Talk:Douglas Tottle

Historical revisionist
I have moved this talk section from Talk:Historical revisionism (political) as currently no entry for Douglas Tottle exists on that page and it may help someone turn this article from a stub into a full page. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Scrib I moved your contribution here from the Article for further discussion because I have reverted it twice and I do not want to get into a revert war:
 * Many Historians, Communists, Socialists, and others have been reexamining evidence in regard to the so-called forced famines and some 20 millions killed in the gulags of the Soviet Union. One of the people most cited for this case is Douglas Tottle, a Canadian journalist who wrote the book Fraud, Famine, and Fascism which discusses how William Randolph Hearst a multi-millionaire owner of much media colaborated with the Nazis to blame them for a 1932 Famine. Tottle claims that this frauded evidence was later taken up by the CIA for use during the Cold War and used by Robert Conquest a former British secret service agent and Alexander Solzhenitsyn (a Fascist sympathizer) to again slander the Soviet Union. Much of this same information was used by a member of the Communist Party of Sweden to disprove the famines and 20 million killed. This source is cited a lot by Marxist-Leninists and Maoists


 * "Many Historians" is a weasel phrase who are these historians? Do you have a source which lists them?
 * "to the so-called forced famines" I object to Wikipidia making this assertion. Most historians recogise that the famines were in a large part created through political circumstances, and were not the result of a natural disaster.
 * You cite a Wikipedia page called "Douglas Tottle" which was created by Scrib. Which contains an external link to http://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/library/famine.htm that states:
 *  A world wide library search reveals that this book is only present in 28 libraries, only one of them a public library, the rest being academic libraries. Of the 28 library locations possessing the book 14 are in America.

This source http://www.artukraine.com/famineart/serbyn4.htm says:
 * Tottle is a self-confessed famine-genocide denier. No longer able to negate the famine as such, Tottle questions its genocidal character. Traditional famine-denial has been updated to famine-genocide denial, but the essence of the ideological trappings is the same. Today's famine-genocide deniers are the spiritual heirs of the first famine negators, Stalin and those who helped him carry out the most heinous of crimes against the Ukrainian nation or to deny its existence.

I am not qualified to state whether Tottle is right or if the link above is correct. But I have some real problems with the rest of the paragraph.
 * "by Robert Conquest a former British secret service agent" Many academics worked for the intelligence services during WWII (What is the point of intelligence services if they do not employ intelligent people?). To emphasise this over his academic background is disingenuous.
 * "Alexander Solzhenitsyn (a Fascist sympathizer)" Why not "(winner of the prestigious Nobel Prize in literature)" instead of "Fascist sympathizer"?
 * "This source is cited a lot by Marxist-Leninists and Maoists" Are any Marxist-Leninists left? Which of them have cited Tottle this year? Which Maoists have cited Tottle this year?

I think that this is an interesting subject but it is better covered by paraphrasing sources like http://www.faminegenocide.com/2003-competition/01-maslo's_ukrainian_famine_of_1932-1933.html
 * Still others, such as Canadian trade union activist, Douglas Tottle, argue along traditional Communist lines, that reports of the famine and its impact on Ukraine have been exaggerated and are simply part of western propaganda campaigns directed against the Soviet Union.

Which I think sums it up suscinctly. Philip Baird Shearer 8 July 2005 15:45 (UTC)

-- I'm still learning how to work with the different codes so bare with me.


 * "Many Historians" is a weasel phrase who are these historians? Do you have a source which lists them?

You make a good point, I will edit this section.


 * "to the so-called forced famines" I object to Wikipidia making this assertion. Most historians recogise that the famines were in a large part created through political circumstances, and were not the result of a natural disaster.

Tottle's book disagree with this. Prehaps the way it was worded makes it apear un-neutral. Prehaps it could be reworded to something like "what are said to have been forced famines"?

A world wide library search reveals that this book is only present in 28 libraries, only one of them a public library, the rest being academic libraries. Of the 28 library locations possessing the book 14 are in America. ''
 * ''You cite a Wikipedia page called "Douglas Tottle" which was created by Scrib. Which contains an external link to http://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/library/famine.htm that states:

I'm not sure I understand the point you're making. Please elaborate.


 * Not exactly a widely distributed book. At least with a revisionist like David Irving his works are widely available. Philip Baird Shearer


 * This source http://www.artukraine.com/famineart/serbyn4.htm says:
 * Tottle is a self-confessed famine-genocide denier. No longer able to negate the famine as such, Tottle questions its genocidal character. Traditional famine-denial has been updated to famine-genocide denial, but the essence of the ideological trappings is the same. Today's famine-genocide deniers are the spiritual heirs of the first famine negators, Stalin and those who helped him carry out the most heinous of crimes against the Ukrainian nation or to deny its existence.

