". If editing bothers you so much that you are harboring uncivil thoughts, perhaps some time away would do you good? Regards, Ostap 21:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that's cheerful. No, all editing doesn't. I was quite happy till I saw this article.
And I have no intention of causing " an atmosphere of conflict and stress". I suspect that assuming saying "Dear God" causes such an atmosphere is precisely what does cause such an atmosphere. For substantiation I present - the above four comments. Cheers! --Relata refero (disp.) 22:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Lol. Spoken like a true wikilawyer. Battle on, friend. Ostap 22:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
My Learned Friend, you forgot to wikilink "wikilawyer" as well. The weight of any legal statement on WP is directly proportional to the number of wikilinked policies/guidelines.. :) --Relata refero (disp.) 22:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
My Bad. Ostap 22:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Title is still POV. "H-g controversy" does not represent the topic neutrally as it takes the position on the outcome of this controversy by calling the event as Holodomor-genocide. --Irpen 23:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"Controversy" does not mean any outcome. It only means existence of different/opposite views on the subject. "Question" sounds ridiculous to me.Biophys (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Most neutral title would be Holodomor-related controversies. It would include all disputable claims, such as Holodomor denial, "Holodomor genocide question" and whatever.Biophys (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Still POV

I have changed the lead according to the consensus title. The article is still very biased representing arguments of only a one side Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There are two sections at the Holodomor article "Was the Holodomor genocide?" and "Politicization of Holodomor" that I think can be shortened there and added here. What do you say? Ostap 23:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no need for this fork. Holodomor is a serious article where many editors invested a huge effort, a product of discussions and compromise. This one is a POV-pushing toy created by a notorious user. The disagreement of the applicability of Genocide for these events is very crucial part of the main article where it is presented and should be presented. I tried to clean this one up from some most notorious errors but the POV fork is not and cannot be neutral. --Irpen 23:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Those two sections are getting long. Ostap 23:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Reworked structure of article for balance - need referenced material for the section Holodomor is not genocide. Please refer to the Genocide definition article for 22 scholarly and legal definitions of genocide. Depending of definition can change the label of "Genocide" or "Not Genocide" - Removing POV tags. Bobanni (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scope of this article

Hello,

This article is about denying that the Holodomor was Genocide. People do.

If some editors would like to start an article discussing how the Holodomor was not a Genocide, they are free to do so.

However, there are enough sources - Ukrainian, English, Canadian, and American, to warrant an article about the idea that some people deny that the Holodomor as Genocide is denied. There are over 20 countries that have acknowledged the Holodomor as Genocide, and now in Ukraine there is a bill which would make denying the Holodomor as Genocide illegal, on par with denying the Holocaust.

That is not POV, it is fact. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

People denying something does not make the "denial" an encyclopedic subject. It may only if the "denial" is the subject of shcolarly research, just like the Holocaust denial, a subject related but separate from the Holocaust itself. There are dissertations, conferences and books on the Holocaust denial. There is none of this on the Holodomor Denial. Holodomor is a valid topic and there is much of the valid research for that. "Denial" is your artificial pet-topic. --Irpen 07:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


Hello, again, what you think is happenning and what is happenning ara two different things. Please refrain from making statements such as "there is none of this on the Holodomor Denial" because they are both factually and grammatically incorrect. Perhaps denying is your pet-topic. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Under Construction

This article is just in the process of construction. Balanced POV will be presented and neutral language (as defined by Wikipedia policy) will be used. Remember that is a very controversial subject outside of Wikipedia and this article will reflect the controversy. Feel free to edit, but wait until the under construction tag is cleared before debating the article. Bobanni (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV Tag

Whoever put the POV Tag please explain which Point of View is missing from this article. Bobanni (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli/Jewish position

This section is off topic (talking about the Armenian genocide?) That should probably be removed. If Peres made similar statements about Holodomor, it should be cited. Ostap 03:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed POV Flag

No one came forward to explain what Point of View was missed Bobanni (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research or Unverified Claims

Whoever put the Original Research or Unverified Claims please identify what is not verified or original research so those issues can be addressed. Thanks Bobanni (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Syn, OR and POV-title

To give you an example, the main sources of the Holocaust denial article should be neither the works whose subject is the Holocaust nor the works of denialists who claim that the Holocaust did not happen. The sources should be devoted to the Holocaust denial itself, which is a perfectly academic and well researched topic in its own right.

