Talk:Holodomor/Archive 4

Arbitration
At what point does one move to abribtration? This is becoming a very annoying game of attrition. The way things are going right now does a) not contribute to the article, b) does not improve the intro (the version I reverted to is, by the way, not even close to what I think it should look like), but will probably result in the article representing the views of those who have a greater tolerance for repetetive behaviour. I, for one, am sick and tired of this. This was once a neat little article, evolving towards a point at which one could have a nice reference to yet another disgusting aspect of Marxist inspired totalitarian terror. Too bad that one-trick-ponyism is turning this article into a serious mess. Dietwald 20:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The term "totalitarian" is at the top of the bourgeois imperialist/corporatist/fascist vocabulary. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.102.211.115 (talk &bull; contribs).

This anon's trollistic entry is unhelpful. To Dietwald, I am with you on this. We have enough evidence of many attempts to try to resolve this peacefully, much more than an RfC and mediation usually generates and this talk documents this very well. I think we can go to arbitration. We will need to read up on policies on how to submit content disputes to arbitration but I also see no other means to move on with the article. What happened is that Andrew Alexander got a couple of buddies who got to this article either stalking myself or 172 and who resort to blind reversions without bothering to read the discussion. The latest entry by AndriyK to this discussion shows that he didn't read anything on this page. Yakudza and Ultramarine didn't write anything significant to this talk (if at all). So, attemting to find a compromise with users who don't even bother to read talk is pointless. I am for arbitration. In the meanwhile, Yakudza, Ultramarine, AndriyK and whoever else who does nothing but reverting, please readup on this talk page. --Irpen 22:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stop the personal attack and slander. I constantly read the Discussion on this page. The Article Holodomor is found in my Watshlist (as well as your user_talk), The Position user:172 has not found supports on this page and he began the rever war. After he was stopped by 3RR, he addressed to You for help (Hi. If you get the chance, will you be able to restore the NPOV version of the Holodomor intro? Ultramarine kept on restoring the Andrew Alexander version until I'd used up my three reverts.172 20:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)). --Yakudza 10:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems we are to early for arbitration. I looked around a bit, and came across the concept of 'advocates' on Wikipedia. I randomly contacted one of them and whined on her user page about Alexander... Ironically, she has a personal wiki called sovietmichigan or something like that. Very strange. Ok, I hope she let's me know what she can actually do for us. As far as I understand the rules, going for an advocate is one of the last steps in the conflict resolution process here on wiki. So, let's see how it goes. Dietwald 23:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Guys, do you need to loose time? You know - it takes very long to play this game. All you get - person gets banned for 1 month, 2 months etc. Also are you going to start arbitration against AndrewAlexander, Yakudza and AndriyK together? Why not to include everybody else who does not agree on what you agree. Include me please into the list. Or let's find a compromise. All I see at the moment - 172 prefers 4-th from the top paragraph in the intro for explanation of the word "genocide" (I must say that this insisting is rather strange for historian). Anrew Alexander prefers first paragraph. Does it change much in sense? In historical sense - nothing. 172, please take into account that articles like this are not compatible with blunt historical approach. They are very sensitive issue. What sounds OK for third party may look in wrong place for sensitive people (call them patriots, nationalists, trolls - whatever you feel like). And usually serious historians do not play such childish games as Wikipedia. This place is for amateurs.--Bryndza 03:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a place is for amateurs. When articles are not written to conform to the highest encyclopedic and scholarly standards, we have a serious problem. I will fight an arbitration case on those principles any day. I know that I'll win the case on those principles too. A number of the incumbent members of the arbitration committee and the likely new members of the committee are as stauch in the defense of the principle that "Wikipedia first and foremost is an encyclopedia" as I am. I have been a Wikipedia editor for three years; and I have been in touch with many former, current, and likely future arbitrators on Wikipedia and by email many times. They share my views on upholding the highest standards of encyclopedic content; they are not at all interested in what is 'politically correct' to "patriots, nationalists, trolls" of any stripe. 172 03:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

So you want to say that your "coalition" will not allow anybody to dispute your opinion? Is WP open then? Just close it to all "patriots, nationalists, trolls" and leave open only for "professional folk". Why to let us disturb your majesty? I was also thinking that WP is an encyclopedia. But I have heard that it is open. BTW, how position of the text in intro is affecting your POV?--Bryndza 04:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Bryndza, I think that user:172 is right here. When users engage into bad-faith revert wars, it hardly helps. From reading the talk page, other people could see who is reasonable here. Why don't you read it? It is an instructive, although a longish, reading. The "position in the text" matters a lot. The issue of whether Holodomor was a Genocide is unresolved among the historians as of today and this makes it different from the Holocaust, where the issue is consider settled, at least in the mainstream. Similarly, the denial of the Famine is not in the mainstream and we do not discuss here whether the Famine really happened and Douglas Tottle, who advocates otherwise, has no standing in the scholar's community.


 * The perfect solution to present the unrersolved issue is to have the chapter, that we currently have: "Was Holodomor a Genocide?" and discuss the issue there. By pushing the term accepted by one side of this debate all the way to the intro and, more than that, to the very first line Andrew Alexander and whoever helps him in revert wars perform a blatant POV pushing. "Genocide" is a very strong and specific term. It should not be used lightly and the discussion of its appropriateness is in order. That one side ignores the discussion and engages into revert wars, trying to provoke the opponents into 3RR violation to get them blocked is a totally condemnable tactics and has nothing to do with collaborative spirit and openness of Encyclopedia that you and I seem to cherish. --Irpen 04:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Bryndza, I strongly agree with Irpen's comments above. I'll add for reference that you should may want to take a look at this page, which offers listings of policy and project pages demonstrating that the principle that editors must ensure that Wikipedia become committed to writing quality articles following high encyclopedic and scholarly standards is well established. I do not have a "coalition" around my "opinion." I was implying that there are many influential members of the Wikipedia community who share my stauch support for Wikipedia's content guidelines. 172 04:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The last sentense smells of Americal democracy model. THis is no Iraq. Let's play a game better.--Bryndza 17:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean. Wikipedia is not a democracy Nor is it a game. 172 05:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * For the case it escaped attention, the issue is not about whether or not to mention the word genocide in the first or 112,765,983+E12th paragraph. The point is whether the Holodomor is also known as the "Ukrainian Genocide", or whether it is often referred to as the "Ukrainian Genocide". The former implies that "Ukrainian Genocide" is a proper, undisputed reference to the events, whereas the latter simply means that some people refer to it as such. The former interpretation is factually wrong, the latter is factually right. At least that's how I see it.Dietwald 15:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, this is why I have really come to like the word Holodomor -- it is strangely neutral, concise, and unique. It has the same economy of use as the word Holocaust, and, coincidetally, has the first four letters in comon with it, and appears to be easily pronouncable in almost every language -- if things go well, it might become the term that will be used in almost every language to refer to the events it describes. Neat. Dietwald 15:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Could we please stop personal attacks on this forum
If someone wants to open an arbitration case, this is not yet the reason to abuse other editors and assume bad faith in every disagreeing edit. I understand that some would like to never admit that the mass murder of 7+ million people is considered a genocide by quite a significant portion of the world. I don't understand why this should require personal attacks directed at other editors who simply try to enforce the WP:NC policy.--Andrew Alexander 05:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I admonish you to follow your own advice. To demonstrate that you are editing in good faith, you can ask that Yakudza, Ultramarine, and AndriyK stop arbitrarily reverting back to your version of the intro when they appear uninterested in participating in the talk page discussion. Further, your post above shows that you yourself have been failing to engage in the legitimate neutrality concerns with your version of the intro stated over and over again here on talk for over a week. First, no one on this talk page is failing to admit the famine is "considered a genocide by quite a significant portion of the world." If you are referring to the users whose work you are reverting, your comment is a terrible misrepresentation. The version of the intro that you are reverting states: In some accounts the famine, often referred to as a "man-made" [4], is called the Ukrainian Genocide [5] [6] [7]. Ukrainian émigré historians were among the first to argue that the famine was an act of genocide against the Ukrainian people. Second, this comment is disingenuous: I don't understand why this should require personal attacks directed at other editors who simply try to enforce the WP:NC policy. I assume that you are implying that you are 'trying to enforce the naming conventions' policy. Yet, Irpen and I have probably explained over a dozen times over the course of more than a week that you lack compelling evidence that "Ukrainian genocide" is the common name of the subject. Further, if you are implying that the editors whose work you are reverting are engaging in personal attacks, your comment is again a misrepresentation. It is not a "personal attack" to criticize behavior that renders it impossible to reach a compromise in accordance with Wikipedia content policies such as NPOV. The blind reversions by Yakudza, Ultramarine, and AndriyK, made without bothering to read the discussion, are not helpful. 172 06:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You "admonish" me with another assumption of bad faith?--Andrew Alexander 15:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm telling you to act in good faith. I'll keep my assumptions to myself. Now, let's get down to business. We need to get the page unprotected; hopefully we can do this without waisting a lot of time in arbitration. You have not yet commented on Abakharev's proposed compromise. 172 05:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

suggestion?
While the page is protected it is good to try to find a compromise on the talk page.

I suggest the intro like this:

Holodomor is a term derived from the Ukrainian expression moryty holodom (Морити голодом), which means "to inflict death by hunger". The term refers to the 1932–1933 famine on the territory of today's Ukraine, as well as some regions of Russia (see Famines in Russia and USSR). Many historians refer to the event as the Ukrainian Genocide stating that it was a man-made disaster engineered by the Soviets to specifically target Ukrainian people (see section.

It is longer, but manageable. It refers to the event as Genocide, but also shows that it is not the opinion of all historians abakharev 06:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I would object to have the Ukrainian Genocide bolded and the reason is the same, the bolded term in the article's space implies an alternative name of the subject of the article along with the article's title. The term will become an alternative name (or will not) when the historians agree on the Genociadal intent of the Soviet leadership and those who disagree will be marginilized similar to those who right now deny the fact of the Famine itself (Tottle). --Irpen 06:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Abakharev, thank you for the suggestion. Your proposal is an improvement from the Andrew Alexander version of the intro. I have a couple of reservations First, I don't know if "many" historians use the term "Ukrainian Genocide." Many historians do argue that the famine was caused by a policy of genocide against the nation of Ukraine. They do not necessarily call the subject "Ukrainian Genocide." Hence the fact that "Ukrainian Genocide" does not appear in the indexes of the work of Robert Conquest, the Western scholar most strongly associated with the genocide thesis. The term "Ukrainian Genocide" is used by websites promoting a particular interpretation of the famine, such as www.faminegenocide.com, which are not necessarily representative of historians. In short, many historians consider the famine a genocide; but I doubt that we can establish that "many historians refer to the event as the 'Ukrainian Genocide.'" Second, I agree with Irpen's comment above regarding the bolding. 172 06:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As you might guess, I am not insisting on bolding the Genicide and actually quite happy with your version of the article. It is closer to my personal POV. OTOH, if the compromise would stop the edit war, I, personally, would agree on bolding the Genocide and having Ukrainian Genocide to be a redirect to the Holodomor article (BTW the redirect exists already). After all if you would read an article that refer to an Ukrainian Genocide, you would know that it talks about the Holodomor, if my son or his classmate would read the same article, he might not. It is better if looking in Wikipedia (that in his school considered the best reference for such case) he would find what it was about and why many people disagree with the term. Much worse if he would not find the reference and think that his dad hid something important from him. I agree that it is better to have some historians than many historians, but I feel that it might be easier for the opposite party to agree on, many does not mean all nor even most of. On the other hand more references showing that there were similar collectivization-inspired famines in Kazakhstan and many Russian regions (with no Ukrainian population) maybe useful. As I understand the Kazakhstan famine was actually even worse than the Ukrainian abakharev 07:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Your proposed new intro is a step in the right direction that will only require minor tweaking, given the issues brought up by Irpen and me. Hopefully Andrew Alexander will be receptive to your attempt to establish a middle ground between the two contending versions. We'll wait and see. 172 07:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Alex. I would suggest, however, to swap the definition and ethymology: first to explain what it is and then the origin of the term.
 * I would like to remind the audience the WP Official Policy:
 * The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all common names by which its subject is known.
 * So, all alternative names: Ukrainian Genocide, Greate Famine, and even less common Ukrainian Holocaust  should be listed. It does not matter, whether some historians do not like one or another name. What is important that the name is used in the literature or in media and the reader can meet this names.--AndriyK 09:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You are repeating Andrew Alexander's mantra that "Ukrainian Genocide" is somehow the common name for the subject. You also seem to have Andrew Alexander's 'it doesn't matter what historians think' disdain for Western scholarship. Nevertheless, Andrew Alexander has failed to make the case that "Ukrainian Genocide" is the common name for the famine. His own examples of Google search results show the term to be mostly associated with a handful of websites promoting a particular interpretation of the famine (www.faminegenocide.com, www.ukrainiangenocide.com, www.artukraine.com, and www.infoukes.com/history/famine/ -), not the kinds of sites demonstrating common usage in the zeitgeist of the English-speaking world (media, other encyclopedias and reference sources, historial journal articles, etc.). Further, I'm not aware of a single professional historian specializing on the famine who lists the subject under the term "Ukrainian Genocide" in his or her indexes. Altogether, there's probably more conclusive evidence that the term is a neologism than the "common name." I am willing to accept a reference to the term "Ukrainian Genocide" as we are contexualizing the various approaches to studying the famine; but Andrew Alexander's insistence on bolding the term in the first sentence or paragraph is quite inappropriate. 172 10:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've ever shown any "disdain for Western scholarship" except for the disdain to Mark Tauger, a second rate associate professor, who got famous through his Ukrainian genocide denial. To take that excuse for Western scholarship and use his 1992 article as a weapon for ignoring WP:NC is plain strange. It just shows the amount of bias in relation to the event neither of the genocide bashers here showed any interest to up until recently. When this article finally got some facts, references, photos in. All of which were repeatedly attempted to be erased. No big surprise, by the same people. Instead dancing around the "Ukrainian genocide" wording, why not improve the rest of the article? Why not bring all those promised references and quotes in. Why not get more facts and less baseless polemics in the article. Why not add to that article content instead of trying to erase things? Why -- because it's easier to erase, deny, accuse the other side of "blatant POV pushing", easier than to work for the sake of the memories of all those killed in this genocide. Yes, just like the creator of that word characterized the Holodomor. Raphael Lemkin was somebody worth calling "Western scholarship".--Andrew Alexander 06:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You are personally entitled to your views. Still, no editor on Wikipedia-- you included-- has the authority to impose his POV regarding which historians "disdain" and which historians deserve "respect" in any article-- this one included. You call Mark Tauger a "second-rate" professor and accuse him of "genocide denial." Again, you are personally entitled to your views. (I am also entitled to my views. I personally consider your description of Tauger defamtory.) The attack on Tauger frankly strikes me as a diversion. You seem be refusing to acknowledge that Tauger is not alone among historians in arguing that the famine was not a genocide. You seem be refusing to acknowledge that "his 1992 article" is not being used by the other editors on this talk page as "a weapon for ignoring WP:NC." No one is making the argument that "Ukrainian genocide" is not "common name" because Mark Tauger does not use it. The real reasons have been explained to you perhaps up to 20 times so far on this talk page. No historians to my knowledge list the subject under the term "Ukrainian genocide" in their indexes. Repeating the same refuted argument over and over again will not make it true. 172 09:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's look at Google hits: Holodomor - 46.400, Ukrainian Genocide - 17.000 . As you see, the numbers are of the same order of magnitude. More than a quarter of the Internet users could know the subject under the name Ukrainian Genocide. They may find it inconvenient if the term is not listed among the alternative names.--AndriyK 11:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Google search results do not tell us that. They tell us how many pages appear in the search to use the term. BTW, no search results come up for "Ukrainian Genocide" in Jstor or ProjectMUSE, online databases of academic journals. Instead, the results tend to come up under "Ukrainian famine" or "Soviet famine." 172 05:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In principle, abakharev's suggestion seems to make sense. Though, I do agree that using the term "many historians" is incorrect, if by historias we mean people who are actively engaged in the process of creating peer-reviewed historical research. I would suggest to stick to the vague, non personal "It is often referred to as ....", because that is probably the truest rendition of the facts. It is often referred to as the Ukrainian Genocide, even holocaust. Though, by this logic, one could argue that the word derisive "holoco$t" should be part of the Holocaust definition, as it is often used to refer to the Holocaust. Just hang out with Neonazis for a day, and you'll hear it often enough. Ok, that was probably mean, but... I hope I am clearly illustrating the point I am trying to make. Dietwald 15:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I agree with you above. Abakharev's suggestion is close to a final product. I'd tweak it to say (1) that some groups prompting awareness of the famine (e.g., www.faminegenocide.com) have been using the term "Ukrainian genocide" and (2) that some historians, along with the influential public figures cited in the intro, have argued that the famine was caused by a policy of genocide. That being said, it will be quite easy to tweak Abakharev's proposal as we get ready to post it in the article. The hard part will be getting Andrew Alexander, Yakudza, AndriyK, and Ultramarine to stop revert warring. 172 05:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The suggestion about the "man-made" sounds fair. I was refering that because of the lack of free press, general tendency to kill the messanger and the panic attempts to survive by all the levels of the executives the Soviet State often acted as an unanimated object, driven by its own physics, almost a force of nature. This pattern of behavior was in Holodomor, Great Purge, destructions of fortifications before the War, Purges after the war and hundreds less dramatic events. Anyway I completely agree with the exclusion of the man-made thing:


 * Holodomor also known as the Great Famine is a term derived from the Ukrainian expression moryty holodom (Морити голодом), which means "to inflict death by hunger". The term refers to the 1932–1933 famine on the territory of today's Ukraine, as well as some regions of Russia (see Famines in Russia and USSR). Many authors refer to the event as the Ukrainian Genocide or even Ukrainian Holocaust stating that the disaster was engineered by the Soviets to specifically target Ukrainian people (see section ).