This is a single source which could easily be said as bias. It is a Ukrainian site which promotes the idea of a forced famine. Of course they would not protray somebody like Tottle as somebody who is contributing to historical truth.


 * Agreed but I put this in to show that most historians think his views are a minority. I choose that article as it was the first one I came accross (with Google) which was hostile to Tootle, not because it was by anyone who I know of as a respected historian. Philip Baird Shearer 09:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

''"by Robert Conquest a former British secret service agent" Many academics worked for the intelligence services during WWII (What is the point of intelligence services if they do not employ intelligent people?). To emphasise this over his academic background is disingenuous.''

But Robert Conquest isn't simply an "academic". From my knowledge he actually worked in the MI5 and later retired to become an academic professor. Although I'm not sure how correct that is.
 * many (most?) of Oxbrige worked for MI5 (Spy catchers), MI6 (Spys) or some other government agency during World War II, less stayed on after the war, but it was not unusual. On his Wikipedia page, the description of his life suggests that if he was working for MI6 it was during his time in Bulgaria between 45 and 48. He worked for the FO IRD deparment for the next 8 years (which may have been part of MI6 (I don't know)), his Wikipedia page says that "Conquest's time with the IRD has sparked some controversy, becoming a favourite topic of many critics (particularly on the political Left) who claim that his later historical work was intentional anti-Communist propaganda. Generally, these assertions are viewed with skepticism by other historians who have studied Conquest's work." Philip Baird Shearer

"Alexander Solzhenitsyn (a Fascist sympathizer)" Why not "(winner of the prestigious Nobel Prize in literature)" instead of "Fascist sympathizer"?

Well why not "Fascist sympathizer"? He was. It's factual, although I can see how it seems a bit hostile and bias. Prehaps something like "Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who is criticized for being a Fascist sympathizer".


 * Why not just leave out all descriptions. If someone wants to kown about Conquest or Solzhenitsyn they can follow the link to the respective pages. See wiki is not paper Philip Baird Shearer

''"This source is cited a lot by Marxist-Leninists and Maoists" Are any Marxist-Leninists left? Which of them have cited Tottle this year? Which Maoists have cited Tottle this year? ''

There are many MLists and Maoists left. As a member of the International Communist Movement I can vouge for this. To name a MList or a Maoist who has cited Tottle would be difficult since it's mostly done by MLists over internet forums or in general discussions with others. There aren't very mant "major" MLists of Maoists, who cited Tottle, that would be known by the average reader. Although several Communist parties have mentioned him in their papers or internet sites.

I think this information should be added to the article, with revisions of some of the problems you pointed out. I will work with it a little tonight to tomorrow and present a new copy to discuss. Although, please respond to some of the questions and concerns I posted here.Scrib 10 July 2005, 04:54 (UTC)


 * Please add four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of your posting to talk pages and wikipedia will automagicaly add your username and a date stamp.


 * The point about Historical Revisionism is that the revisionist is putting forward a minority view (If it is the major then it is not revisionism). So please phrase the paragraph as others have, eg "Jack Chick's Nazi inquisition theory". This makes it clear that the views expressed are those of a revisonist "historian" not thoses of the majority of historians. Philip Baird Shearer 09:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * This depends on how you draw the circle of "Majority." If we're talking about a historical/worldwide majority, then it's modern day westerners who are the minority. Tottle poses what is a pretty common historical opinion in both China and all the Warsaw Pact countries for most of the period during which this information this is pertinent. (That is, from the year in which the famines happened, up to present day.) This is not even counting the many countries that have had sympathetic, or prominent Marxist attitudes in their culture as well. Which would include several other places especially in Asia and South/Central America. It's easy get stuck in a bit of a bubble when you grow up in a hegemonised culture, but truth is that Tottle is not espousing a minority opinion here. It's just that he is espousing the opinion of peoples who are considered enemies of the west, and they are just as likely to have a credible understanding of this as anyone else is. The post-Soviet narrative of things like the holodomor is still very much contemporary, and it is important to approach it with humility as to not enter the pitfalls of ethnic chauvinism.78.69.180.157 (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Before further revert warring, Beatle Fab Four might want to consult the very link to Tottle's book (see under --Books--). It is clearly said there that The stories of millions of deaths caused by famine in Ukraine in 1933 and 1934, supposedly caused by the effects of the Soviet system, were fabricated by Nazi propagandists in their propaganda campaigns against Bolshevism. -- Miacek (t) 15:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I read it carefully. Anf if you read not just first two paragraphs, but the whole text, you may find: This book does not claim that no famine took place in Ukraine, or that there were not hardships related to the collectivization programs of the Soviets. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, he agrees a famine did take place, but he denies this famine caused any deaths. Tottle states that reports of deaths have been "fabricated by Nazi propagandists". Martintg (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have referred the matter to Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Please share you opinion there Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

POV
Well maybe not a stub. but definitely a collecton of curses. No constructive discussion of what's correct, what's wrong in his works.