The Holodomor-article, of which I happen to be the most active editor, lists several reviews of the topic on whether the Genocide definition applies to this famine. Such reviews about the applicability of the term rather the sources that take either side should be used in the article whose sole content is the applicability of the term. Instead, the article is primarily based on sources that take either of the positions and synthesizes them into some sort of a "review" whose only claim to legitimacy is its being written by a pseudonymous WP editor, not a scholar with verified credentials.

Further, the article includes plenty of links to outright POV web-sites as sources.

Further, the title is POVed or sloppy in the least. It just does not make any sense. Whether the Holodomor was a Genocide or not is one of the most crucial aspects of its modern historiography and it is discussed in detail in the main article. What we have here is an attempt to fork that discussion under a spurious title to push a particular POV. --Irpen 04:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Your comments cover a lot of issues - however you have not explained what is wrong about the title relating to its point of view. Deleting tag. If you choose to reapply tag please explain your rational in specific terms. Assertion that this is a bad article advanced by POV-pushers does not help advance this article. Thanks Bobanni (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
My comments cover all issues and they are sufficiently detailed. You cannot demand more answers until you happen to like them. --Irpen 19:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus for POV-title removal

POV-title tag added to article multiple times - no clear explaination why the current title does not have a neutral point of view. Rather than getting into a cycle of adding and reverting the issue should be dealt with by consensus. Can anyone explain the rationale why this was added? Thanks Bobanni (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If that is a POV tile, what title Irpen suggests? I would suggest to rename this article as "Holodomor genocide controversy" (see above).Biophys (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Any title that suggests that Holodomor is a genocide and suggests to study this "question" or "controversy" would be a POV title. "Holodomor Genocide anything" would all have this flaw thus imposing a particular POV, which is far from the mainstream consensus, over the whole article. --Irpen 05:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
So, you tell that title is "POV" but do not suggest an alternative title. Then you should stop inserting this label and do something else.Biophys (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how one follows from the other. I do explain the current title's inadequacy. --Irpen 19:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I suggest renaming to Political treatment of the Holodomor or something similar. This article's twin Synthy brother could be merged into it too. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think it would be reasonable to merge this article into Holodomor denial and change the lead accordingly: "Denial of the Holodomor is the assertion that the Holodomor, a manifestation of the Great Famine in Ukraine 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". Then it would cover everything. But no one supported that.Biophys (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death at the other article's talk.

"Denial of the Holodomor is the assertion that the Holodomor, a manifestation of the Great Famine in Ukraine claiming millions of lives, did not occur"

is and outright OR. Not a single source supports such definition. That's why it is marked dubious. The sources that speak about some sort of "denial" wrt to Holodomor are mostly political and they mostly indeed speak about the Genocide applicability. The claim that the famine did not happen is a fringe POV that has not become a subject of any research. The other article is a hodge-podge of randomly picked statements from disparate sources. At the same time, this article is nothing but a POV fork of the section of the Holodomor. Politicization of the famine (of which the Genocide debate is indeed a part) is an all right topic. I believe it should be covered in detail in the main article. But if a separate article is to exist, it should cover all aspects of such politicization rather than invent "denials" or POV-push for a Genocide. --Irpen 21:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you suggest to merge both articles? What do you suggest? If we merge them, this will not be ORish and the problem will be fixed.Biophys (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2008
(UTC)


[edit] From French Wikipeadia's Holodomor Discussion page

From French Wikipedia’s Discussion Page for Holodomor (unfortunately there is not a list for those who do not agree)