 * I have incorporated AndriyK suggestion about the Ukrainian Holocaust, although I feel  that it might be quite offensive for people (including me) who do not subscribe to the theory of deliberate targeting Ukrainians  abakharev 07:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion, version 2

 * Abkharev -- I think you may be swinging the pendulum too far to the other side now. I think the intro has to make clear that the famine was not a natural desaster but rather the consequence of government action. The man-made is not in question, I think, the genocide issue is. Otherwise, excellent job at the wording.


 * Hence, I suggest this:


 * Holodomor also known as the Great Famine is a term derived from the Ukrainian expression moryty holodom (Морити голодом), which means "to inflict death by hunger". The term refers to the 1932–1933 famine on the territory of today's Ukraine, as well as some regions of Russia(see Famines in Russia and USSR), which was the result of deliberate policies by the government of the Soviet Union. Many authors refer to the event as the Ukrainian Genocide or even Ukrainian Holocaust stating that the disaster was engineered by the Soviets to specifically target Ukrainian people (see section ).


 * I think the proposed wording about deliberate policies is very hard on the border of POV, but I think it is justifiable based on the evidence that has been widely discussed on these pages over the last weeks. Dietwald 12:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Dietwald, nice work. I think you have something very close to a final product. The change from "many historians" in Abakharev's proposal to "many authors" resolves the accuracy issue. I still object to the bolding per the concerns mentioned earlier by Irpen in his reply to Abakharev. But the objection is a minor one that I can ignore if necessary. 172 | Talk 13:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I would swap the description and atymology (no politics, just a matter of convenience):
 * Holodomor was a famine on the territory of today's Ukraine, as well as some regions of Russia(see Famines in Russia and USSR) in the 1932–1933  also known as the Great Famine. Holodomor was a result of deliberate policies by the government of the Soviet Union. Many authors refer to the event as the Ukrainian Genocide or even Ukrainian Holocaust stating that the disaster was engineered by the Soviets to specifically target Ukrainian people (see section ).


 * The term Holodomor is derived from the Ukrainian expression moryty holodom (Морити голодом), which means "to inflict death by hunger".

I am still not completely satisfied with this version, but hope it is more close to the compromise.--AndriyK 15:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I'd propose to all involved parties do not request unprotecting the page, until the final consensus is reached. Let's concentrate our effort on the discussion instead of the edit war.--AndriyK 15:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, if we are to concentrate our effort on the discussion, you can start by explaining why you are "not completely satisfied with this version." 172 | Talk 16:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I return to this page tomorrow. Sorry, I am too busy at the momment. Let's listen othe people's opinion.--AndriyK 16:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * AndriyK, I just noticed that you stated an objection to starting the article off with the etymology. This matter has already been discussed, meaning that you don't really have grounds for rejecting the proposed compromise while declaring that you don't have time to discuss the matter until tomorrow. As I stated earlier a number of times, the etymology is important because the term "holodomor" is still not common in the historical literature in the English-speaking world. I wrote in my 00:35, 19 January 2006 post: Many monographs on Soviet history do not include the term in their indexes and do not even mention the term. The term does not even appear in the indexes in works by Robert Conquest, who is with little doubt the best-known specialist on the 1932-34 famine. Instead, the topic is found in indexes most often under "famine, 1932-34." Because the term "holodomor" was rarely used outside Ukrainian-language accounts until recently, and remains uncommon in the English-language discourse on the subject to an extent, informing the readers unfamiliar with the term-- perhaps the bulk of the readership--about the etymology is quite important.
 * On a related note, after we resolve the dispute regarding the intro, significant work on the body of the article related to the concerns I brought up over two weeks ago here will be necessary. Because the naming conventions require that "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize," we will have to establish Famines in Russia and USSR and a more specialized Soviet famine of 1932-34 as the main articles dealing with the famine as a historical event. Hence, much of the coverage of the famine as a historical event here in Holodomor will have to be sifted to Famines in Russia and USSR or a specialized daughter entry. As we improve the main entries related to Famines in Russia and USSR, the Holodomor article, which is about the discourse shaping how the famine is remembered in Ukraine, will then establish a clearer focus. At any rate, this paragraph is tangential to the dispute over the intro. So I understand that the concerns that I bring up here will have to be tabled until the matter of the intro is cleared up. 172 | Talk 17:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, I find it weird to put the etymology at the end, but, considering what has been going on here over the last few weeks, I have to admit that I really don't care at this point. Further, I don't like the bolding -- I don't think it's common to Wikipedia. What we should do is put those [] tags -- though in case of 'ukrainian genocide', this would just lead back to this page... I also agree that nobody should ask to unprotect this page. This little timeout may prove a boon to the entire project. So, my annoyance level is currently going down by spades, and I like where we are going.


 * Oh, and ONE more thing, it really bugs the hell out of me: could we please keep in mind that the English language has such a thing as Articles?????? It's THE Holodomor, not Holodomor... Please??????


 * So, I'll just take the latest version here proposed and add the article where it is missing:


 * Holodomor was a famine on the territory of today's Ukraine, as well as some regions of Russia(see Famines in Russia and USSR) in the 1932–1933  also known as the Great Famine. The Holodomor was a result of deliberate policies by the government of the Soviet Union. Many authors refer to the event as the Ukrainian Genocide or even Ukrainian Holocaust stating that the disaster was engineered by the Soviets to specifically target Ukrainian people (see section ).


 * The term Holodomor is derived from the Ukrainian expression moryty holodom (Морити голодом), which means "to inflict death by hunger".


 * Dietwald 20:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In total agreement with you above, except for the unprotection part. I like the proposal; and I feel your frustrations. I still worry that keeping the page unprotected will cause activity to die down here. From experience with dealing with similarly tight factions of POV warriors, I think it's more probable that the discussion will grow stale unless the POV warriors are forced to pay attention to edits to the article. With no edits, a lot of time may pass before everyone's paying attention to the talk page again. The past discussions may go forgotten, meaning that may be forced to repeat everything that has been explained to Andrew Alexander, AndriyK, Ultramarine, et al. in in excruciating detial all over again. In other words, I think the page protection here may run the risk of taking us back in a circle. Still, of course, I hope I'm wrong. 172 | Talk 23:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article should not be unprotected, otherwise some who now pay attention to talk, will seize doing it and resume counting time windows in revert games recruiting more buddies to help. That said, I strongly object to bolding the Ukrainian Genocide and the Ukrainian Holocaust as this should be replaced by linking. The latter article I started myself and it could use the improvement. The U. G. articl about the term needs to be written to replace the POV redirect created by Andrew Alexander to make a point. According to the Wikipedia style only alternative names to the article's title are bolded in the intro in addition to the first mention of the title itself. These words are appropriate terms only if there is a universal agreement that the term Genocide and Holocaust are applicable, that is when the mainstream historical scholarship agrees on them, like it agreed on Shoah. Thus my opposition to bolding is not mild but strong as this implies much. Finally, someone, please return the POV tag to the protected article. I don't care that it stays at A.A.'s version while protected, but the POV tag whoever removed it, needs to be returned since there is a disagreement about neutrality as of the frozen version. --Irpen 01:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I am glad that Irpen finally starts noticing the fact that the words "Ukrainain Genocide" are bolded for purpose. Because they represent another common name for the Holodomor according to numerous links to Google provided in the topics above. This is progress in this discussion. WP:NC is finally getting noticed by the genocide erasing party.--Andrew Alexander 02:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Alexander, I did not react to your labeling of your opponents "genocide erasers" and even "deniers" only because I usually don't feed trolls. But this is also a progress on your part. You used to call your opponents simply "pigs" here. I am glad you are making progress in the discussion. --Irpen 02:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, and a link to some foreign language forum must be a proof that you were called a pig. I happen to know Ukrainian, yet there is no mention of Irpen in that post. You must be reading between lines there. But Irpen, what's wrong with "genocide deniers" and "genocide erasers"? Don't you deny this genocide? Don't you want to erase that word at all costs?--Andrew Alexander 02:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I also "happen to know" Ukrainian. In fact, Yakudza, your friend in revert warring may confirm that because I corresponded with him by email. Also, you could check this post which still did not convince another eternal partner of yours anyway. Also, I happen to notice the timing of that announcement of yours at the forum relating to the edits of this article. Whoever you meant, I don't care. Calling people "pigs" is trolling. I do not either deny or confirm the genocide, because I am not a historian to research that on my own. As such I derive my view from the works of people who established themselves in the field, not the web-blog writers, and I don't see the consensus, unlike the one in the Shoah. Similarly, there is a consensus that the Famine did happen and that it was catastrophic and that it was largely man-made. This, in itself, still doesn't make it a Genocide as explained to you above. That is about the "denier" part. As for "eraser", I did not erase it from the article. I emphatically support the discussion of the issue in the chapter "Was Holodomor a Genocide". I only object to preconcluding this yet an unresolved discussion in the intro by using an "also known as" or other similar weasel terms. I don't hope much that I answered the questions to your satisfaction but my answers are here for everyone to see. --Irpen 03:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I still didn't understand where got the analogy between you and a pig. Sorry, my Ukrainian is not that good apparently. However, you do deny this genocide. Because you said many times that it was not a genocide. So please read what you wrote "for everyone to see". Also, Raphael Lemkin wasn't a "web-blogger".--Andrew Alexander 03:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if you want to play a "who me?' game regarding that post at Maidan, I don't care. My skin got much thicker since you and AndriyK started your name-calling.

What I said many times is that scholars do not agree that this was a genocide. What I think doesn't matter much, because I am just a Wikipedian rather than someone whose papers pass a scrutiny and get published in the "Slavic Review" or conference proceedings. The opinion of Raphael Lemkin, unlike mine or yours, is notable. But so are the opinions of established historians who do not consider Holodomor a Genocide. It has nothing to do with the denial of the Holodomor itself. Such historians who do not see Holodomor as a Genocide are not marginalized such as those who deny the Holocaust. As such, the issue is unresolved and the Wikipedia article should present it as such. The perfect way is the separate section and we already have that. --Irpen 03:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please stop talking nonsense. What "who me"? Where is that post calling you a pig? I don't mind if you want to call it yourself, just don't accuse everyone around. And in case you didn't notice those 26 countries that acknowledged the Ukrainian genocide, Mark Tauger is being marginalized. In fact the only thing he is known about is his genocide denial. If Raphael Lemkin's opinion is "notable", then note it together with those millions of other opinions. Then read WP:NC.--Andrew Alexander 04:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Alexander, it is disgusting to accuse Irpen or any other user of "genocide denial." If you continue making demfatory comments I will seek arbitration against you, requesting that you go on personal attack parole-- regardless of whether or not we make progress in the intro. 172 | Talk 07:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with "genocide denial"? Do not you deny the fact of genocide? If no, please state this clearly.--AndriyK 09:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Reread the talk page discussions. These matters have already been discussed. See my 21:50, 13 January 2006 and 11:57, 23 January 2006 posts for explanations regarding why such allegations of "genocide denial" emotive and grossly unfair. For a statement of my own POV, see my 01:49, 23 January 2006 post. 172 | Talk 09:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You may post thouthends of your comments, but it will not change the meaning of the word "denial". If one denies something, this is an act of denying. Do not you deny the fact of Ukrainian Genocide?--AndriyK 09:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I already told you, for a statement of my own POV regarding the genocide controversy, see my 01:49, 23 January 2006 post. I'm beginning to wonder if your English is advanced enough to understand some of the nuances in English-language dicussion of a very complex subject that generates a great deal of contention among historians. (Please don't consider this comment an insult but rather as something to take in consideration. According to your user page, English is your third or forth language; in that case, you're doing much better with your third or forth language than I am.) 172 | Talk 10:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * AndriyK, Alexander, stop using the term genocide denial for those who oppose labelling the Holodomor genocide. It's not logical. For somebody to be a genocide denier, the events have to be considered genocide in the first place. Secondly, a genocide denier would not only object to the term itself, he would deny the event as such. Tottle is a denier, 172, Irpen, and others, including I, are not deniers. For the case you have not noticed this, I will point it out to you again: 1) The Holodomor is a historic fact in so far as it is used to describe the famine that took place on the territory of today's Ukraine. 2) The Holodomor was largely man-made 3)The Holodomor can without doubt be considered a crime committed by Stalin and his government. 4) Millions of people died during the famine.


 * Disputed IS: whether the Holodomor was deliberately caused by Stalin in order to kill Ukrainians because they were Ukraininas. IF you think this is the case, you will have to provide evidence that Stalin did inteed deliberately target Ukrainians, and only Ukrainians, because they were Ukrainians. You have to show that Stalin did not differentiate between different social groups of Ukrainians but that in principle, he wanted to kill as many Ukrainians as possible, regardless of their social class or political orientation. All you have done so far is to have shown that Ukrainians died during Holodomor (which nobody disputes), and that mostly Ukrainians died during the Holodomor (which nobody disputes). What you IGNORE is that while Ukrainians suffered most during the Holodomor in sheer numbers, they did in fact not suffer most in proportion -- the Kazakh herders died in much greater proportion relative to their total population, for example. You also ignore that there is little evidence to support the genocide thesis. There is some evidence, which nobody denies. The genocide thesis is reasonable and deserves further investigation. While I for one am inclined to doubt it on theoretical grounds (based on my rather detailed understanding of soviet policies during that time), I am open to the possibility that Stalin may have had sporadic genocidal tendencies. However, this would be the only time Stalin proved to have genocidal intent. At all other times, he resorted to mass-deportations, social 'decapitation', and other criminal acts, but never genocide. Personally, I think there is a limit to how criminal any human being can be, and Stalin's criminal actions covered pretty much the entire range of possible criminal behaviour. There simply was no room for genocide. Dietwald 13:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent reply, Dietwald. I was probably responding to AndriyK in an excessively emotional manner. Your reply above was far more effective. 172 | Talk 20:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read the section above written by you under the heading "Grudging Apologies". There you cited the "Genocide Convention", ""Art. 2. In the present convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". The bolding is done above as well. Now, let's make it clear, are you doubting Stalin's intent to murder masses of Ukrainians? Do you assume that Kaganovich and Molotov by accident organized the conditions that led to around 7 million deaths? Do you doubt that multiple historians, institutions, and whole countries recognized the Holodomor as an act of genocide? And without any doubt Stalin did not just target Ukrainians. Just like Hitler did not just target Jews. Which is not the reason to deny either of these genocides.--Andrew Alexander 04:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Your reply is neither her nor there. You seem to have virtually no understanding of the NPOV and "no original research" policies. Wikipedia is not the place for editors to impose their judgments regarding the merits the merits of competing interpretation in the historiography. We are supposed to balance and summarize the perspectives in a neutral manner without taking sides. 172 | Talk 05:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Intro as of 20:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

 * NB: I replaced the word 'disaster' with 'the Holodomor'. A hurricane is a disaster, but the Holodomor was a criminal act. Just my opinion. I am not going to go ballistic over the issue, just thought to point out that an attempt of keeping the language somewhat interesting may have had unintended consequences. Dietwald 20:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Holodomor was a famine on the territory of today's Ukraine, as well as some regions of Russia(see Famines in Russia and USSR) in the 1932–1933  also known as the Great Famine. The Holodomor was a result of deliberate policies by the government of the Soviet Union. Many authors refer to the event as the Ukrainian Genocide or even Ukrainian Holocaust stating that the Holodomor was engineered by the Soviets to specifically target Ukrainian people (see section ).

The term Holodomor is derived from the Ukrainian expression moryty holodom (Морити голодом), which means "to inflict death by hunger".

Dietwald 20:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

"Ukrainian Holocaust" and "Ukrainian Genocide" should instead of being bolded be linked to their respective term article. There is a Ukrainian Holocaust article, which, although imperfect, is the correct approach (a term article). Ukrainian Genocide for now is a redirect created by Andrew Alexander to promote the POV to which he adheres. That redirect needs to be turned into an article too devoted to the term itself and its usage. --Irpen 20:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not want to bring up the 'bolding issue' again myself, but I agree with Irpen. Didn't know about the Ukrainian Genocide article's history. Agree on this is principle, though. Would be a cool article that could be linked to from the 'was the Holodomor genocide' section of this article, and we could all go to war on that page;) Dietwald 21:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not see the reason to have three articles on the same subject.

