Template talk:Holodomor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] "Nice template"

Very nice template. I really hate to say it, but one reason some will never accept this is because of the use of the G word, no matter what the truth is. Ostap 23:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not see any problems too. It is generally helpful to construct various templates in WP because templates show logical connections between different articles on related subjects and they look nice (I have constructed myself a few templates related to the protein structure/families). This template seems to be just fine. If anyone think something should be included or excluded from the template, let's discuss this here.Biophys (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, too bad, Biophys, you did not read past discussions. I copied them again below. --Irpen 16:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Info box as balalaika and matryoshka and bears with axes - part 2

As article related to event called Holodomor (mass death from starvation and related to malnutrition which took place in first half of 1933 – WP it’s not a mirror web-site for Nazi and cold war propaganda.

  • Background Russian Revolution (1917) • October Revolution • Russian Civil War • Ukrainian-Soviet War • Prodrazvyorstka
I assume that listing refer to the whole knowledge of person about history of Ukraine? Sad, sad, sad. So many turnover important events missed, but timeline ended in 1921 – so how they related to first half of 1933? Ooops – you forgot to mention 1920-22, 24, 28 Drought – assume that events are also beleved to be inflicted by communists

Supporting policies Terror: Dekulakization • Article 58 (RSFSR Penal Code) • Enemy of the people • Russification • Population transfer in the Soviet Union • Kolkhoz • Collectivization in the USSR • Collective farming • Great Purge • Stalinism

I assume that listing refer to the whole knowledge of person about history of Ukraine? Sad, sad, sad picture. Supporting – clear OR. I assume author does not know what Ukrainian Penal Code until 1935 has a different number, Dekulakization was not terror in exact meaning of this word. Enemy of people – it’s 1937-38 common terms. What about agrarian overpopulation in Ukraine since beginning of century (Stolypin – as you know such name). Great Purge - 1937-38 events – Holodomor first half 1933 – however must be noted what most of directly and indirectly responsible for the situation in first half 1933 persons were sentenced to death in that years – really “interesting support” policy for them.
  • Holodomor victims
  • Famine: Malnutrition • Starvation • Hunger • Cannibalism
You mean what victims of holodmor are Malnutrition • Starvation • Hunger • Cannibalism ?
  • Genocide: • Kulaks • Gulag • Great Purge •
I assume it’s all words you know – anyway better then balalaika and matryoshka. But which relation? Does Kulaks is a nation? Does the was exterminate in a whole as humans? Genocide of Gulag and Great Purge– so perfect sentences but senseless and even stupid
  • Responsible parties: Soviet Union: Joseph Stalin • Vyacheslav Molotov • Communist Party of the Soviet Union • Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic • Stanislav Kosior • NKVD • Cheka
What a perfect construction Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic responsible for hunger in Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. How many times I can repeat – there no NKVD since 1930 till 1934. If you like you can create a separate article for GPU and Ministry of Justice (Militia was under command of such authority)

Cheka? Dismissed in early 20-s! Responsible for Holodomor?.

Holodomor Denial Soviet Union: Pravda • Izvestia • Walter Duranty • The New York Times • Louis Fischer • The Nation • Communist Party USA • Jeff Coplon • Douglas Tottle • OR as is – please visit library (read more then 3 book) before making any attempts to deal with history.

Info box will be ok - if it will have a reliable and related to event data and info. Please read more books firstJo0doe (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I slightly edited the comment above to remove the comments on the editor leaving the comments on the infobox content intact. Two things: infobox, at least in the current state, seems more like a soapbox, and is detrimental for the article. In general infoboxes in complex topic articles are a usually a bad idea as there are often no simple answers that can be reduces into an infobox entry. The nuanced and complex issues are best covered in the text body. Second, everyone, (you hear me Joe?) should stop right now the attempts to offend editors. The overwhelming majority of the editors of this articles are not trolls and should be treated with respect. Please don't "express your disagreement{ with the last point. Just reduce commenting on contributors to as little as possible. --Irpen 18:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply. Most topics indicated above (Kulaks, etc.) are indeed directly related to the Holodomor. Earlier famines in the USSR could be also included in the template - this is a good suggestion. "Great Purge" and "Gulag" can be excluded - agree. "Enemy of the people" is fine, since this term was introduced by Lenin already in 1917. Let's replace NKVD by OGPU. All these problems can be easily fixed after listening to criticism by others. There is nothing wrong with this template in general.Biophys (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
RSFSR Penal Code? --Irpen 18:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Holodomor Template

Copied from one of the articles where the templates was repeatedly reinserted.