If you read this article, honestly, can you answer these two questions essential in any research? Those who say he's wrong, because he's a bastard, can discuss something else. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a venue for original research, so we cannot make up stuff that is not found in reliable sources. We can only state what others have said about Tottle's work in published sources. Unless you can find an alternative view of Tottle's work in reliable sources, I don't know what your POV issue is here. Seems to me it is more of a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Martintg (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hehe. This just tells that some editors collected curses, not arguments. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Moreover, I can decribe the procedure of making SYN and OR. They open google.book. Type "Douglas Tottle is a bastard". Find books. Don't bother to read them. Then just include links into article. Soviet War Memorial was a brilliant example, haha. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you can not provide an alternate viewpoint of Tottle's work in published sources to balance the article, then this is not a POV dispute, and the tag will be removed. Martintg (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Weeeellll, do you understand, that I included a tag, because it is currently indeed POV? Any editor is welcome to improve the article. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you cannot even cite an alternate viewpoint of Tottle's work, how do you know the article is POV? WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT? Martintg (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I vaguely remember, exactly the same thing happened initially at Treptower Park. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No alternate viewpoint on Tottle's work then? Martintg (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Inclusion of POV tag doesn't imply that I must immediately go and find whatever you want or don't want. These are basics. I presented my arguments, you expressed your personal opinion. There is no reason to continue this pointless talk. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You have not presented any arguments at all. A POV tag implies there are other viewpoints not reflected in the article. You are unable to articulate what that other view point may be when challenged. In the absence of concrete discussion regarding what alternate points of view need to be expressed in the article, the conclusion must be that this tagging is purely disruptive. Martintg (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Defenders of Tottle
It certainly seems easier to find critics of Tottle, than it is to find defenders. In order to balance out the lead, we need to present the other side. I've tried to provide a positive assessment, but I'd much rather prefer a scholarly, rather than a political source. Anyone able to find one? —Zalktis (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why to balance something unbalanced? Xx236 (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Schmaltz
Is the Schmaltz source a WP:RS? It looks self-published to me. Or is is a reprint from another publication? —Zalktis (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * InfoUkes website (I quoted their Disclaimer in my edit summary) and a mailing list archive do not fulfil the criteria of WP:RS, either, in my opinion. Has Serbyn published his piece in a WP:RS that we can quote from instead? —Zalktis (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see now that the Serbyn piece is a reprint from The Ukrainian Canadian. This source should thus be quoted in the reference, even if the URL goes to InfoUkes. Use a ref template like Template:cite journal; it's easy!. —Zalktis (talk) 09:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Eric J. Schmaltz is Assistant Professor of History, Department of Social Sciences, Northwestern Oklahoma State University. He seems to be a widely published expert on ethnic issues of the former Soviet Union. The paper was published by the German Russian Heritage Society. They have a journal which is controlled by a publication committee and they hold conferences. They seem to be working in conjunction with North Dakota State University. Therefore the GRHS appears to be a scholarly society, so it doesn't appear to be a self published paper. Martintg (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

More about the book than the author

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Not moved. This seems to be a discussion about splitting out the author and book into two articles and is the author notable on his own or restructuring this article. Having said that, if someone wants to restructure this article so that it is firstly about the book, then it will make sense to do the move. By working with this article, we don't lose the article history. Decide on how to proceed and if it needs moving after the rewrite, leave a note on my talk page. One final note, the proposed new page does not exist and any editor can do the move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Douglas Tottle → Fraud, Famine, and Fascism –

While I don't mind that an article about a person is more than 50% about one of his books, I think there is a WP:Coatrack rule about that. Not that I'm claiming this article is biased, either.
 * I'd rather move the whole thing to Fraud, Famine, and Fascism and have a little bit about the author there. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Technical close -- Tottle seems to be notable only for having written this book. This seems to point to having an article aboutt the book, rather than its author.  However, any move needs to be followed by the article being restructured to fit with its new title.  You cannot expect the closing admin to undertake that.  I would suggest that you create a fork of this article in your sandbox and amend it there to fit with the new format.  Having done so, you should (preferably) place on this page an invitation to comment on what you have done.  After that, move what you have done to the new title.  Then  convert this article into a redirect to your new one.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Denying Genocide is certainable notable, and this article should remain in some form. If we do change this article to the book's title, Tottle's name should be a redirect to it.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC))
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