What I miss in the present version is the mentioning of the fact that official bodies of several contries recognized Holodomor as an act of genocide. The info is important enough to be mentioned in the leading paragraph.--AndriyK 09:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The proposal is for the lead paragraph. We do not need to negotiate the paragraph on the countries that have designated the famine a genocide because there is not much of a discrepancy between between the subsequent paragraphs in the two competing intros. 172 | Talk 09:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that mentioning the recognition of the Holodomor as genocide by different countries at the end of the lead paragraph is something that could be considered essential to the topic. It should then, however, be combined with the reference to the discussion "was the holodomor genocide". I don't oppose including some reference to the genocide position in there. What I think we should avoid is any statement that gives the genocide position priority over other interpretations, in fact, it should be treated as questionable. To Alexander: I am at a point where I would not say that it wasn't genocide, but I would say that I don't think it was genocide. The difference is subtle, but crucial. It's the same logic as saying that you don't say you believe there are no pink unicorns, but you say that you don't believe there are pink unicorns. Maybe it was genocide, but I don't think the evidence for that is sufficiently clear. Pomnish? Dietwald 13:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Game
Let's see if this works:

Now please edit to make it as close as possible (as much as your POV allows you) to your opponents version. Bryndza


 * Gentlemen, do we need the games? If we just discuss it in good faith we could get to a compromise version. Games, and especially with rules so inflammatory formulated (like "Teams" and their names) will lead us nowhere. --Irpen 18:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, seeing those names all ower our talk pages (even with direct fingerpointing) and edit summaries is not inflammatory, but having them i table somehow is. Interesting phenomena. Teams can be renamed up to your taste. What about text? everybody agrees upon this version?--Bryndza 20:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Irpen. Wikipedia has strick content policies that must be followed. We cannot think in terms of "teams" and "games." 172 05:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the wording proposed here is not good: by putting the uncontentious reference to the man-made nature of the famine together with the disputetd reference to the term genocide in a sentence that seems to imply a minority position, we cast doubt on the man-made nature of the event. I think we should not forget to keep THIS aspect clearly in the intro. The Holodomor was the result of deliberate government actions, which included the deliberate neglect of a vast number of people, with the result that millions of these died. It was a crime, even if it was not a genocide.Dietwald 06:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

All of the absurd, fallacious allegations of "genocide" are simply rantings of uneducated right-wingers conditioned to have a vicious attitude towards communism. That is what it all amount to; they are trying to politicise history instead of telling the truth. They deliberately falsify figures and when someone points to the number of deaths from the archives, they spin it the most vile possible ways. The myths of "man-made" famine have been thoroughly disproved by R.W Davies's "Years of Hunger"; there were numerous natural factors that played a role in the [b]4.5 million[/b] deaths in the USSR from 1931-1933.


 * A Stalinist apologist troll with not enough spine to sign his 'contribution'. Go, play with Zundel&Co. Dietwald 20:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Seconding Dietwald above. 207.151.38.178, to cite the scholarship finding that "numerous natural factors" (Tauger's argument that climatic conditions played a role in the famine?) as the basis of an attempt to exonerate the actions of the Soviet regime is a far more fitting example of what you call 'spin done in one of the most vile possible ways.' The fact that RW Davies and Stephen Wheatcroft (along with other famine specialists Mark Tauger and Lynne Viola) do not ascribe to the thesis of the famine as genocide does not mean that they consider the famine a "myth," as you callously call it. The famine was real and an atrocity. The view of historians like Davies and Tauger holds that regardless of whether or not weather played a role in the famine, the confiscation of grain during a famine was an atrocity. Frankly, I think your 'spin' of the work of RW Davies is a falsification of history much more 'vile' and insidious than anything coming from those "uneducated right-wingers." 172 | Talk 20:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again with the "apologist" term, thrown around by those who like to think that their over-simplified views on history are unbreakable. The connotation from the term "apologist" is often demonic and borders on infantile insult. One who defends Stalin in the West is an "apologist" or "revisionist" as if the man was solely evil, disregarding a doubling in life expectancy. The Soviet archives contain reports of the 1931 harvest being delayed due to extremely bad weather, a decline in available horse power, and dissary in grain cultivisation. The grain harvest in 1931 was 10-15mn tons less than the one in 1930. That is a fact. This page still contains 6 million deaths in UKRAINE ALONE even though the Soviet archives as summarised in Davies's recent work amount the deaths in Ukraine to no higher than 1.5 million. The total in USSR excluding Kazakhstan in 1932-1933 is not quite 2.9 million.
 * 207.151.38.178, in response to your points in no particular order, of course no one can deny legitimately that life expectancy went up dramatically under Stalin; that serious research was published suggesting that climatic conditions played a role in the famine; that Davies established himself as a leading specialist on the famine; and, most importantly, that that a historian should never intentionally exaggerate anything-- including the number of deaths attributable to Stalin's terror. By the way, eventually I am going to work toward inserting summaries of Davies' work in this article. Now, as for you defending Stalin based on the aforementioned points, I am quite distressed. No serious historian disagrees with the characterization of the regime's confiscation of grain during the famine, along with the regime's brutal blockade of affected areas, as an atrocity. Conterminous, seemingly favorable social and economic trends are immaterial to this characterization. Further, for the sake of argument, even if future publications validated Davies' proposed reduction of the death toll from Conquest's figures, such a reduction would also be immaterial to the characterization of the famine as a Stalinist atrocity. Davies' figures are still incredibly atrocious. If you cannot acknowledge that, Dietwald's correct in and free to-- in your words-- 'throw around the apologist term.' 172 | Talk 23:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yup. Anonymous, you are an apologist. Go away and play with Tottle, Zundel, and the Turkish government (re. Armenian genocide). Dietwald 23:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they've all got valid points. It's perplexing how a famine contributed in large part by natural factors is equivalent to the Ottoman government's forceable deportation of Armenians to deserts. Your over-simplified right-wing views plucked from abominable organisations like Human Right Watch are truly vile. 172 asserts that Davies' figures are "atrocious". But these were not Davies' figures; rather, he derived the figures from the Soviet archives. It's bewildering why you refuse to take official reports into account and resort to backwards, politically-driven, inflated "estimates". If you're going to stick "7 million", there has got to a mention alongside the official death toll from the archives. Having completed one-quarter of Davies's "Years of Hunger", I've observed that the 1932 harvest in fact was below that of 1931 (67.11 mn tons compared to 69.48mn tons in 1931 whose harvest was about 10-15 mn tons below that of 1930). In regard to plaughing, the short supply of fodder resulted in a sharp decline of horses to 19.5mn in 1931 down from 20.9mn in 1930. Horses infected with ringworm, mange, foot and mouth disease, and glanders were not isolated. A fair share of the tractors were in poor shape; 20% of them were damaged and 20% didn't function due to the need of spare parts. In 1932, due to a foreign trade crisis, there were only 679,000 tractors delivered of which only half were brought in time for the harvest. The kolkhozy used up fodder in autumn without preparing for spring. The use of straw roots for fodder poisoned horses; Source: RGAE 7446/5/97. In regard to the weather in 1931, the cold spring delayed sowing and development of grain; the southeast suffered from dry-winds in June and the months of June and July were hotter than in previous years. "Rain poured down endlessly, roads were turned into a sea of mud, potatoes could not be dug, hemp could not be harvested, the hemp and sunflower seeds were drowned in the fields."--- RGASPI, 17/2/484. Plus, it is not mentioned in this article the numerous allocations of seed to the countryside. On 16 Feb. 1932, Sovnarkom allocated 53.3mn puds for seed and food to drought-stricken areas. On 7 March 1932, the Politburo called for further allocations of grain for seed, amounting to 22mn puds, Source: RGASPI 17/162/12. The decree of March 7 called for an END TO EXPORT OF FOOD GRAIN, Source: RGASPI 17/162/11, 159-item/2. Molotov and Yakovlev in a telegram stated, "the position is worse than we have supposed, until recently the authorities did not know the real position in the countryside." and called for issue of seed, fodder, and food loans, RGASPI: 82/2/138, 124.
 * FYI I am going to be ignoring your comments. I am sure that the other users are going to do the same. 172 | Talk 21:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"I am going to be ignoring" - are his comments true or not. They appear - buttressed by your attitudes - to be getting close enough to the truth to be really painful. Why? You got a dog in this fight?

A link with some interesting info - plp.org A pro-communist site but full of good research ( mixed in with a lot of garbage ) - quotes many sources. Epidemics, bad weather, anti-Communist( pro-Nazi unfortunately ) feelings among the richer farmers, sabotage ( self-sabotage ), a little incompetence, etc all hit at the same time. Is there any evidence of pre-Communist famines - I suspect this was a problem long before Stalin - what were the causes at those times.

Current Status
Seems Alexander is opting out of the discussion, as feared by 172. Ultramarine and the other promoters of the 'holodomor was genocide' thesis are not contributing either anymore. We got ourselves an (anonymous) Stalinist on board. Great. This place is still going to hell. HOWEVER, we have been working on an intro, quite nicely actually.

I make the following proposal, trying to incorporate most recent suggestions by participating parties (ignoring Stalin Apologists, of course).


 * The Holodomor was a famine on the territory of today's Ukraine, as well as some regions of Russia(see Famines in Russia and USSR) in the 1932–1933, also known as the Great Famine. The Holodomor was the result of deliberate policies by the government of the Soviet Union.


 * Many authors refer to the event as the Ukrainian Genocide, or even Ukrainian Holocaust, stating that the Holodomor was engineered by the Soviets to specifically target the Ukrainian people.


 * While historians continue to disagree whether or not the Holodomor was a genocide as defined by the United Nations, numerous governments have officially recognized the Holodomor as genocide (see section ).


 * The term Holodomor is derived from the Ukrainian expression moryty holodom (Морити голодом), which means "to inflict death by hunger".

I STILL don't like the placing of the etymology section. I just can't see how even AA or others can't be happy with this wording. Can't get more factual, if I may say so myself. Dietwald 00:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. Read the discussion above. Ukrainian Genocide is another common name of the Holodomor and must be mentioned as such.--Andrew Alexander 04:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Your response proves Dietwald correct: Seems Alexander is opting out of the discussion, as feared by 172. Your argument "Ukrainian Genocide is another common name of the Holodomor and must be mentioned as such" has been systematically refuted dozens of times by multiple users over the past two weeks. You know that; you're just choosing to ignore the discussion. Repeating yourself does not make your assertion true. In the end, it'll behoove you to compromise on this page. If this dispute goes to arbitration, I'm certain that the outcome will not be favorable, as it will likely constrain your editing to other articles through either probation or revert limitations. 172 | Talk 05:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please stop this intimidation. Nothing of the huge collection of facts, quotes, links has been even close to challenged. Millions of web pages have been provided. Facts about famous historians acknowleding this name have been given. Countries whose governments or parliaments acknoledged the Ukrainian genocide have been carefully listed. All of this was met by steady rhetoric and minimum of references. Now this discussion goes into the phase of bullying the presenters of the mainstream point of view. Which in itself is amazing.--Andrew Alexander 05:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Here we go again. Agreement with the genocide thesis is not the same thing as using the term "Ukrainian genocide." Your claim that "millions" of webpages use the term is comically absurd. "Ukrainian Genocide" (a neologism) gets only 14,900 Google search results compared to a whooping 1,210,000 results for "Armenian Genocide"  (an actual common name)-- 80 times the number of results for "Ukrainian Genocide." 14,900 Google search results is extremely unimpressive. The term appears to be a neologism. Frankly, I'm beginning to think that the term belongs nowhere in the article. But I will still accept the compromise version proposed by Dietwald, which includes a reference to the term in the very first paragraph because I am actually willing to build a consensus. If you are demonstrating no willingness to compromise, arbitration is the only course of action for other editors. I say this as a heads up, not intimidation. 172 | Talk 06:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

172, stop repeating this ridiculous argument. It's been mentioned to you many times that people use slightly different wordings for Ukrainian genocide. E.g. "famine-genocide", or "1933 genocide", "genocide of Ukrainians". You will find a "whooping" 2+ million results (as mentioned to you again above) for all these wordings. You resist to the word "genocide" being mentioned in the first paragraph, not to a specific wording. We can change the wording if you wish. What we can't do is erase something used all over the world. This is the last time I will repeat this to you, it's enough to say the same thing over 10 times for an average person to understand it.--Andrew Alexander 16:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Andrew, you just disproved your own assertion. Thank you. Why? Because you claim that "Ukrainian Genocide" is a common name. You now agree yourself that the term "Ukrainian Genocide" is not used as such, but that rather various wordings are used to convey the idea that the Holodomor was genocide. The point here is that the TERM "Ukrainian Genocide" is NOT used AS SUCH to commonly describe the Holodomor, and you just said so yourself. You AGREE that that the term "Ukrainian Genocide" AS SUCH is used very little, but that many people use different wordings to claim that the Holodomor was genocide. Nobody denies that many people think the Holodomor was genocide. What is disputed here is that the TERM "Ukrainian Genocide" AS SUCH is COMMONLY used to describe the events summarized by the term "Holodomor". Glad you say you will stop repeating your claim. It'll be better for all. Dietwald 19:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You can continue splitting hairs, I certainly will not object. Are "various wordings" used to "convey the idea", or are they used as names? This is an interesting excercise in nothing.--Andrew Alexander 03:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * So, you consider it an interesting experiment in 'nothing' to figure out whether or not a term you claim to be commonly used as a description for the Holodomor is indeed commonly used to describe the Holodomor? Very revealing. Curiously enough, the term "Jewish Genocide" appears just slightly more often (when compared to the millions of timens the term Holocaust figures) on Google than "Ukrainian Genocide", namely about 34 thousand times. Even more interesting is the fact that the term "Jewish Genocide" is used in the most fascinating(?) intentions. By the way, at least 1,200 pages containing the term "Ukrainian Genocide" seem to treat the topic from an apologist pov (look for "Ukrainian Genocide" AND myth"), 741 pages even contain the term "Ukrainian Genocide Myth" outright. And most delightfully, the terms ukrainian genocide and myth combined result in 73,900 pages. I guess that by AA's 'logic', this means that another alternative name for the Holodomor would be the "Ukrainian Genocide Myth"... I rest my case. Dietwald 05:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A.A. I will try to repeat again, the issue here isn't whether the H. was a Genocide, which is a separate topic, but whether "Ukrainian Genocide" is a common name. There is by far clearer and coherent view that the Holocaust was a Genocide, but you don't find the "Jewish Genocide" as an alternative name there, even unbolded. Try adding this to the intro and I am sure you will be reverted by the jewish wiki-community itself. That would be a WP:Point though, so I would not encourage this experiment. --Irpen 03:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Andrew Alexander, you have indeed just admitted that the TERM "Ukrainian genocide" used as such is not the common name. Now give up your demand that it be used as the alternate name. You can accept Dietwald's compromise, which mentions the genocide thesis in the first paragraph. 172 | Talk 21:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Just proves the old saw that with friends like these, one needs no enemies. I still share AA's sentiment on Stalin, and I am sure I'll find agreement with him on numerous other issues, but HERE, is proving to be someone you can't reason with (Don Corleone). I suggest arbitration. Too bad. Dietwald 12:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind arbitration and if anyone initiates it I would be willing to participate. On the other hand, this is such a hemongous and time-consuming procedure, as I learned after participating in the obvious case that seemed so open and shut but took 2-3 months to be settled, that I would still hope something else could work. Maybe a straw-poll? Article RfC? Anyway, if others want to take it to an arbitration, I would support as well. I just won't initiate it myself as of yet. --Irpen 14:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've already written an arbitration case on MS Word. Unless Andrew Alexander proves reasonable, I'm taking the case to arbitration in 36 hours. 172 | Talk 21:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, seems we are moving forward on this, too. I regret it, though, and I would wish AA would really come around and give up on a position that is logically untenable. Dietwald 05:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear "coalition" if arbitration will take place, I will stop my participation in English WP. Moreover, at any occasion I will advise others to do so. I will actively advertise WP project as doomed and being ruled by "coalitions" with certain political POVs that allow no compromises. Also I will inform administators of highest possible rank of such situation. Collecting proofs of coordinated activities among certain individuals here on pushing their agendas in the articles and organisation of bans of "inconvenient" editors will not be a problem. I anticipate that my opinion will be supported by a number of other editors that experienced mentioned practices.--Bryndza 20:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Bryndza, please take another look at the dispute before making such quick angry comments. If parties can't resolve the dispute no matter how long they talk, the only way to proceed is the formal dispute resolution process. Such steps before the arbitration usually are RfC and mediation designed to fasciliate discussion but this discussion is so thorough already that nothing possibly new can be brought by the mediation or RfC. Andrew Alexander approaches this article and an entire Wikipedia from the Ukrainian nationalist and Russophobic positions. While he is certainly entitled to his views, he is not entitled to bring them into his editing and to take an aggressive stance against editors who came here representing many cultures (German, US, Polish, Russian and Ukrainian itslef) and who all here try to find a good-faith solution to the dispute while A.A. rejects anything other than his own opinions. Something should be done about this. Holodomor was an event of the grand historic scale and it needs a good article. We also owe to its victims (among who mine and I am sure your relatives perished and/or sufferred to) to have the article to be an objective account of the events rather than the bare angly indictment to those evil katsaps that A.A. is trying to make of it.