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 05:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
When were you appointed sole arbiter of whether something can or cannot be used in an article? The template serves a useful navigational purpose. Please seek consensus first. Martintg (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The other way around, Martin. Seek consensus for inclusion, both of the stuff like RSFSR Code or Pravda to the Ukrainian Famine template, and for the controversial template into the articles. --Irpen 06:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You claim in your edit summary that "this was discussed a lobg time ago", what previous dicussion are you alluding to? I see nothing on Template_talk:Holodomor that indicates there is any controversial issue here. Martintg (talk) 06:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is one place. --Irpen 06:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
First of all, Irpen did not provide any arguments here. Secndly, this template existed for a month. So, the status quo - it remains in the articles until this discussion is finished. So far, Irpen represents minority here.Biophys (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
None of that, Biophys. You cannot pretend you don't see arguments forcing others to talk more until you like it. The template was never in the articles for long. And it cannot be in the hogde-podge form. Read the page and respond meaningfully, if at all. --Irpen 16:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I replied above. There are a few minor issues to be fixed.Biophys (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The minor issues in question are demonstrating all of them as relevant, neutral and notable in both directions. Do that, and we're in business. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
O'K, I would leave in the template only the following:
  • Supporting policies
Prodrazvyorstka.
Dekulakization
Population transfer in the Soviet Union ·
Kolkhoz ·
Collectivization in the USSR ·
Law of Spikelets
Wrecking
  • Holodomor victims
Kulaks
  • Political players
OGPU
Joseph Stalin · Vyacheslav Molotov · Pavel Postyshev · Communist Party of the Soviet Union · Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic · Stanislav Kosior · Ukrainian diaspora
  • Holodomor Denial
Pravda · Izvestia · Walter Duranty · Louis Fischer · Communist Party USA · Jeff Coplon · Douglas Tottle

Biophys (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"International Commission of Inquiry Into the 1932–33 Famine in Ukraine" needs to be included, perhaps along with " Ukrainian diaspora" in a separate section, there needs to be a distinction between those political players in control at the time of the Holodomor, and those on the outside observing in the aftermath. Martintg (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The template is now ready

Now that User:Kuban kazak has been kind enough to "clean up this faeces of a template", I feel it is ready to be reinserted into articles. If there are no objections, I will be restoring it. Ostap 23:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it is unacceptable. There is no need to have "commissions" section. Neither links to two POV-forks articles created by a [{WP:SPA]]. --Irpen 00:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Those links are to relevant articles about Holodomor. Why not include them in the template? Ostap 01:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Because they are either undue or to fork articles. --Irpen 01:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
If those "faeces" are removed until further discussion, can the useful template go back into the articles? Ostap 01:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Ostap, I never used the word. But note the post below. --Irpen 04:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please explain how is having a link in a Holodomor template to a commission of inquiry about the Holodomor "undue", or having it in the template a coatrack? I'm perplexed. Martintg (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I can honestly see no reason to remove "Present Issues". If the articles have problems, why not solve them at the respective talk pages? It seems an article that is not only about Holodomor, but has the word Holodomor in the title belongs in a Holodomor template. Further, a navigational template is meant to "help the reader in reading up on related topics". We are told to "take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?" I think it is clear that this is a yes. No matter if you consider the articles themselves to be POV forks, they still belong in the template. Ostap 05:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

These articles are POV forks and you know that full well. Holodomor article is while not yet well organized, is pretty well-referenced and content rich. We cannot add to it templates that would link it to its own POV forks created by WP:SPA. --Irpen 05:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
If there is a problem with those articles isn't it best to solve them at their talk pages? Regardless, if they are removed until futher discussion can the template go back into articles? And Horlo is not a single purpose account. Ostap 05:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, dual purpose account. And wait for consensus. Martin's "commission" article cannot go there. There were plenty of investigations of the famine. They need to be summarized in the article and, if articles exist for them, linked from the text. There is absolutely nothing special or extraordinary in this "commission" nor in its pity two-sentence long article to warrant such an undue prominence. --Irpen 05:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Horlo has created many articles. Just to be clear, do you have problems with any of the other articles in the template? Ostap 05:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Irpen there was only one International Commission and one by the US Senate, what others are you talking about? With only one International Commission, how could it possibly be undue? Martintg (talk) 05:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Has consensus been reached?