Those scholars who agree that Holodomor is Genocide

  • Nicolas Werth (France)
  • Yves Ternon (France)
  • James Mace (U.S.)
  • Robert Conquest (U.S.)
  • Andrew Gregorovich (Canada)
  • Yaroslav Bilinsky (U.S.)
  • Roman Serbyn (Canada)
  • Gerhard Simon (Germany)
  • Andrea Graziosi (Italy)
  • Ferdinando Adornato (Italy)
  • Leo Kuper (U.S.)
  • Federigo Argentieri (Italy)
  • Ettore Cinnella (Italy)
  • Michael Marrus (Canada)
  • Massimo De Angelis (Italy)
  • Gabriele De Rosa (Italy)
  • Renzo Foa (Italy)
  • Mauro Martini (Italy)
  • Vittorio Strada (Italy)
  • Victor Zaslavski (Russia)
  • Stephane Courtois (France)
  • Alain Besancon (France)
  • Thévenin Etienne (France)
  • Egbert Jahn (Germany)
  • Health Graciotti (Italy)
  • Francesco Perfetti (Italy)
  • Lucio Villari (Italy)
  • Johan Ōman (Sweden)
  • Orest Subtelny (Canada)
  • Hubert Laszkiewicz (Poland)
  • Jan Jacek Bruski (Poland)
  • Ewa Rybalt (Poland)
  • Simona Merlo (Italy)
  • Maria Pia Pagani (Italy)
  • Giorgio Petracchi (Italy)
  • Francesco Guida (Italy)
  • Fulvio Salimbeni (Italy)

the Portuguese your friend LuismatosRibeiro on December 7, 2006 at 00:47 (CET) (translated by Bobanni & Google) Bobanni (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Article Title

Hello, the reason that this article was originally called "Holodomor-Genocide Denial" is that it is about the phenomenon in which people deny that the Holodomor was genocide.

This article does not mean to question whether the Holodomor was Genocide, just as the Holocaust Denial article does not mean to question that the Holocaust was genocide. It simply states that there is an effort by some to say that the Holodomor was not Genocide, and - believe it or not - that is happenning.

That is not POV, nor OR, that is fact. Please read the lead of the article to make sure that you know what this is about. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is a scholarly topic in its own right which is the subject of academic works and University dissertations (all specifically devoted to a narrower issue of denial, rather than the Holocaust itself.) This, rather than the mere fact that some people deny the Holocaust, makes the Holocaust denial a valid article topic. So is the Holocaust. So is the Holodomor. That something exists, some people not viewing the famine as Genocide, does not make it an article subject by itself. Neither is Holodomor denial a valid topic for the very similar reasons. They are both marked as such. --Irpen 17:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, again, you are misunderstanding the idea of Wikipedia. Perhaps it is a language issue. Please understand that while WP is not a mere collection of information, Holodomor denial is being studied at Universities, being discussed in Parliaments/Congresses around the world, and is being written about by scholars around the English speaking, and I imagine the Ukraininan speaking world.
Perhaps you should become more familiar with the topic in English before so arrogantly brushing off and tagging - without an explanation - a topic which had such an impact on world history. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, you should then quote sources specifically devoted to the denial and base the article on such sources. As of now, the article is based on sources devoted to famine itself and quotes some that did indeed refuse to acknowledge the famine. But there are no sources dedicated to the denial phenomenon that I could found. Thanks for your caring about my English. I appreciate that. --Irpen 17:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Tagging articles needs explanation in TALK section for honest discussion

Seven million figure comes from reference at end of paragraph. [1].Bobanni (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Moscow Times is not a scholarly source to use its numbers passingly the same way as one would use numbers from the peer-reviewed paper written by world top demographers. All sorts of numbers cited by politicians and journalists can be used to demonstrate the politicization debate but they cannot be used in a passing form as factual info. --Irpen 05:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Moscow Times is considered a reliable source. Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Restricting to only scholary source can generate a BIAS point of view. Remember that the academic world ignored this subject for fifty years. Only others including News Organization followed this issue. Bobanni (talk)

[edit] Concept of Coatracking template does not exist

This label has been applied to a template incorrectly- however no case has been made on template talk page. No such concept existsBobanni (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)