 * I would very mich regret if you leave WP. I would even not like if A.A. leaves because there exists one article to which he brought some useful refs and factual info (this one) while others he mostly nothing but disrupted. I suggest you set aside a half-an-hour and read the discussion at this talk. --Irpen 21:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Irpen, please stop the personal attacks and insulting the participant of the debate. I consider Your words about AA unacceptable. Your personal insults disturb to find the coordinated decision. I want to offer You will refrain from participations in discussion of this article, Your offensive commentary disturb to consensus. Version Dietwalds consider to be acceptable for discussing --Yakudza 22:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yakudza, I firmly stand by my words above. I don't care about the views of this or that user here until these views get into his/her editing. My criticism of A.A.'s nationalism appears here only because it goes into his editing and not only to this article.

I will not refrain from discussing this article because I consider this article to be an important one. The Ukrainian Famine was a major national catastrophe of my nation and I would like this to be a serious article that would give the readers an account as objective as possible about these events. While personally, I don't think that Ukrainians suffered from Famine purely because they were Ukrainians (as A.A. tries to present it) but because they were peasants working on rich lands whose harvest the criminal Bolshevik government wanted to use to advance their economic and social goals, I do not purge from this article the views of those scholars who consider otherwise. All I want is to see all mainstream views presented, the discussion on this issue to be kept in the "Was H. a Genocide" section, and the intro not be used to advance a single side of the debate.

Andrew Alexander's trademark style, on the other hand, is to aggressively alter the intro first of all. He've done this here, he've done this at UA L article too. He frequently attempts to do it even at the Khreschatyk street article. NPOVing the UA L article is now very high on my priority list but I consider this article even more important. At the same time, your services of helping Andrew Alexander to revert to his versions in spite of or even, contrary to, the extensive discussions, bring nothing but extra annoyance. Please refrain from doing that. If you have anything to say on the issue, just say so at the talks. Your English is good enough for others to understand. --Irpen 05:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, I'm sorry to inform you that you are wrong. In many aspects. To name just a few of them: 1. A.A.'s opinion is shared (in some variations) by other editors here. Including myself. If we are all Ukrainian nationalists, trolls, rusophobes, agressive banderovtsy - then you are Ukrainophobe, evil katsap, russian shauvinist - in your own terms. 2. Those terms that I mentioned are all over Ukrainian corner of WP here brought by you and your team mates. And terminology that I used to call opposing parties in the proposed [|Game Table] above is not my invention, but solely yours. I checked how it would sound pronounced not by Irpen. And indeed, it became "inflammatory" as it was used by other person towards you. You immediately rejected this proposal for dispute. 3. Beside stopping (not the first time) my call for solving the dispute, you also interrupted ongoing discussion (even though tuff) between Dietwald, Alex, 172 and A.A. and inflicted personal accusations and arguing with him. Beside these "contributions" (not counting invitation for 172 to help you fight "nationalists") to the article and talk you have only put forward a "bolding" issue. While 172 is reasonably trying to fulfill his mission, you are only "rv POV pushing by notorious revert warriors" and are exersizing in eloquent epitets towards people who do not share your opinion. 4. If you claim that you are balanced and fair - I would like to see your fair comments to Zvesda's writings here, Mr. anonimous writings, Girla's and Kuban kazak's aggression all over articles. Please show the same level of enthusiasm.

I suggest you set aside half-an-hour, close your eyes and forget our POVs, then think of what I wrote here and above. If you do not see other solutions rather than blocking editors - then you are a looser. If you do not see other ways to sustain discussions rather than eloquently assault people - then just shut up and leave it for those who can talk. If someone here gives up on discussion - follow Irpen please. If A.A. will be banned by you - means you are powerless. Then if I ever stay on WP - only to take his position. --Bryndza 05:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Bryndza, as per your advise, I will reply to your message not at once but later. To the one point, I can respond. I did not argue with a Stalinist appologists because I consider these views too lunatic to waste time on discussing them. OTOH, the view the H. was a Genocide, is not lunatic. It is just controversial and not universally agreed. So I would like to give it some credence it deserves in the article. I will write more later. --Irpen 06:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Clearly you are full of it. It is claimed that the so-called "Stalinist apologist" has posted information "outside the mainstream consensus" even though the term "Holodomor" is exclusively used by Ukrainian Nationalists. As reported by J.Arch Getty, the majority of serious scholars do not agree that the famine revolved around Ukraine and that the famine was artificial and deliberate. I've observed the so-called "vandalist" submission, and it is far superior to the current rubbish. It find it dishonorable how Wikipedia's corrupt leadership ignores refutations with such comments as "I don't care what you think" rather than trying to keep a Neutral Point of View that is regularly violated. Every single line in the current article has been thoroughly refuted.

Arbitration Status
172, What's the status on Arbitration? Dietwald 18:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay. I've been unexpectedly busy. So Andrew Alexader has at least another day to try to show a willingness to compromise. 172 | Talk 02:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Archiving
Could somebody with more wiki-brains than I do some archiving? The page takes ages to load on my dial-up. Thank you. Dietwald 00:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm archiving the parts of the talk page where the discussions seemed inactive, which still leaves the talk page quite long. 172 | Talk 04:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Weather
Putting the debates on Ukranian nationalism aside for a moment, as a soil scientist, I would just add that "poor weather conditions" and other factors that are debated by the "scholars" as a role in the famine need to wait until paleao-archeological data on pollen and soil chemistry for this period become known. As any farmer will agree, "poor weather conditions" can wreck entire commuinties, indeed empires. This is not to be a Stalin apologist, but the Ukraine/Soviet Famine is certainly generated thought some mix of climatic with lessez-faire (e.g. British role in Irish 11840's famine)and exclusively active (ie. the Chinese 1960 famine that tranversed numerous global climate zones) factors.


 * I think the weather question is interesting. Also neglected in this article is the anti-collectivization actions by peasants, which included the slaughter of animals, including draft-animals. This certainly contributed to the decline in the harvest. However, while these factors played a role, the actions by the Soviet government were decisive in triggering the famine. After all, the government could have let the peasants keep their meagre harvest rather than confiscate it in toto. Dietwald 19:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"Meager harvest" and "in toto" - how much of the harvest was taken? The Caucasian region actually had a higher death rate I believe - Ukranians have/had other fish to fry - politics mostly.

PL wiki
add this -> pl:Wielki głód na Ukrainie  exe 11:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Draught
The word should be "drought". I don't have the Wiki-smarts to know how to request to fix it on a protected page. Cheers, Peter1968 12:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate Information
"The Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор), also known as Ukrainian Genocide,[1] [2] [3] was the 1932–1933 man-made[4] famine on the territory of today's Ukraine, as well as some regions of Russia populated by ethnic Ukrainians. The Holodomor was caused by the seizure of the 1932 crop by the Soviet authorities.[5] The Soviet government admitted the famine's existence only in the late 1980s"

Conveniently, the dead Ukrainians just happened to have been in areas of extensive agriculture. If there was a genocide planned against Ukrainians, why did mass starvation stop after 1933? Your allegations of a genocide inflicted on Ukrainians is beyond the of any credibility. Citing the leader of an independent country, who clearly held vehement biases, is not very credible. This is the representative from the same Catholic Church that supported the Nazis and the Fascismi. The disruptive Solidarnosc group in Poland, funded by the CIA and George Soros, were also supported by this pope. This is a blatant manifestation of POV. It has been documented that the harvests in 1931 and 1932 were over 15 million tons below the harvest of 1930. The reasons for these poor harvests were due to undesirable weather and a sharp decline in plaughing.

“At the height of the famine, while confiscating crops from the starving peasants, the USSR exported 1.70 million tons of grain in 1932 and 1.84 million tons in 1933 (close to a quarter of a ton per each victim in each year).[6]”

You fail to mention that these exports were far below the plans. There were numerous concessions made to the countryside in the form of reduced quotas and allocations of grian.

“The death toll of the famine is estimated at between five and ten million people[7]. The rationale behind the famine as well as the exact number of casualties is unknown because the pertinent archives of the NKVD (later KGB, and today FSB) remain closed to historians in general.”

This estimate has been exposed to be bogus by the registered deaths from TSUNKHU files. The historians compiling this fallacious death toll (Robert Conquest) were merely engaged in a campaign of propaganda during the Cold War. The preference of biased authors amounting to yet another manifestation of POV. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/archive/hunger/deaths.xls

“Today, the governments or parliaments of 26 countries recognized the 1932-1933 famine as an act of genocide. Among them Ukraine, Argentina, Australia, Canada, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, United States, and Vatican City.”

The bulk of these countries including and Estonia and Latvia are members of NATO and practice discrimination towards Russian minorities. Why is Russia, the most relevant country in East Europe, omitted?

“This was however ended and replaced with the return to Russification, as soon as Ukrainian strong national identity started to become an obstacle for Stalin's plans.”

Plans, what plans? Plans of Russian chauvinism? Stalin was not even Russian; neither were Kaganovich, Ordzhokinidze, Mikoyan, Eikhe, Rudzutak, Petrovsky, Kossior, Chubar, and several other members of the Politburo. This amounts to a paranoid statement from ultra Ukrainian nationalists.

“Simultaneously, a policy of collectivization of agriculture was introduced, which primarily hit Ukraine, having the strongest agriculture in the country and a long tradition of individual farms (over 50% of Russian wheat originated from Ukraine in the beginning of 20th century).”

There was collectivisation of agriculture throughout the country including agriculturally rich areas in North Caucasia, Volga Basin, Central Black Earth, and Kazakhstan.

“It is estimated that around 2 million Ukrainians became victims of these repressions in 1929-1932.”

False. There were 1.8 million exiled throughout the Soviet Union. There were 63,000 households from Ukraine exiled out of a total 381,000 in USSR. The 381,000 households amounted to 1.8 million people. Source: Davies's "Years of Hunger"

“On August 7, 1932, the Moscow government imposed death penalty in Ukraine for any theft of public property [9] [10] [11]. Hundreds of peasants were executed each month under the new law. Still, until October 25, Moscow received only 39% of the demanded grain supplies.”

What is not mentioned is that the death penalty for this decree was seldom enforced. The bulk of those prosecuted under this decree were deprived of liberty for 5-10 years. There were amendements to this decree that called for the death penalty to be sentences to "ACTIVE saboteurs"

From Davies's "Years of Hunger", "According to a report of the head of the Supreme Court, by January 15,1933 as many as 103,000 people had been sentenced under the provisions of the decree. Of the 79,000 whose sentences were known to the Supreme Court, 4800 had been sentenced to death, 26086 to ten years' imprisonment and 48094 to other sentences.

“The famine mostly affected the rural population. In comparison to the previous famine in the USSR during 1921–22, which was caused by draught, and the next one in 1947, the famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine was caused not by infrastructure break-down, or war, but by deliberate political and administrative decisions (e.g., see [14]).”

Lies, lies, lies. The harvests in 1931-1932 were far below expectations. There was drought throughout the country and the USSR government issued numerous allocations of grain and reduced the quotas several times.

“By the end of 1933, between five and ten million people had starved to death or had otherwise died unnaturally in Russia and Ukraine.”

The Soviet archives reveal that there 2.9 million excess deaths in the USSR from 1932-1933 excluding Kazakhstan. The rise in infectious disease contributed to these deaths.

“While the course of the events as well as their underlying reasons are still a matter of debate, even the official Soviet statistics show a decrease of roughly four million people in the population of Ukraine between 1927 and 1932.”

Official Soviet data show that the births in Ukraine decreased by 100,000 every year from 1926-1931. The population went from 28.5 million in 1926 to 28.925 million in 1926 to 28.387 million in 1937. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/archive/hunger/deaths.xls

“Taking an estimate of natural population growth of one to two percent, the calculated loss of population in Ukraine was over ten million during these years.”

Outdated speculation from hard-line Cold Warrior historians. This has been debunked from Lorimer.

“The USSR exported 1.70 million tons of grain in 1932 and 1.84 million tons in 1933 ([18]), almost a quarter of a ton in each year per each dead in the Holodomor.”

What again is neglected is that these totals were far below export levels of previous years.

(thousand tons of grains) 1930 level: 5832 1931: 4786 1932: 1441 1933: 2319

Source: Davies's "Years of Hunger"

Other information neglected is the rise in infectious disease:

(thousands) 1929: Typhus, 40; Typhoid Fever, 170 ; Relasping fever, 6 ; Smallpox, 8; Malaria, 3000

1932: Typhus, 220; Typhoid Fever, 300; Relasping fever, 12; Smallpox, 80; Malaria, 4500.

1933: Typhus, 800; Typhoid Fever, 210 ; Relasping fever, 12; Smallpox, 38; Malaria, 6500.

Zvesda


 * Zvesda, fact remains: the quotas were in excess of the available grain. The government was aware of thise. The exports continued DESPITE famine. Any government that exports grain at any significant level during a famine should be considered at the very least stupid. Considering the other crimes of the Bolsheviks, the export of these grains during a famine was outright criminal. I won't dignify Red Star's apologies with any more attention.Dietwald 19:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This needs to be kept in perspective in order to prevent the manifestation of POV. Trade continued albeit at a mere faction of previous year. Trade continued due to the Soviet's deep foreign trade crisis which obstructed the acquisition of additional tractors. If Conquest's figure of "7 million" must be stated, then should Davies's of 1.5 million in Ukraine. Davies's work unlike those of Western Cold Warriors almost entirely consist of material derived from archives. What must also be cited are the various measures taken by the Soviet regime to assist famine-stricken regions. Between February and July 1932, no less than 35 decisions and decrees of the Politburo and Sovnarkom authorised allocations of grain for food.--- Pg. 214 of Davies's "Years of Hunger". You can't smear Davies or Wheatcroft as "Stalin apologist" because of how they actually list Conquest's work in their bibliography. By also citing Tauger, these two authors maintain a non POV balance. Zvesda


 * The idea that the weather was the main factor is simply refuted by the fact that there were absolutely nothing comparable in the part of Ukraine occupied by Poland. The weather does not know the state borders (especially on the plains), there were the same people, the same crops, the same agricultural methods. And Pilsudsky was not exactly a paragon of democracy or a Ukrainophile. Meanwhile people were dying in thousands on the over side of the border and there were nothing unusual on the other side.


 * There is also an Occam razor - collectivization and raskulachivanie the way they were implemented should cause the famine and they did cause it over all the Soviet Union. The fact that Ukraine and Kazakhstan were the worse hit might be explained by the myriad reasons, weather included (The authorities require state collection of at least the same amount of grain as in the previous year, so if the weather was even slightly worse than the 1930 year it might spell disaster), there is also a simple fact that in the sparsely populated Northern Russia the population can somehow survive on mushrooms, wild berries, edible grass and by hunting wild animals, but in the densly populated Ukraine it is impossible. I, personally, feel the Genocide theory is a lie, since there was not published a single document requiring preferential treatment of Russians over Ukrainians, but the theory is so well published that we have to somehow mention it (although not as an established fact but as a theory). Maybe the same should be about the weather theory. abakharev 23:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It has been documented in Davies's "Years of Hunger" that weather in fact contributed to the relatively disastrous harvest of 1931 followed by a slightly worse harvest in 1932.

The genocide theory is fallacious beyond perception. I can't understand how anyone can go around calling this genocide when there were measures taken by the government to feed the starving population. Ukraine similarly to North Caucasia and Volga Basin, regions also struck by famine, just happened to be a major center of agriculture.

During 1925-1929, there was favourable weather sans a break in 1927. During 1931, June and July were much warmer. The cold spring had delayed sowing and the development of grain. The southeast had suffered from dry-winds in June. In May-July, normal weather pattern in the Volga and Black-Earth regions and on the Ukrainian Steppe was hat warm, dry, south-easterly winds from Kazakhstan gave way to colder and wetter from the north-west. For the first time in twelve years, south-easterlies dominated. Winds became scorching, no rain fell, and earth became parched. Grain yields fell significantly when similar winds in 1891 and 1921 brought rural famine.

"Rain poured down endlessly, roads were turned into a sea of mud, potatoes could not be dug, hemp could not be harvested, the hemp and sunflower seeds were drowned in the firleds" --- RGASPI, 17/2/484, 53

Zvesda


 * Ok, Red Star, are you going to repeat yourself ad nauseam? We got it. Weather was awful, the Soviets were kind enough to reduce their grain quotas, and the idea of a a man-made famine is absurd, not to mention the idea of a genocide. Davies and others should be quoted because they actually use archives, whereas Conquest simply makes up numbers and was a Cold Warrior. Happy? Now, if you pretend to go away, the rest of the world will pretend to consider it. Dietwald 04:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The tenor of events/feelings ( toward the new communist government ) in Ukraine can be best expressed when Ukraine joined the Nazis fighting against the USSR. I suspect - others here probably know - that earlier famines - and maybe this one - were the result of diehard rebels who continued the fight and probably precipitated a bigger diaster than they realized through abotage,etc.