POV
The book is of little value, doesn't deserve the place. How to write a book about Soviet Ukraine in Canada without entering any archive or talking to a victim?Xx236 (talk) 13:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Much as I respect your point of view, XXx236, how can modern historians who are only privy to documentation that was not destroyed - and modern incredulity at how horrendous the Stalinist state, and have never spoken to escapees from what was Ukraine; the Polish recollection of trying to get supplies through to the starving at a heavily fortified army based at all transport routes from Poland into Ukraine. I don't know whose narrative is more truthful, the Russian and Chinese condoned versions after so much time for the KGB and NKVD to clean house. The truth has always be a political football, and expedient demographic groups go back have existed further back in time than when they were illustrated by Thucydides. To the victor/the power go the spoils. Apologies for using the talk page as a soap box, but I actually don't know where the truth lies. I know you're talking about Holodomor (trendy name - we grew up calling it the Great Famine like the rest of the Soviet Union - and democide gone mad after all of the horrors inflicted by empires had addled individuals minds in Eastern Europe rings loudly as an alternative bell. Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Douglas Tottle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041204224314/http://www.ioir.se/ukrfamine.htm to http://www.ioir.se/ukrfamine.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Roman Serbyn
This putz denies Ukrainian collaboration with the Nazis, and has done so for decades, as noted by Simon Wiesenthal in the 1980s. The fact that he's so closely aligned with the "Ukrainian World Congress" which to this day denies Ukrainian involvement in the Holocaust should raise some serious red flags with any fair-minded person. I don't give a flying Christ what universities saw fit to pay him for his fascist lies, though it should be noted that the ref used here was not in fact an academic work, only an opinion piece. Not a reliable source. Period. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:952F:D8B:A097:F042 (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * any evidence for that? Genabab (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Holodomor denial
Regarding this edit, see Holodomor denial. You can't "refute" something that happened. – bradv  17:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's because you aren't familiar with the topic, but Douglas Tottle never said that the Soviet famine of 1930–1933 didn't happen, he argues against the theory that it was created intentionally, which would have constituted as a genocide.
 * The theory that the 1932-33 famine was a genocide used to be very popular until the Soviet archives were made available to historians and it became apparent that there was little evidence to back up the theory that it was created intentionally. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Per the lead sentence of Holodomor denial, the term includes "" If you want to redefine that term, and you have sources to support your position, I suggest taking it up at that talk page, not here. – bradv  17:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I can borrow from the leads of articles that happen to agree with me just as well as you can, for example from the Holodomor genocide question contains a mountain of sources arguing against the theory that the genocide theory has been rejected by the majority of modern historians. This includes Ronald Grigor Suny and David R. Marples's comments on the historiography. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * How many of them have been described as writing ""? The consensus (and grammatically-correct) term on Wikipedia is "denial". – bradv  19:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There clearly isn't a consensus, as evidenced by the fact that other pages on genocide claims that aren't accepted by accademia don't use the term. 49.197.232.78 (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Suny says that most scholars rejected Conquest’s claims when his book was published thirty-seven years ago(!), not today. Marples’s 2005 column does not seem to say anything of the sort.
 * Tottle is Holodomor denial literature, sponsored by the Soviet government, and ghost-written for a labour activist with no credentials or experience in Soviet history. It is classified as such by librarians. —Michael Z. 03:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This clashes with the consensus on the Holodomor Denialism page, where it has been established that Holodomor Denialism means denying or downplaying that the famine happened at all, and it doesn't mean taking the academically mainstream position that it wasn't deliberately orchestrated. 49.182.173.50 (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A properly sourced sentence has been removed by the anonymous user who left the message above. Please, and , would you be so kind to have a look wether the removal is appropriate or not. Thanks in advance. --DoebLoggs (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s not the consensus there, and that’s not the mainstream academic position. —Michael Z. 03:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It is indeed the mainstream academic position, and that is indeed the claimed consensus there. 147.10.101.168 (talk) 04:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mzajac I am not aware of any proof that Tottle's work was sponsored by the Soviet government, all I've seen are a few cases of people inferring that he may have without providing any evidence. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you cite the few cases? Thanks. —Michael Z. 02:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be a moot point anyway? Anne Applebaum is being treated as a credible source by the article, and her work is undeniably sponsored by the USA government. 211.30.185.112 (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You mean sitting on boards of publicly funded non-profits? Please don’t try to spread conspiracy theories here. —Michael Z. 13:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not understand how that could possibly not be considered being sponsored by the US government. 147.10.101.168 (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not understand how that could possibly be considered as lacking credibility. WP:RS does not require us to disqualify cited authors for participating in non-profits or research that received public funds, which may be the vast majority of them.
 * Tottle’s book said that academics writing about the Holodomor were CIA agents: your complaint sounds more like something from this article’s subject than from reliable sources about it. —Michael Z. 17:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * what's good for the goose is good for the gander; if it discredits Tuttle then it discredits Applebaum Brain in Spain (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I think Wikipedia should distinguish its waterfowl with significantly better discretion and common sense. —Michael Z. 15:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And please be mindful of WP:BLPTALK, part of an important policy. —Michael Z. 13:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)