Can the template now be put into articles? If not, please be specific as to what should be removed/added. Ostap 23:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no change compared to the previous section. Two POV forks listed, unimportant commission given undue prominence. Besides, the choice of listed people is strange. Why these particular individuals? --Irpen 01:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Please recommend any changes you would like to see. Ostap 02:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
What qualifies you to determine whether the commission is unimportant? Martintg (talk) 05:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The other way around, Martin. It has to be shown as exceptionally important to be in the template, and there must be a very good reason to have a template at all. --Irpen 05:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Nope, I checked Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes) and I see no such conditions imposed, just "commonly used in articles to present certain summary or overview information about the subject". Seems to me that this template fits that purpose outlined by the Manual of Style. Martintg (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a quick comment. The template is here to "help the reader in reading up on related topics". It is clear to me that the template is indeed doing that. I think most are in agreement that a template (without faeces, of course) is useful. Will you remove the things you object to so I can re add the template? Then you and the others can work out a compromise on this commission. Ostap 06:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ostap, it is not just the commission. It is also links to forks. And also the arbitrary list of names. The entire template in its current form would deteriorate the quality of whatever article it is added to. For example, why this specific people are noted and not others? Why no Molotov? Why no Chubar? If we add all those who have any relation to the famine, we will get an entry compared to the Politburo template. Whoever is important should be added to articles and integrated in the text flow. What useful navigational purpose would serve adding to the template the politician in whose political biography their role in famine is much less significant than their role in other events? If someone wants a template, I would start with a template that would be a list of famines: 1921-22, 1932, 1933 (current), 1947. This templating urge reminds me of Alex Kov's attempt to privatize the Kievan Rus article by his baby infobox. --Irpen 06:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
A simple list of famines would deteriorate the Holodomor article. I think this is a topic important enough to have its own navigation template. If we get rid of the commission, the (so called) fork articles, and the list of names, could we then add it to articles? And I don't think you give a good enough reason to remove the politicians. Right now, Stalin and Kaganovich have entire sections in their articles devoted to Holodomor. It is also quite prominently mentioned in the other two biographies. And what exactly is the problem with including the commission? It seems relevant and important. And I assure you I am not nor have I ever been Alex Kov. Ostap 07:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I never said you are Alex Kov. I just showed an example of detrimental for quality infoboxes. This is exactly one. --Irpen 08:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I would try to offer a compromise, but I honestly can see none. All the articles in the template are relevant, many even having "Holodomor" or "Ukraine famine" in the very title. Surely you are not objecting because of POV issues? The template is only here to help the reader in reading up on related topics. Ostap 03:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed the list of people who were personally responsible per suggestion by Irpen above. The remainder looks great and completely relevant. I think the template can be inserted back in the articles.Biophys (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Same applies to much of the other stuff in the template. It remains horribly ORish synthesis of disparate articles, organizations, people and phenomena. --Irpen 07:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The synthesis tag is intended for articles, how could a template possibly convey an idea? Martintg (talk) 09:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] tends to have “like Holocaust” info box

I really missed this fruitful the discussion. So actually it’s still tends to have “like Holocaust” info box. Could you please explain why Historical Background for Holodomor are:

  • Famines in Russia and USSR
  • Famine of 1921
  • Soviet famine of 1932-1933 (???)

Soviet Government and Holodomor -???

As regards to Holodomor denial section (clear tends to have “like Holocaust”) –

  • Could you please provide the number(s?) and year of issue for Pravda and Izvestiya were actually Holodomor denied.
  • As regards rest mentioned persons and organization – Are your already decide which Holomor denied by them – see more [1]Jo0doe (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] consensus?

Is it time to start adding this to the relevant articles? Ostap 04:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Any objections? Please be specific. Consensus cannot be reached through reverting. Ostap 04:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The template still consists of the random hodge-podge of totally unrelated articles and several gross forks. I see no significant change that altered this fact. --Irpen 04:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, there were no objections since I asked 10 days ago. Since you do object, please state what you want removed. Ostap 04:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)