Status?
So, AA has totally opted out, the rest is no longer discussing, the page has died. Unbelievable. Maybe we need to get it back to life with unprotect & arbitration?? This is simply disgusting. AA & Co., you have done a great job -- the victims of the Holodomor are duly honoured by the way things are going here. Or not going here. Ain't nationalism a great thing? Dietwald 05:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I support the half-way variants of Alex Bakharev, ANDRIY_K, Bryndza and Dietwald. My english (en-1) does not allow to discuss the nicety of the wording. But I against categorically version User:Irpen and 172 that Holodomor is caused by bad weather and need to industrializations. AndriyK now is banned to end of February. But he and Bryndza say in support to coordinated versions. But I did not see the positions 172 and Irpen. Or they against coordination and want to start the arbitration? --Yakudza 13:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yakudza, this is disgusting. Were did I or 172 say that H. was caused by bad weather? The dispute has been on how to present the issue whether H. was a Genocide and whether we can call it as such in view of the scholarly disagreement and whether we can use these words in the first line or in the intro while the discussion in the appropriate section shows that there is no agreement on the issue. My point is that intro should not make an assertive claim on the issue that is unresolved. You accusations are totally off-mark and rather unhelpful. Better reread the discussions above carefully. --18:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please. Your editing In the intro  Some scholars have argued that poor weather and the military and economic goals of Soviet ruler Joseph Stalin were additional factors precipitating the famine.[1]
 * Say please 1. You continue to keep the points that this must be in intro? 2. You Support one of variant offered of Alex Bakharev, AndriyK, Bryndza or Dietwald? --Yakudza 19:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yakudza, in this "my editing" you are pointing out the phrase you quote where the weather is mentioned is preceeded by: "The famine was caused by the Soviet authorities seizing the 1932 crop" That is it's clear from this version that the cause of Holodomor was the grain confiscation. As such your statement that "version User:Irpen and 172 that Holodomor is caused by bad weather" is a plain lie. Please discuss in good faith if you want others to take you seriously. --Irpen 23:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I ever opted out of the discussion. There is no discussion. No well supported facts, references, quotes provided here. I have provided plenty on this page and on the article page itself. I don't know what else should be countered that hasn't been countered. Let's check again. Is "genocide" a common term for the Holodomor? Yes, it is.--Andrew Alexander 05:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * AA: Do you do this on purpose or are you daft? Do you actually read what is offered as criticism to your arguments? Do you actually care? Does it matter to you what others say? Do logical arguments carry weight with you? You repeat over and over again "Genocide is a common word for holodomor" -- the google search you offer as an argument does not even include the word holodomor. Your search looks for any page that contains premutations of the word Ukraine and genocide on the same page. This is getting boring. I think you really don't get it. The only way you can be arguing in good faith is if you are actually incapable of understanding what others are saying. So, you are either trolling or you are stupid. Sorry to be so blunt, but this has really been going on for too long. Dietwald 19:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I see your argument. "You are either trolling or you are stupid". Because.--Andrew Alexander 01:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Take your pick.Dietwald 08:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"Lies"?
A friend of mine discussing the invaladity of wikipedia mentioned this article, and said it was wrong because of these issues:

Tables Registered births and registered deaths in famine-stricken areas -- show that 4 million people died in the several republics hit with famine, with less than 2 million deaths in the Ukranian Socialist Republic. The primary figures on excess deaths amount to 2.9 million, then you have to add the figures from Kazakhstan which amount to another 1.5 million, the deaths in the OGPU system (0.3 million)" (pp. 412-416) This table and quotes are taken from The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933[/i]. Volume 5 of [i]The Industrialisation of Soviet Russia. Basingstoke (England) and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. As the book  Fraud, Famine and Fascism, The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard by Douglass Tottle showed, all the high estimates are based upon lies and gross exaggerations.

Now, since I have complete faith in wikipedia, and it's editors. I'd like this to be examined, and explain why there is this contradiction, since I do not know enough about this subject. Chris M. 16:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * How were these figures derived, and from what sources? —Michael Z. 2006-02-04 16:38 Z 


 * Mr. Chris, your friend Zvezda, or Mr. anonimous, or both of them who littered this page many times already, have recieved all answers to their questions. Please see for comprehensieve answers above and in archived history. At this time they are being ignored by disputants and their "representatives" in your face will be too. Please do not fall under influence.--Bryndza 17:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, would you mind humoring me with a few quick reasons for why that's wrong? If it's not too much trouble. Chris M. 06:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. it disagrees with the range of figures accepted by most historians. 2. It comes with no verifiable source of the figures (at least not here; I don't have a copy of the book and I can't read an xls file).  3. You cite these as precise figures, when most historians will only provide an estimated range, because they say that precise figures will never be available.  —Michael Z. 2006-02-05 06:52 Z 

1) So what if it disagrees with the range of figures "accepted" by "most" historians? 2)Sources a, b) Registered births and deaths RGAE, 1562/329/108. These are the 1936 TsUNKhU evaluations. They differ slightly from earlier evaluations as explained in Wheatcroft, TSD 3, 867-880 														c) Estimated population based on 1926 and 1937 censuses, a number of official population estimates, movements in mortality and natality registration and estimates of over registration. d,e) Crude birth and death rates based on a,b and c above 														f) Average normal mortality is taken as average mortality rate for 1927-9 and is calculated from e above. g) Excess mortality above 1927-9 level of cdr for 1932 and 1933 are simply the 1932 and 1933 levels of mortality (cdr) in e) less the average level of mortality in f).														h) Excess mortality in numbers of deaths is calculated from the excess mortality level (cdr) in g) multiplied estimated population size in c) divided by 1000. That is the sources used in the table where the figures come from.


 * "So what if it disagrees with the range of figures "accepted" by "most" historians?"—so they were all "wrong" and this one is "right"?


 * 1937 census? Weren't the census-takers shot and their work suppressed or destroyed?  —Michael Z. 2006-02-06 05:53 Z 

Nope, didn't say they were wrong. You yourself wrote this "...historians will only provide an estimated range," and this particular estimation claims 1.5 million died unnaturally from the "Holodomor". While Wikipedia's page claims the estimations by historians range from 5-10 million and that 30-50% of the Ukrainian died from the famine (as opposed to this historians estimate of 5% of the Ukrainian populace perished). I see no reason why not to amend the range to 1.5-10 million and 5-50%.

The 1937 census was classified in the Soviet Union but is now avaliable.

In regard to the 1937 census, it has been misrepresented by western Cold Warrior historians. Numbering at 162 million, the population of the USSR was 6 million below projection contrary to the lie from the West that the 1937 population was 14 million below projection. Davies's and Wheatcroft's "Years of Hunger" explains, "However, if the net increase in population (that is, births minus deaths) shown by the official registrations is added to the 1926 population, the 1937 total becomes not 162 but 168 million."

The primary factor for why the population did not conform to the projection was due to the decreased number of births. As the chart posted by a user above shows, the number of registered births in USSR were as follows: 1927: 6,197,277; 1928: 6,192,347; 1929: 5,993,795; 1930: 5,684,412; 1931: 5,270,120; 1932: 4,828,318; 1933: 3,776,503. Thus, in the pre-famine period of 1927-1931, there were 2.1 million projected births that never took place. During the famine of 1932-1933, an additional 3.7 million projected births never took place. Overall, 5.8 million projected births in the USSR from 1927-1933 never occurred.

The weak argument of "it doesn't show deaths in resettlement camps" in trying to discredit the chart posted by an above user is unacceptable. This topic is about famine in Ukraine, not the hardships endured by those in labour camps and other areas of deprived liberty. Deaths in camps, a rather insignificant factor, numbered at approximately 300,000 during the famine years according to Wheatcroft & Davies's "Years of Hunger"

—Zvesda

Another try
Let's see if this works:

I posted the whole Introductin here. I suggest to leave untouched left panel and start editing right one. Please explain your opinion below in a constructive way, support with valid arguments. --Bryndza 17:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Too long. Let's cut off the intro after the etymology. The rest belongs into the body. Dietwald 19:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Bryndza, I don't agree with the "proposed version". It skips another common name of the Holodomor from the first paragraph. Besides, it doesn't add in any way to the quality of the article. Simply reshufles important facts away from the intro. The problem is, there is no point of editing the text before the editors agree on the common principles. The principle "it's not a genocide so we must erase that word" doesn't suit me. Together with 26 countries. Sorry to be "blunt", but we need to come up with a common view before starting cutting the intro.--Andrew Alexander 01:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The principle is that since it is not universally agreed to be Genocide, unlike the Holocaust, the debate on whether Holodomor was a Genocide belongs to a chapter the article already has. Calling it a Genocide or claiming that it was not in the intro is not NPOV. So many people are tired of repeating this to you. If you persist, it means the dispute between you and others is unresolvable in the usual ways. Mediations and RfC are useless here because we already have more attemtps of people commenting and mediating than any of the formal requests would generate. I see the arbitration as the solution and whatever I think about Andrew Alexander (or whatever he thinks and says or said of me) is irrelevant to taking this to ArbCom. We need to get this article moving. As for our personal differences, we can live with them. --Irpen 03:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * A common name doesn't have to be universally agreed on. It exists so it has to be mentioned within the first paragraph.--Andrew Alexander 04:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Andrew, based on your 'logic', another common name for "Andrew" is "troll". Here is a google search that proofs that. So, You agree that troll is a common name for Alexander?


 * And Here are 1,230,000,000 (1.23 billion) pages which -- according to your logic -- proof that the ukrainian famine never took place. And hereare 305 million pages that show -- according to YOUR logic -- that hoax is a common name for the Ukrainian famine. I AM USING THE SAME SEARCH LOGIC FOR 'PROVING' THIS THAT YOU USE TO PROVE YOUR POINT. Just for the record. Dietwald 08:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Andrew, this table is FOR EDITING. All you said below the table has to be in it (in proposed version). This is a sand box. All other users are to correct you/me/themselves in there. Is it so difficult? Why do we have to go into personal accusations again (Dietwald)? Correct currently proposed version, state your arguments below in short and clear form (even if you have to repeat them) and wait till others will say a word. One key point in this discussion is to try to understand other party. This is also invitation to Irpen to edit the text. I want to see if he really wants to remove the word "genocide". I have doubts. I do not think that anyone here opposes to this word. There is just a problem with emphasis on it. If we present both views in balanced way we can move forward. If not - Arbitration is worst case and my opinion on it is firm.--Bryndza 18:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Since there have been no further edits to the proposed entry, could we maybe move forward now and either unprotect the page, incorporate the current version, and then continue working on the text? Should the edit war resume at that time, we really should move to arbitration. It's a shame the article is dying.Dietwald 13:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration Now
Lest I get myself suckered into even more personal attacks, I will refrain from commenting on anything AA is going to say here in the future and instead support wholeheartedly an arbitration process to be started.

At the same time, I wish to apologize to the wiki community for my most recent outbursts against AA. While I stand by my assessment of him, they were inappropriate. Dietwald 12:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Feels more like point-counterpoint than a coherent article.
While I think the historical record proves that soviet grain requisitions and the decision not to engage in any famine relief contributed greatly to the number of deaths, there is another side to it. Ukranian peasantry strongly resisted collectivization, and there are many personal and official accounts of ukranians slaughtering their herds and not planting or sowing any crops as a form of resistance. The obvious result of these actions were famine. The soviet authorities (stalin) chose to punish the ukranians for thier behavior, and so refused to aid them. My understanding is that the problem was twofold. The soviets requisitioned some grain, but there wasn't enough being grown there to begin with, so the requisitions were particularly devestating. The article only mentions that in one sentence, when it may very well have been largely or completely responsible for the famine. Collectivization was not a disaster because it was inherently flawed. It was less efficient than the individual plots in most cases, but had the peasantry cooperated they would have produced enough food both for soviet export and for personal consumption. The article starts out very POV and gets less so as it continues, still, it would be preferable to make it NPOV throughout.

Other notes: Was it genocide? I think that's a bad question. A better question is: Was it systematic cultural reppression? I think the answer to that is pretty clearly yes. The intention was not to destroy the ukranian people but to destroy their culture. Cultural Genocide? maybe. Genocide? No.

--Irongaard 04:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Irongaard has a point. I think the resistance activities of the Ukrainian peasantry should be mentioned. It's mentioned, for example, in the PBS Series "People's Century", and Robert Conquest provides the voice-over, if I am not entirely mistaken. This aspect was included a long time ago, but I think it was actually AA who removed it pretty quickly. I have not bothered about this aspect anymore, though that aspect should be included. Yes, this will start another war here, but I think we should at least discuss this aspect. Dietwald 07:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ooops, forgot one thing: whether collectivization was inherently flawed or not depends on what one refers to. IT was intended to make agriculture more productive. It did not. It was intended to create more equality among peasants. That it did. So, from an agronomic point of view, it was flawed, from a political point of view, it eventually was a resounding success. Dietwald 07:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I find it hard to beleive and I would like to see the refs that would point out that the resistance to collectivization was particularly fierce in UA, compared to other parts of the USSR and, if it is indeed the case, that scholars make a connection between the resistance and the famine. Voiceover by Conquest, a respected scholar no doubt, is a reference all right, but since Dietwald is not entirely sure, I request some assurances. The connection between resistance and famine contradicts my grandma's stories she told me and her family were not kulaks, far from it. Despite being of the poor peasant stock, they barely survived the famine and many in their village died: "kulaks" and not. In general, the stories of how tough and resistive Ukraine was for Bolsheviks are greatly exagerated. Ukraine was the place of the country were Bolsheviks had the least problems, compared to many other places. --Irpen 09:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Irpen, the reason why I have not pressed this point is because I am not as sure about this aspect. I would like to see it discuss here on the talk pages, though. I am sorry to be unable to provide more detail on this, but I will try to find some time to find some more information on this some time in the future. It's not that important right now. Dietwald 16:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I have partial data from Ukraine. The Germans were relatively willing, the Ukrainians in the middle, the Poles the most anti. The result was that the Polish authonomy was cancelled and the majority deported to Kasakhstan. The biggest peasant revolt I know was in Tambov region, which is in Russia. Xx236 11:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy now, (I realize that usually graces the beginning of the defense of a weak argument, but bear with me) but in the next few days I'll try to marshall together some sources discussing ukranian resistance. I have a few decent documentaries and books on the subject, I'll go through them for specifics. Irpen, I think the collectivization resistance in ukraine was particularly fierce because it was coincided with stalin's program of cultural reppression of the Ukraine. Additionally, Ukranian peasantry had little history with farming collectives, having always prefered individual plots, while many of the other areas of the soviet union had previously had farming collectives. Sources are forthcoming, I promise. Perhaps a side note: I was curious as to how reputable Alec Nove is considered in these parts. I've read a good number of his books on the soviet economy, and they seem to synch up decently with declassified russian documents and CIA reports on the soviet union, but I may be missing something. --Irongaard 03:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Irongaard - Stalin's policy toward Ukrainians was changing, there were periods, when Ukrainians were supported against minorities. Divide et impera. If you have data about Ukrainian resistance 1921-1938 you may put it into History of Ukraine and/or History of the SU. Russian Wiki contains many data and links about the Holodomor. At this moment I tend to believe that Stalin fought rather peasants than Ukrainians, but I may be wrong. The main goal was industrialisation, the peasants were to finance it. Xx236 10:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Apologies
I intend to resume work on this article, picking up where we all left off in the next few days. I all of sudden became much busier at work than I'd expected a couple of weeks ago. My apologies especially extend to Irpen and Dietwald, who were closely collaborating with me here a couple of weeks ago. 172 | Talk 19:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Glad to see some people are still alive. Felt like being in that joke about the last man on earth who is in a room when suddenly somebody knocks on the door... gg. Ok, let's move forward? Unprotect, put in the current version, and move to arbitration should the Usual Suspects move straight to edit-war to a version ante-status-quo? Dietwald 13:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Holodomor
Fourth paragraph down in this section. The word should be drought not draught. Page is currently protected so I can't correct this. -- Krash (Talk) 18:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Movement, Please!
Is there any chance this article is ever going to be revived? Has unreason finally defeated reason? How wonderful -- Stalin would enjoy this. 11:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Funny how some people can only get involved to destroy, but can't be bothered to move a finger to actually build this page. Thanks, Andrew, for contributing to yet another defeat of Stalin's victims. Hope you feel proud. Dietwald 12:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The lead
Very well done, Irpen. Bravo! --Lysytalk 22:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you! That's a music to my ears. I think a small modification to the lead is needed to say that estimation of loss of life vary widely, but all reasonable estimates are in the millions range. Just could not come up with the good phrase off hand. Will think about it when I have time or anyone is welcome to add that. Other than that, I suggest we freese the intro and return to the article itself. --Irpen 22:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I added the info about the millions of casualties to the lead. I think we can now go back to the rest of the article. --Irpen 04:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Two same troublemakers resort to large scale reverts undoing the work of multiple people. What is this if not trolling? --Irpen 00:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Protected
The article is protected again. Please note that edit wars do not produce 'any results besides getting everybody involved stressed out. Discuss the desired outcome, negotiate a version that all can live with, and when you are ready to resume editing, place a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP. If you need other editors to make comments on the dispute, place a request for comments. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 03:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is INSANE. Somebody, PLEASE, get the arbitration thing going. I am only online twice a week or so, thus I am hard-pressed to do more than what I have done in the past. Irpen, like your intro. Dietwald 14:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting
I don't see what good is coming from stopping anyone editing this article. I'm unprotecting, and will watch very closely. Be warned that I'm generally intolerant of edit warring in circumstances like this. --Tony Sidaway 01:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I will continue to watch the page as well. Please discuss here before you revert any edit that is not clearly defined as vandalism under our policies, especially any reverts to a version that existed prior to this round of protection. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Photos
There are a number of very strong photos in the article but they are very small and are almost unreadable (esp photos #2 and #3). Maybe we could zoom them out to the size 250..300? The article is long and we can accommodate it without problems. Also there seems to be a revert war over which photo to put to the top. I do not see this be a matter of principle, so maybe just have a straw poll? I, personally would prefer the photo #2, with the city folks walking through the dying people, but it does not seem to be an option for the other editors abakharev 06:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * IMO, the child swollen from hunger symbolizes the famine best and is a very emotional image fitting this tragedy. I would prefer that one on top. Also, the one with three corpses lacks the source to begin with. --Irpen 06:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Complaint on WP:AN/I
Andrew posted a request for assistance on the admin incident noticeboard (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=43297483&oldid=43295812]). I see fomr the above that there has been sustained edit warring over this article. Without weighing the merits of the competing claims, I looked at the most recent revert by Andrew and it seems to me that Irpen's version is stated in more neutral terms, and his tone is closer to that of an encyclopaedia - Andrew's reads to me as being more polemical. I repeat, though, that this is just the tone and presentation - good intentions and references are evident on both sides.

If Andrew has additional facts (which I think he does) these can surely be worked in in similarly neutral terms. Please do not edit war, I am sure that with a bit of reasoned debate a suitable compromise can be reached. It does not look to me as if there is any fundamental dispute as to the nature, cause and seriousness of the famine - you seem to me to be in violent agreement! Just zis Guy you know? 16:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, let's go sentence by sentence of what was erased. First you erased a commonly known term from the first paragraph. There is a long debate on this page by the people who refuse to accept it. However, the term passes the definition of a "common term" according to Wikipedia standards (please read WP:NC - "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?" Is this not neutral?). Second, you erased the sentence "The Holodomor was caused by the seizure of the 1932 crop by the Soviet authorities." It is referenced and seems neutral. Then you erased a referenced sentence "At the height of the famine, while confiscating crops from the starving peasants, the USSR exported 1.70 million tons of grain in 1932 and 1.84 million tons in 1933 (close to a quarter of a ton per each victim in each year)." Again, I don't see anything not neutral here, please correct. Then you deleted "The Soviet authorities also banned travel out of the famine affected areas under the pretext that people travelling for food spread "anti-kolkhoz agitation"." Is this not neutral? If not, please explain why in detail. Then you erased two paragraphs: "The death toll of the famine is estimated at between five and ten million people. The rationale behind the famine as well as the exact number of casualties is unknown because the pertinent archives of the NKVD (later KGB, and today FSB) remain closed to historians in general." and "Ukrainian émigré historians were among the first to argue that the famine was an act of genocide against the Ukrainian people. Today, the governments or parliaments of 26 countries recognized the 1932-1933 famine as an act of genocide. Among them Ukraine, Argentina, Australia, Canada, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, United States, and Vatican City. The fourth Saturday of November is the official day of commemoration of the Holodomor victims in Ukraine. Still the Holodomor remains a politically charged topic for many parties, especially in Russia. Some Russian authors continue claiming that the Holodomor was not an act of genocide but a "mere famine"." Both paragraphs are well supported by references. For instance, each country added to the list above was supported by a reference within edit comments. I can't find anything not neutral about this text. Again, my opinion could be subjective, so I need your explanation of why you deleted this material.--Andrew Alexander 02:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Alexander, one of the problems is with your attitude of throwing everything into the lead. This is your common approach dispayed in many articles. If you have a thing or two to add, you go straight to the intro to make your point said most voicefully. I've elaborated on this style of yours many times before, incluidng on this very page. That you persist with the discussion until you get a the result you want is nothing new either. I tried to talk to you many times in the past and so did others. Your tactic seem to drain everyone into tiredome by pestering and then claim that your points are "ignored" and launch a complaint against your opponents accusing them in conspiracy. Also, I recently reviewed the History of UA Britannica article that you used as a ref here. You subtly misrepresented what is said there when rewriting it for this article and I will get to editing that when I have time. More is said above and in the archives if the visitors to this page have time to read it all. I would very much appreciate the third party's neutral look. --Irpen 03:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not erase any particular sentences, I looked at two versions of the opening paragraph and took the view that one of them was stated in more neutral terms. Andrew's version gave the appearance of advocacy.  Like I said, I make no judgment in respect of the factual accuracy or otherwise of the content, I just felt that Irpen's version represented a better starting point for building a consensus view since the purpose of this article is to document the facts, not to assert a particular political slant on them or to promote a particular agenda.  Revert warring is ridiculous and sterile.  Complaining on the Admin noticeboard when you don't get your way is similarly unproductive and amounts to WP:POINT - article content issues are best sorted by consensus, failing that there are various processes like mediation, article RfC, article improvement drive and so on.  Andrew, you are right that your view of your own work may not be neutral.  So, see if you and the other editors can now work together to include the verifiable facts in language which is as dispassionate as Irpen's that will be great. Just zis Guy you know? 09:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Just zis Guy you know, you did erase quite a few sentences by your edit. I asked you what was not neutral in those sentences. Instead of answering the question, you ask me to "be neutral". Would you like me to stay away from editing this article? I am ready to do this. I have added 90% of the facts to this article for the last half a year. You come in, erase, then lecture me on neutrality without answering simple questions. Have it your way. I am out.--Andrew Alexander 17:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Now go back and actually read what I wrote: I did not erase any specific sentences, I compared the tone of two versions of the introduction and I am of the strong opinion that Irpen's version, irrespective of the merits or otherwise of individual facts, is more encyclopaedic in tone: your version reads like advocacy. So Irpen's is a better version form which to build a great article.  I have nothign against including verifiable facts (althjough I note that some of what you are trying to promote to the lead is actually stated lower down anyway), what I do not like is coming to an article and having the feeling right away that it is trying to recruit me to right some injustice.  Just zis Guy you know? 08:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Alexander, this cheating of yours is appalling. Right after you said this above, you again reverted to non-encyclopedic intro. Moreover, you pasted there two pieces from the sections that followed (word for word) and added a ref (Bilinsky) which actually doesn't say what you claim. The Bilinsky's article is very interesting and I read it from top to bottom. While I think author makes several overstretched conclusions, this is a very serious study. However, while the author hints what Lemkin might have said (an unusual stretch in a serious academic work) you go one step further by putting in Lemkin mouth the thing that he didn't say (or at least it is not clear from the ref you added whether he said that). As such, your edit is a simple revert to the intro preferred by you but only worse because you pasted two pieces in the intro from further down in the article and made added a false statement not supported by your ref. The useful thing you did, was bringing up Lemkin an Bilinsky's work, but they don't belong to intro. What I think needs done, is adding the info on Lemkin and an extra ref to the "Was H a Genocide" section. Also, the revert wars mess up the numbering of the ref section. To address the problem created by your latest edit and the edit warring in general, three steps need to be taken. Of these, I will do as much as I can today. I am asking others for help. This is a tedious work. Finally, I am glad you placed the note at WP:AN/I. it exposed the article and behavior of its participants to a wider audience. The responses it generated were what I would have expected. --Irpen 06:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Your another bad faith edit needs reverted.
 * 2) refs need to be reformatted to the inline format where the numbers are generated automatically.
 * 3) Ref to Bilinsky and info on Lemkin needs added to the appropriate section and the ref list.

Thank You
Thank you, whoever reopened the article. And thanks to the others for staying on the ball. The intro right now is really nice, I think. Everything in there, even references to the more controversial words. Maybe we can try to to leave the intro as it is now, though here and there flow COULD be slightly improved, and move on to the article? There is a lot of work that needs to be done there, lot's of sloppy wording and structural problems.Dietwald 09:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why I went back to it. It states the case baldly, and is the more powerful for that: the reader is presented with the stark reality without the suspicion that somebody is trying to recruit them to a campaign.  It is a very strong opening, in my view, and if the rest of the article can be brought up to that standard we could easily be looking at a featured article candidate - FAs are often thorough and scholarly treatments of subjects which are somewhat off the beaten track.  Just zis Guy you know? 12:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks TzG! I am very happy that the intro I rewrote gets such responses from several editors. Too bad Andrew Alexander keeps reverting it. I will try to address the problem again (see my entry above). I will need all the help I could get. Besides, the Cultural purge material is presented in a grossly POV way, but this I know how to handle now once I read the sources A. A. claims to have used. I will get to that in a due time. The useful thing is that I am also going to learn the inline refs that was a mumbo jumbo for me until today. --Irpen 06:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Dubious Material
This page is in dire need of drastic restructuring. It seems that much of the material within this article was merely plucked out from the sensationalistic "Black Book of Communism". This is supposed to be an independent online encyclopedia, not an outlet for imperialist propaganda.

"By the end of 1933, between five and ten million people had starved to death or had otherwise died unnaturally in Russia and Ukraine."

Pardon my skepticism, but where is the evidence for this alleged death toll? Are these merely outdated estimations from rabidly anti-Communist Westerners to the effect of Robert Conquest who wrote speeches for Margaret Thatcher? I thought there was a non-POV policy at this website.

RGAE files show that in Ukraine there was a total of 1.54 million excess deaths in 1932-1933. Source: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/archive/hunger/deaths.xls

Keep in mind that the above data of births and deaths is a revision that occurred in 1934, one year after the famine.

According to RGAE 1562/329/107: (1933) 1933: Current registration of deaths in Ukraine: 1,309,000

According to RGAE 1562/329/108, 6 (mid-1934) 1933:Revised registration of deaths in Ukraine: 1,909,000

This is all derived from Davies and Wheatcroft's "Years of Hunger" in the final chapter.

"The exact number of the victims remains unknown; the Soviet Union long denied that the famine had ever existed, and the NKVD (and later KGB) archives on the Holodomor period have never been fully disclosed."

Why would the NKVD deal with agriculture and the the demographics of USSR? The purpose of this agency was to eliminate internal counter-revolutionary threats to the power of the Soviets. To repeat, RGAE archives show that there were 1.54 million excess deaths in Ukraine from 1932-1933.

"even the official Soviet statistics show a decrease of roughly four million people in the population of Ukraine between 1927 and 1932."

Now this here is a lie. If you'd take a look at the chart that I've linked, Ukraine's population went from 28.9 million in 1926 to 28.6 million in 1931 to 28.4 million in 1934 to 28.3 million in the 1937 census.

"Taking an estimate of natural population growth of one to two percent, the calculated loss of population in Ukraine was over ten million during these years."

This is inaccurate because Ukraine's population declined by about 50,000 annually even from the famine-free period of 1926-1931.

"The premeditation of the mass murder can also be judged from the official Soviet figures of grain exports. The USSR exported 1.70 million tons of grain in 1932 and 1.84 million tons in 1933 ([15]), almost a quarter of a ton in each year per each dead in the Holodomor."

Address this one: how could there have been a premeditation of mass murder in Ukraine when according to pg. 214 of "Years of Hunger" by Davies and Wheatcroft states that between Feb. and July 1933, no less than Politburo decisions and Sovnarkom decrees authorised 320,000 tons of grain for food to be issued to famine-stricken areas? Plus, it must be taken into perspective that the export of grains during 1932-1933 was a mere fraction of the level of previous years. The following manifests this fact: (exports of thousand tons of grain)

1930: 5832 1931: 4786 1932: 1441 1933: 2319

"The Soviet authorities made sure to prevent the starving Ukrainians from traveling to areas where food was more available."

Actually, the Soviet authorities made sure to assist starving Ukrainians as I showed in my above refutation.

Zvesda
 * Zvezda, all sources are in the article. Feel free to check them. Actually, the article is much better sourced than most WP articles on the controversial subjects. --Irpen 23:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Red Star, your pov has been soundly refuted here, and in the literature on the topic. This is an encyclopdia, not an outlet for Stalin apologists. Dietwald 06:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Way to dodge the issues by copping out by baselessly stating "your pov has been soundly refuted here" when in fact there have seldom been responses to my various posts at this section. You have just proved with the use of the phrase "Stalin apologist" that you're just some mindless western stooge for Rockefeller, Ford, George Soros, and other imperialist oligarchs.

I've taken a look at the sources and they are from credible and are ridden with vehement anti-Soviet agendas which is what is expected from the 1980s U.S Congress pressured by Ukrainian Nationalists. Citing the Vatican here is inappropriate as well given that this the Catholic Church was supportive of the Nazis and Fascismi. Robert Conquest the paradigmatical Neo-Con who wrote speeches for Margaret Thatcher is another POV selection.

Zvesda


 * Zvesda, I have some excellent sources that are credible and not ridden with vehement naturalist agendas that show evolution did not take place. I also have some even better sources not ridden with Zionist propganda showing the Holocaust never happened. And some more excellent sources not ridden with anti-Turkish propaganda that there was never such a thing as the Armenian genocide... The reason nobody responds to you is because few people have the nerve to talk to deal with this kind of stuff -- Holocaust denial, Holodomor denial, Armenian genocide denial, or creationism. It's pointless. I am just kind enough to point it out to you. Dietwald 12:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Trying to compare evolution, a component of biology to the the "Holodomor", which is a historical event is inappropriate. Comparing Stephen Wheatcroft and R.W Davies to "Holocaust deniers" is defamotory. You look truly moronic because the scholars that I've cited can hardly be considered to be "Stalin apologist" given that Robert Conquest is cited in their bibliography. All of the material of the work in concern is derived from Russia's archives. You and your echoing of free-speech stifling euphemisms such as "Holocaust denial" are an absolute disgrace to academia. You and your clique still have yet to refute anything I've contributed to this section. Zvesda


 * I don't care how I look to you, and I don't need to refute you. I will just ignore you henceforth, unless you become disruptive. Dietwald 06:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Intro
I think leaving detailed discussion on what's genocide out of the intro is appropriate. I would suggest current editors to agree on a truce on the intro, and leave it as it is -- even the grammar looks rather good now. Let's move on to the other sections. That would be nice. Dietwald 06:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree but I am not clear which of these two variants of intro is better you think. I would have preferred the first one since the particular definition of Genocide in Holodomor context rather belongs to the "Was H a Genocide?" section than the intro. The second variant with my addition is also correct but is simply a worse style for an article, because the intro should not go into excessive detail. I added it only in an attempt to accommodate those who insist on elaboration of the Holodomor being a Genocide in the intro and this is the most I would agree to. I don't mind undoing my addition. Feel free to restore a briefer intro. But if the compromise will help to keep the intro free of radical changes into an A. A.'s variant, I am fine to live with it for now. Either way, it is up to others. We indeed have some good refs now and we can proceed into expanding the article itself. I found a very useful map and added it to the article.


 * What I am also conserned now is the "Elimination of Ukrainian cultural elite" section, especially in its current non-encyclopedic form: "The Famine fit well into..." I've looked at several review works, check two History of UA books and reread recently the History of UA article in EB. Nowhere the purge is treated as part of Holodomor. It is presented as a possibly related to it event but Holodomor is rather considered more connected with industrialization and collectivization policies, while the purge is connected to reversal of korenization and the campaign against "nationalist deviations" from the party line. As such, the article should not make an impression that there is a universal opinion that these two were coordinated events with the goal to exterminate the Ukrainians as a nation. This is a valid POV that some subscribe to, but this is not a universal mainstream opinion.


 * However, yet again, if mere touching of this section will spark an edit war, I would rather leave it as is, just with the "POV-Section" tag. Constructive opinions would be appreciated. --Irpen 07:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue of genocide is one of the most important in the article, and leaving it out of the inroduction is wrong. The modification I have proposed for the intro addresses it. Comparing the two editions proposed by Irpen, I think the current version is better with one correction: "tragedy" is more appropriate word than "catastrophe" in describing what's happened.


 * Genocide is a problematic term. It implies a policy deliberately targeted at destroying a particular population; as far as I can tell form the article the target was not ethnic but geographical.  I could be worng in this.  But if you look at other forms of gen ocide, the ethnic group was targeted wherever they were found; I see no evidence of ethnic Ukraininans being targeted elsewhere, and some evidence that multiple ethnic groups were affected here.  Again, I could be wrong. Just zis Guy you know? 08:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group
 * (See Genocide)--AndriyK 13:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's as I understand it. The intent must be be deliberately based on ethinicity, not just a policy which happens to fall disproportionately on one region or group. Just zis Guy you know? 13:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If a region is populated by a certain national (ethnic, racial) group and one destroys the population in this region, then one destroys this national (ethnic, racial) group and therefore commits a genocide according to the definition.
 * The regime organized the famine in certain regions populated by Ukrainians, Kazakhs and some ethnic (sub)groups of Russians (Cossacks) and did not organized it, for instance, in central Russia.--AndriyK 17:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think a "national catastrophe" is a more proper term because it is stronger. But you can use "tragedy". I don't mind. --Irpen 09:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

archiving
may be a good idea again? If someone does it, please remove this section, since it adds nothing to the discussion as such...Dietwald 12:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Drastic Changes Needed
This article needs to be drastically altered. Despite the fact that famine struck several regions of USSR urban and rural alike, we are treated to a bourgeois Ukrainian nationalist perspective that concocts a little fairy tale called the "Holodomor" on par with the Zionists' Holocult. There is not even a distinct Ukrainian culture. "Ukrainians" are biologically identical to Russians and just about linguistically identical as well. What must also be taken into consideration is that a fair portion of the Soviet leadership consisted of non-Russians including the Georgians Stalin and Ordzhonikidze, the Latvian Yan Rudzutak, the Armenian Anastas Mikoyan, and the Jews Lazar Kaganovitch and Yakov Yakovlev. To accuse these of Great Russian chauvinism is absurd. This article needs to titled something along the lines of "1932-1933 Soviet Famine". It is utterly insolent to develop a cult of the so-called Ukrainian people stating that they suffered more than other nationalities.

No mention is made of the fact that the 1931 and 1932 harvests were 12 million tons below the 1930 level. Factors that contributed to these were poor weather and a decline in livestock that obstructed cultivation. The famine ended because of the excellent 1933 harvest. The notion that Soviet policy caused famine through grain collections is a sensationalised myth. Grain collections never exceeded 25% of the total production. Plus, no less than 30 or so decrees set forth allocations of food to famine-stricken regions during Feb-July 1933 alone. There is no evidence whatsoever that the death toll was at all close to the 7 million alleged in this article. Material from Russia's archives shows that for the whole USSR, there were 2.2 million deaths above normal during 1932-1933. [Source]. At the bottom, the source is listed as RGAE 1562/308/108. RGAE stands for Russian State Archive of Economy. I will post a major revision of this later. Dynamite
 * A holocaust denier cum Stalin apologist? That's a rare kind of bird. Neat collection we are having here on Wikipedia. Dietwald 12:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Here we go with these infantile techniques of calling someone a "Stalin apologist" simply for pointing out the bloated propaganda and the blatant omission of facts on an encyclopedic entry. Frankly, the only apologist here is you with your "Ukrainian" Nationalist sympathy and your worship of diabolical western propaganda. Why don't you actually try refuting what I've posted instead of trying to dodge the issue by labelling me a "Stalin apologist" as if someone who favours Stalin is a sort of devil's advocate.

Dynamite
 * Accusing me of Ukrainian nationalist sympathies made my day. Precious. Andrew Alexander probably has a few comments on that one... Otherwise, I just repeat to Red Dynamite what I have already said to Red Star: Wikipedia is not a haven for Stalin apologists, Holocaust Deniers, and other historical frauds. It's an encyclopedia, and I am glad I am not the only one trying to keep this place clean. Dietwald 08:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess that is to say that wikipedia is a haven for Nazi-minded anti-Communist activists e.g Lech Walesa, Solzhenitsyn, and all the "foundations" in America operated by the likes of George Soros. This page is not even about the "Holocaust" and I have never altered any material relating to the "Holocaust" because any reports of the truth will just get sabotaged by ZionNazis. So spare us of these demagogic cries of "Holocaust denier".

You are labelling me a "Stalin apologist" even though nowhere did I deny the occurrence of famine. My reporting of material directly from Russian archives that 1.5 million died in Ukraine manifests that I am not trying to cover-up anything. You're just frustrated because every single line in this article has been refuted by users above such as Zvesda. I will reiterate why this article is bloated with propaganda:

-There is not a "Ukrainian" culture. They are just about identical to Great Russians. -The Sovet leadership included several non-Russians including the Latvians Yan Rudzutak, Karl Bauman, and Robert Eikhe; Ukrainians Vlas Chubar and Grigori Petrovski; Poles Stanislaw Kosior and Vyacheslav Menzhinski; Armenian Anastas Mikoyan; Jews Lazar Kaganovitch and Yakov Yakovlev; Georgian Grigory Ordzhonikidze and of course Stalin. To accuse these of Russian chauvinism and to connote that Russians resent their close to indistinguishable Ukrainian neighbours is absurd. -The unsatisfactory harvests of 1931 and 1932 were what brought about famine. Contrary to Robert Conquest's lies, it is a fact that the 1932 harvest was worse than the previous year. It has been proven that agricultural production was not exclusively caused by "artificial" factors. -There was never an excess collection of agricultural products. Grain collections in 1931 and 1932 amounted to about 33% of total production. The suggestion that every husk of grain can be confiscated could not convince a 10 year old. -The Sovet regime assisted famine-stricken regions. In Feb-July 1933 during which 95% of all famine deaths occurred, no less then 35 decrees by the Politburo and Sovnarkom set forth allocations of grain for food. Again, the assertion that famine was deliberately constructed is a lie.

Now, please tell me why I am wrong instead resorting to silly labels intended to be attacks such as "Holocaust denier".

Dynamite

Winners wright History, winners gennerally falsify history..... After the fall of the Soviet Union, the demonization process of that Nation,it's legacy, it's leaders, it's simpathysers and even it's people as increased exponentially. The primary objective is one and one alone, the whitewashing of Natzi-Fascism. The entire story of the engineered famine of Ukraine is false. It is based on old Nazi-German propaganda, that was revived at the end of the cold war for dirty political purposes, by the american radical right wing. The perpetuators of these lies are the same people that have invaded Iraque and Afghanistan to depose previous criminal allies of them killing hundreds of thousands of civilians (of course american figures are fare more conservative). It saddens me that as time goes by, and wikipedia gains international relevance, it becomes more and more a medium for the perpetuation of comunist demonization (and fascism whitewashing) and thus an instrument for the demobilization of all honest, hard working, politicied workers (as opposed to exploiters=capitalists). In fact, the long term objectives of this propaganda are not just the rehabilitation of Fascism, which as time goes by will increasinglly become the Capital's preferred solution for the imposition of their power over the rest of Mankind, as the internal entropy of final capitalism increases in the same measure that macro-economic growth stagnates. An important goal is also the demoralization of workers, leading them to the false conclusion that a diiferent world is impossible, that society will alway be exploitation based and that parasitical scum will always rule us... IT IS NOT TRUE... THIS ARTICLE IS MOSTLLY A "NAZI-FASCIST ORIGINATED" LIE

I just hope that the day never comes, where when editing wikipedia we have to salute using "zieg heil"...

User:HelderM


 * And I thought my spelling was bad. Dietwald 10:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you have anything to add to the debate other than irrelevant personal abuse, Dietwald? I too have read this article and am extremely unhappy at the historical fabrications being passed off as "history".


 * There is the stink of fascistic historical revisionism in the invention of the so-called "holodomor", a name that is not only misleading but also insulting to the memory of all (and I mean ALL) the victims of the Nazi murderers. The same Nazi murderers who invented this famine myth in the first place. Ecadre

Estimated Death Toll
By the end of 1933, between five and ten million people had starved to death or had otherwise died unnaturally in Russia and Ukraine.

May I ask where the evidence is for this controversial claim? There is not a single archival document that I know that supports this. This death toll does not correspond to demographic reports from Russia's archives, specifically in RGAE 1562/308/108, excess deaths in Ukraine amounted to a mere 1.54 million in Ukraine alone. This article also makes a false statement about archives in concern to famine being closed manifested by how I just reported from Russia's archives that 1.54 million died in Ukraine. Please respond to this post instead of dodging, ignoring, and childishly insulting with of "Go play with the Zundel" similar concerns above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:204.102.211.115 (talk • contribs)

Vandalism?
I guess we are dealing with vandalism at this point. I suspect "Zvesda", "Dynamite", and the anonymous apologist vandal are identical and are trying to get this page ruined with constant reverts. Time for 3RR???

Dietwald 09:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

How could there have been vandalism if the page is perfectly factual? You do not make any sense and the use of the term "apologist" is POV.


 * Since this is the talk pages, I can be as POV as I want to be. The 'edit' you and your trolling incarnations have made are wholesale deletion of existing cooperative work of many editors over many, many months. Vandalism can occur regardless of content. And the so-called 'facts' of the provided edits are highly dubious and not just border on apologism, but actually are apologism. Just look at the discussion on kulaks. Pure unadulterated Bolshevik propaganda erunda. The anonymous troll who made the last changes so conveniently identical to the semi-anonymous user 'zvesda' has been blocked for 3RR violation. I will do everything I can within my limited time I can spend on wiki to protect this now rather decent page against Stalin apologists, Ukrainian nationalists, and other creative historians. Dietwald 08:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

How is it apologetic to assert that 1.8 million kulaks were relocated? How is it apologetic to assert that a documented 2.5 million died? Perplexing how you can't provide an answer to this question and similar ones above. Your name-calling to the effect of "troll" demonstrates your lack of intelligence.

History is supposed to be based on facts and not demagoguery. We have clarified that almost every single point in this article from alleged excess exports to the death toll are completely unsupported by numerous archival documents. Not a single mainstream source from Encarta to Brittanica to both of my 10th grade history textbooks use the term "Holodomor" or accuse the Sovet regime of implementing a man-made famine. It is a fact that as described by J.Arch Getty, the theory of famine-terror-genocide is not supported by MOST scholars. Amongst those scholars that have refuted the load of CIA propaganda here are Stephen Wheatcroft, R.W Davies, Mark Harrison, and Mark Tauger.


 * Hm. Interesting. Do you use the 'we' in Plural majestix or as an accidental admission that you have a little Stalin apology posse going on that is refusing to engage in real debate, and instead tries to push its creative history through hit-and-run editing vandalism? The point is, you have provided nothing that has not been weighed and found wanting before. You even go so far as to quote that unbearable hack Tottle as a real source, and almost everything you have written in your little 'tract' was taken from wheatcroft, Getty, and Davies -- rather marginal people on the issue, and clearly not authoritative. What really makes your article version apologist is the uabashed repetition of Stalinist hate propaganda language (see you definition of kulaks and the presentation of it as seemingle reflecting reality. The word kulak was a hate propaganda word of the vilest sort, akin to the concept of the Untermensch employed by the Nazis. To use it in the manner you do simply puts you in the same corner). I just trust that your attempts to whitewash Stalin will be met with about as much success as the attemptes of Zundel and Co. to whitewash Hitler. That is: none. You denialists, apologists, and other creative historians do not have a legitimate point of view. It's not even POV -- it's simply not even a worthwhile point of view. Fortunately, the civilized world no longer accepts racist hate speech. Unfortunately, marxist hate speech is still acceptable among the fashionable chattering classes. Dietwald 19:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * PS: you used the word 'troll', not I. I will not say anything, however, that would indicate my disagreement with anybody who would describe you as such. Besides, dear 204.102.211.115, you have already one 3RR violation going against you. So, I guess... Well, what more does one need to say...? Dietwald 19:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * PPS: just discovered this: [] ... Look at the signature.... Nuff said... Dietwald 19:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Wheatcroft, Getty, and Davies are amongst the finest scholars of Sovet history. Your attempt to trivilize them demonstrates that you have an agenda to push. They are out simply to report the facts without taking your sort of freaky Neo-Con perspective. Your assertion that I quoted Tottle as a real source is completely false. I did not derive material from his completely valid work that you clearly have not read. You're characterization of the term "kulak" as 'Stalinist hate propaganda language' is yet another misconception. The term has been part of the Russian vocabulary for quite some time and it did not originate in the Bolshevik era. A kulak is a wealthy peasant that hires and labor. The only hate propaganda being transmitted is by you and other pathetic right-wingers heard on AM Talk Radio that use the term "Nazi" as a slur and make incendiary comparisons between Stalin and Hitler. Trying to associate the identification of a social class to the identification of a perceived racial group is flawed and is totally fallacious. You have yet again called me a "denialist" even though in the version I submitted, the death toll of the famine is explcitly stated. If I'm a "denialist" because I have not accepted the sensational, discredited rubbish that you and your ilk endorse, then from my perspective you're a denialist for trying to cover up the truth. Your accusation of "hate speech" is extremely shallow and is devoid of any validity. Dekulakization was not even related famine, again demonstrating your complete lack of the subject.

''Fortunately, the civilized world no longer accepts racist hate speech. Unfortunately, marxist hate speech is still acceptable among the fashionable chattering classes.''

Spoken like a true Neo-Con: a crypto-fascist who takes offense from those who are hostile to the ruling class while simultaneously pretending to oppose racism and the Nazis to which he is akin in the political spectrum.


 * Zvesda -- your personal attacks are so laughably off the mark, it's quite entertaining. You have no idea what a Nazi is, you have no idea what a Neo-con is, either. Otherwise, you would not say they are the same -- except, of course, that you disagree with them. I happen to disagree with either of them as well. Like any political extremist, however, you think that anybody who disagrees with you must be a Nazi. Fair enough, you amy think so. I don't honestly care what you think of me, and what you think I am. You call Tottle's garbage (of which I have a copy, I even paid for it, stupid me) a valid source -- I think that should be the last that needs to be said about this.

Again, you have failed to answer my inquiries of how there I've been an apologist when I've explcitly stated that 1.8 million kulaks were relocated and 2.5 million died in the famine.


 * As long as you refer to these people as 'kulaks', you don't merit consideration. Would you discuss with somebody who calls blacks 'niggers'? Or jews 'jids'? Both of these words have been part of the English language for quite some time and did not originate with any particular political movement. Even Mark Twain uses the word 'nigger', and he was a pretty strong opponent of slavery and racism. The word 'kulak' is effectively hate-speech. It has been used to dehumanize political opponents prior to killing them. Continuing to use this word simply continues their dehumanization. Those people were not 'kulaks', they were men, women, children, and old people. Few of whom had more than a few cows. It disgusts me to even talk to you at this point, but I will do so, not because I think I can change your mind, but because it's the only way to make sure your poison stays clear off the wikipages. I oppose you just as vehemently as I oppose the holocaust deniers on the holocaust denial pages. I am loathe to let creative history writing, particularly if it is tainted with so much hate towards other social groups infect wikipedia. Thankfully, I am not the only one.


 * Dietwald 19:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, the argument that communist terminology regarding 'kulaks' and others is identical to the Nazi terminology of 'untermenschen' has not grown on my dung, but comes from Hannah Arendt's discussion of totalitariansm. This comment is directed at any of you who happen to come across this discussion -- not at the Stalinist Red Star (who probably does not consider the appalation 'stalinist' as an insult). Furthermore, the anonymous user I am talking to, who also appears as 'Zvesda', has been sanctioned for vandalism of this page in the past. Dietwald 19:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Dietwald, I am totally with you on that. One comment though, the numbers Zvezda presents are a plain disagreement in facts, not on interpretations. We need to show what's wrong with them to stop this from being resurrected. I haven't been able to get to analize them. I recently found a good series of article in a respected Ukrainian Weekly by Stanyslav Kulchynsky. I will post the links to them here soon. Please take a look at Zvezda's numbers. Remember Fomenko's chronology? It was only dismissed when real historians finally bothered to respond and show the public how the whole thing was a mere scam. --Irpen 19:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * At this point, my beef really is with the language employeb by Zvesda. Maybe less people died in the Holodomor than we believe. Totally besides the point to me. What irks me here is the Stalinist language employed. It's like Holocaust denial: I actually have no problem with anybody who would provide data that indicated some kind of serious mistake in our current research on the numbers of Holocaust victim. If the data is sound, no problem. But, if this person would say that "less subhumans were killed by the revolutionary National Socialist leadership than it is generally claimed by the Zionists", I would have some serious doubts from the onset on the validity of anything this person has to say. In theory, data should be treated independently of the source. In practice, however, sources do matter. Due to my current location, I actually cannot access any of the stuff our Stalinist apologist is providing. But, if anybody cares to send me pdf files with their research, I'll be very happy to read it, and then comment on it not just from memory. Dietwald 08:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Zvesda -- your personal attacks are so laughably off the mark, it's quite entertaining.

As someone who uses the term fabricated, point of view term "totalitarian", you are a true Neo-Con in the Democrat/Republican vein if I've ever seen one. You are adamantly biased against Marxism yet you also use the term "Nazi" as a slur. Since when did it become a personal attack to correctly summarize your political leaning?

the numbers Zvezda presents are a plain disagreement in facts, not on interpretations.

The numbers I've presented are the facts. It has been said countless times that these are birth and death registration data derived from Russia's archives. Though you have not knowledge of what has been presented, you or someone of your ilk above have lied about "not all births and deaths were registered" and "this does not include special settlements." First, manifesting your ignorance of the data, the table that has been presented countless times is revised data from 1934. Initially, registered deaths in Ukraine were at 1.3 million and later revised to 1.9 million. Next, deaths in special settlements are completely irrelevant to famine-stricken regions and particularly Ukraine. Numbering at 300,000, excess deaths in special settlements do not at all substantially alter the death toll. This page should not even center around Ukraine because as most scholars on Russia have pointed out numerous times, famine was not an exclusive part of Ukraine. Tens of thousands died from famine in Kazakhstan, North Caucuses, German ASSR, Siberia, and in the major cities Moscow and Leningrad.

We have first-hand data from the archives, yet you and your ilk continue to persist with politically-motivated, ultra unrealistic "estimations" of a median 7 million dead in Ukraine when this has utterly been refuted by archival data. The Russian language version of this page presents the true death tolls in several tables. Countless times, I have pointed out that state collections of grain never exceeded 35% of production. Utterly destroying the myth of excess collections leading to a "man-made famine", it is perplexing why there has not been a response for such. This famine was neither deliberate nor was it exclusively caused by human factors.

I see that in a purely demagogic manner, Dietwald persists with comparing social class to race when such a comparison is completely fallacioius and inappropriate. It is the term kulak to which Dietwald takes offense, yet he calls my entire submission vandalism. If this is the case, why not just edit the summary of a kulak instead of trying to obstruct breakthrough progress on this page? Your incendiary Neo-Con comparisons of USSR to Nazi Germany are not even worthy of a serious response. He again compares 1.8 million relocated wealthy land-owning farmers to millions of Jews indiscriminately targetted in occupied Poland in order to try and prove some moronic point of how it is not any different from Hitlerism to punish people on the grounds of economic behavior. To repeat, the term "kulak" has been in the Russian lexicon for centuries. It simply means a wealthy land-owning peasant who exploits the labor of others. Social class structure did not instantly change with the October Revolution.


 * Zvesda, you continued refusal to even sign your contributions speak for themselves. That you have vandalized this page is evident in the fact that your IP with which you have vandalized has been blocked by the administration (after I complained). Comparing the usage of the word Kulak to the usage of the word Untermensch is not even very original, but commonly accepted theory of totalitarianism. To define the so-called kulaks as 'wealthy' families shows a complete ignorance of the economic situation in the Ukraine at the time. The language used by Zvesda smacks of Bolshevism -- a charge he will hardly consider an insult. Comparing Bolshevism with Nazism is also not very original and commonly done by most students and scholars of totalitarian rule -- whether Hanna Arendt, or Karl Popper, or others.


 * I do not compare social classes to races, as I do not believe in the existence of either. I compare the utilization of the social class concept to that of the race concept as an instrument of totalitarian rule usde to demonize and dehumanise arbitrarily defined groups of human beings. The concept of social classes is purely Marxist, and unlike the concept of races, it still finds acceptance among the puerile intellectuals that crowd both academia and society in general. It's a 'Kampfwort' -- a word of battle -- used for the purpose of advancing a particular social idea under the veneer of scientific objectivity. Like races in the Third Reich, social classes in the USSR were considered to immutably define the character of those who belong to them, regardless of their personal merits or faults. The term 'kulak' has been defined and re-defined by the Bolsheviks throughout the collectivization period to specifically target anybody who opposed collectivization.


 * The entire lingo of Zvesda smacks of classism -- the moral equivalent to racism. Anybody who would like to see how Zvesda actually sees human beings who happen not to belong to the social group he considers to have a claim to basic human rights.


 * I am simply disgusted to have to deal with such vile attitudes in the 21st century. Yuck.


 * And this is in addition to the clearly erroneous data Zvesda supplies.


 * But, so far the editors of this page have dealt successfully with the Ukrainian nationalist agenda of Alexander -- I trust it will deal equally successfully with the Bolshevism of our anonymous Zvesda. This is a encyclopedia, not a haven for revisionism, nationalism, or other benighted agendas.


 * And, Zvesda, do I have an anti-Marxist bias? You bet I have. I also have an anti-Nazi bias, an anti-Creationism bias, an anti-'traditional chinese medicine' bias, an anti-astrology bias, an anti-homeopathy bias, an anti-religious fundamentalism bias, and a whole lot of other biases for which I will not apologize. I am an unreformed Popperian-Lockian-Tocquevillian-Utilitarian-Rationalist-Liberal... and, as I said, what you call me matters not to me. Call me a neo-con, if you want. So what. Anti-Neoconism is basically traditional anti-Americanism, which in turn is little more than the anti-semitism of the intellectual.


 * Dietwald 10:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Dietwald, I am with you here. Still, I think it's our duty to expose what's wrong with Zvezda's numbers. They contradict several numbers cited in very solid research works, some of them I added last week. But where his are coming from and why they are false is better answered by us. Otherwise, if not he, some other Stalinist appologist will be resurrectiong the issue. I am busy with a couple of articles right now. If you can do it, please give it a try. --Irpen 16:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That you have vandalized this page is evident in the fact that your IP with which you have vandalized has been blocked by the administration (after I complained).

Go right ahead and persist with mindless repression because this ip address does not even belong to me as I only use the internet at school.

Comparing the usage of the word Kulak to the usage of the word Untermensch is not even very original, but commonly accepted theory of totalitarianism.

The term "totalitarian" is a bogus term devised by the western imperialists to try and defame any one regime that does not comply with foreign subjugation. The use of this term is used exclusively by bourgeois liberals like yourself who are purely academic frauds.

To define the so-called kulaks as 'wealthy' families shows a complete ignorance of the economic situation in the Ukraine at the time.

I am completely aware of the economic situation of Ukraine at the time and contrary to what you are trying delude everyone into, there was sharp class division in this particular region at the time.

Comparing Bolshevism with Nazism is also not very original and commonly done by most students and scholars of totalitarian rule -- whether Hanna Arendt, or Karl Popper, or others.

The opinions of a handful of rubber stamps for American imperialism are not worthy of much consideration. The comparison to Marxism to Nazism is an incendiary method that originated from 1950s America in order to defame the international revolutionary movement. The way you latch on to these absurd liberal insults is monstrous.

I compare the utilization of the social class concept to that of the race concept as an instrument of totalitarian rule usde to demonize and dehumanise arbitrarily defined groups of human beings.

Ironically, here you are arbitrarily defining those that set forth definitions of social class as "totalitarian". Quite contradictory on your part.

The concept of social classes is purely Marxist, and unlike the concept of races, it still finds acceptance among the puerile intellectuals that crowd both academia and society in general.

Thank you for displaying your ignorance manifested by your ludicrous statement of social class theory having been pioneered by Karl Marx.Class struggle has always been an integral part of history whether in Ancient Greece or revolutionary France.

Like races in the Third Reich, social classes in the USSR were considered to immutably define the character of those who belong to them, regardless of their personal merits or faults.

It is undeniable that the upper echelons of society habitually commit crime. Such an argument cannot be made on the basis of race.

The term 'kulak' has been defined and re-defined by the Bolsheviks throughout the collectivization period to specifically target anybody who opposed collectivization.

A kulak has always been a land-owning peasant who exploits labour. The term was neither coined by the Bolsheviks nor was it redefined by them.

The entire lingo of Zvesda smacks of classism -- the moral equivalent to racism.

Here he persists with the incendiary comparison of class struggle to racism. If anyone should be restricted from this encyclopedia, it should be you.

And this is in addition to the clearly erroneous data Zvesda supplies.

Bewildering how such data is "clearly erroneous" when there have yet to be any refutations to what has been contributed in this section. This page is rife with largely discredited Cold War era rubbish even though there is complete access to the Russia's archives that the anti-Communist Stephen Wheatcroft and R.W Davies extensively reported in "Years of Hunger".

This is a encyclopedia, not a haven for revisionism, nationalism, or other benighted agendas.

Yet you have defined yourself as a bourgeois Popperian-Lockian-Tocquevillian-Utiltarian-Rationalist Liberal. Frankly, your ilk are just as bad if not worse than the Hitlerists and Fascismi.

anti-Americanism... is little more than the anti-semitism of the intellectual.''

Completely absurd. What you term "anti-Americanism" is actually hostility towards America's subjugative deeds. Anti-Semitism is opposition to Semites exclusively on biological grounds.


 * Irpen, I will do my best to actually go into the peer-review literature on this one once my day-job slacks off a little bit. In Russia, too, one has to work for a living:) Let's just keep the page clean in the meantime.


 * Zvesda: Hannah Arendt a rubber stamper for American Imperialism? Good one, gave me quite a chuckle this morning. Have you actually read Arendt? I have read Marx and Engels, in the original. Particularly amusing is their labour theory of value. Or their complete ignorance how in China, for example, technological progress was evidently held back for centuries by the 'super-structure'. Get around that one. Don't just read the Communist Manifesto. Get yourself at least the "Marx-Engels Reader", available at almost every decent hangout for disenchanted intellectuals. Here is a little bonmot for you: Whoever was not a Marxist by the age of 30, has no heart. Whoever still is a Marxist after the age of 30 has no brain. Variously attributed to that vile imperialist Churchil or Johnathan Swift. By the way, Zvesda, I have never defined myself as a burgeois... I am not even sure what that is supposed to be. From a Marxist point of view, I have a pretty good proletarian pedigree actually:) I think I am just a vile class-traitor. I was an anti-Marxist even back in my assembly line working days...:)


 * I don't want you banned from Wikipedia, Zvesda. I just don't want your Bolshevist POV pushed on it. And most importantly, don't vandalise. Don't replace the collective efforts of dozens of editors in one fell swoop with your own article. It just get's you reverted. Play by the rules, and things will be fine. As I said, most people here are open to new points in the article. The issue of how the resistance of the peasants undermined agricultural output in the previous years would be something worthwhile to explore. Just don't use hate-language, ok? Dietwald 06:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that I don't have time to participate in discussion and editing here, but I'll just throw in my two cents. Zvesda's edits are clearly fare outside the range of mainstream literature on the subject. I can't comment on Zvesda's motives, but based on the content and point-of-view being pushed, it's hard to avoid the label of "Stalin apologist". It is skewed so far beyond the fringe of historians' consensus, that I don't see the point of engaging in discussion—just take the steps necessary to protect all of the hard work that went into this article previously, and try not to waste too much of your time here. —Michael Z. 2006-05-10 16:05 Z 


 * Clearly you are full of it. It is claimed that the so-called "Stalinist apologist" has posted information "outside the mainstream consensus" even though the term "Holodomor" is exclusively used by Ukrainian Nationalists. As reported by J.Arch Getty, the majority of serious scholars do not agree that the famine revolved around Ukraine and that the famine was artificial and deliberate. I've observed the so-called "vandalist" submission, and it is far superior to the current rubbish. It is dishonorable how Wikipedia's editors ignore refutations with such comments as "I don't care what you think" rather than trying to keep a Neutral Point of View that is regularly violated. Every single line in the current article has been thoroughly refuted.


 * The above was written, again, by Zvesda. How do I know that? Because the same IP just reverted another change I had made to one of Zvesda's apologist edits to the 1956 Hungarian revolution page.


 * Zvesda, give it up. Your MO is so obvious and foolish, it's an insult to the intelligence of other editors. Why do you need to engage in such silly little games? Your continuous charada of pretending to be yet another anonymous poster who is supportive of yourself is ridiculous, and borderline sockpuppeteering. So, how about you start acting like a mature adult, get an a account, sign with your name, and stop being a clown?Dietwald 09:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If information such as the one that Zvesda is attempting to enforce into the article is "far beyond the fringe of historian's consensus" is only because this article is brutally biased, towards the POVs of western cold warrior "historians" which are little more than anti-soviet and anti-communist propagandists. Worst than that, this article is recicling old (not even neo) nazi propaganda and selling it as factual truth, when it infact has been thoroughly proven false a long time ago. Many of those, which are accusing Zvesda and others of being a Stalinist, of illegitimatelly disrupting the article and of pushing a Bolshevist POV, are the ones which are infact pushing there POV on every reader of this article. Someone once said that "The best defense is offense", this is surelly the motto of many of Zvesda's detractors, which underneath their Liberal or even Libertarian clothes hold all the same fobias, hatreds, prejudices and disliking for diverging ideas that fascists did. The neutrality of an article so ridiculously ideological as this should at least be disputed.HelderM 10:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * HelderM, at least you sign your contributions. Regarding the rest, I'll quote Stephen Colbert: "Reality has a liberal bias". Dietwald 10:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with you (or Stephen Colbert), when you say that "Reality has a liberal bias", and I would infact go further and say that "The people, meaning the working masses, is always right", even when they are wrong, on the long run, the people, even if not consciously, will eventually do the right thing and "walk hand in hand with truth and justice" and with those who fought one their side. This article, is not "The people" and it is not "Reality". It is merely a concatenation of lies, prejudices, ideology and propaganda. It's bias is not liberal, it is anti-communist fascist leaning wishful thinking. In your latest contribution, much to the similarity of your row models, like Robert Conquest, you doged my remarks (doged reality), and misdirected any reader with your "Reality has a liberal bias" (desinformation), when what I said was that the article is no more than Cold War and recycled old Nazi-Fascist propaganda. About Liberalism, all that I said is that is only a frequent cover for dark creatures, which deep down have only despise for it. HelderM 10:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Helder, your faith in the 'masses' is odd. When looking back at history, it seems the masses had nothing better to do than exterminate those who contradict them. Oh... I forgot, that was because they were led on by their evil leaders... Those poor masses, always right in the long run, and yet so trusting, so easily mislead, so stupid and murderous. But, eventually, they will, of course, do the right thing. According to whom? By the way, I don't row... Your 'dark creatures' image is creepy. self-declared liberals, unlike self-declared communists have not, as far as I know, engaged in any systematic mass-murder of their own populations... In any case, enough of this 'debate'. Dietwald 11:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not faith it's statistics based science.

At one time we swung from trees and we lived in caves. After that our ancestors built slavery based civilizations, plunged into a millenium of religious darkness, extinguished slavery, emerged from the darkness, built colonial empires, brought slavery back again in the 16th centuty, and abolished it later on. They broke away with feudalism and developed the more progressive capitalism, and yet again the human being was reduce to a "wage slave". They (we) fought exploitation and have achieved a greater (although only partial) state of emancipation (from exploiters, caudillos, fuhrers and messias) than anything ever achieved in the past. The next step, and be sure of this, is a democratic working people-led Socialist society, no matter what pessimistic comodists and communist demonizers may say. Do you know what is truly strange?!! It's the disgust you show for the masses. For a supposed democratic individual your distrust for "the people" profoundly antagonical. This is even more strange given the context. This is a MASS EDITED ecyclopedia, anyone (or that's what is said) can edit it, and not just an enlightened elite to which you obviously think you belong. Now regarding communist mass-murders, all that I can say is, let time go by, and as the prevailing super-power, it's allies (lackies) and the socio-economical system they (their ruling classes) promote do it's worst, the people will start to see through all the old and new anti-communist pro capital-fascist propaganda. They will realize that... maybe the winners of the Cold War (which are mostly but not just the USA's rulling class) were just a bunch of liars, whom, through history perpetrated innumerous mass murders, like the enslavement of Africa, the deliberate systematic and patient extermination of the Native Americans, the artificial famines in Ireland and India, two imperialist world wars, innumerous other chauvinistic wars, the extermination of 4 million Indochinese, etc, etc, etc... Who knows maybe they will realize that the loosing side (of the Cold War), was not even remotelly as bad as it was portrayed by the historian's on the winners payroll. Maybe they will see that the loosing side wasn't just the "Soviet Empire ( :-) what bull....)", but infact it was, in a way, the entire working class of this world. LONG LIVE THE WORKING PEOPLE my friend. HelderM 12:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Helder, I agree with you on one point, and it may surprise you which point it is: the loosers of the Cold War were indeed 'the people'. Now that the communist threat is gone, it's no longer necessary to accommodate basic decency in dealing with employees, for example. I have worked on the bottom of the food chain long enough to know how many liberties some employers take with their employees. The irony is, of course, that out of fear of Communism, working conditions in the West were much better than in Communist countries. I still think the masses are cowardly, nasty, stupid, and disgusting in general. But, that's regardless of who they are made up of. Any assembly of people that exceed about a hundred people tends to take on disgusting behaviour. Just watch frat parties at 'elite' universities. Yuck. You don't even need 100 people for that. Humanity as such is vile, it's only redeeming feature is the occasional decent human being. My support for democracy is not based on any kind of sympathy with 'the masses', but it's simply based on the realization that there are no better alternatives. I am a Popperian democrat -- democracy as a necessity, not moral imperative. The losing side of any revolution is always humanity (Menschlichkeit, not Menschheit; I trust you know enough German to get the difference).


 * The famines inflicted on India, Ireland, and post-WWI Germany are just one of the few examples of how humans in general are simply disgusting. By the way, according to new findings in archeology, genocide was the method of choice in dealing with enemies for most of human history. Whether the 'noble savages', the carriers of 'white man's burden', the 'Ubermenschen', or the 'Avantgarde of the Proletariat', humans have not gotten better or worse throughout history, but have simply found new excuses for their native instincts.


 * I think this discussion has gone severely off-topic. If you want to continue, go to my talk page.


 * Apologies to the rest of you. Dietwald 16:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

An Outside Opinion
To be perfectly honest, discussions like this, and badly edit-warred articles are no small part of the reason why most people are suspicious of WP and dubious of its ability to ever be anything more than a general potpouri of ideas, opinions, and unverified footnotes. I'm always appalled by people, regardless of their WP "credentials", trying to make NPOV a shorthand for "whatever my point of view is."

That having been said, I'm rather amazed at how decently some portions of the article have turned out, particularly the intro, which I think does an excellent job of contextualizing the famine, and the particular national perspective the article (should) focus on. But some portions of the article seem to still bear the scars of people wielding their own ideological or nationalistic axes... the grammar here is atrocious:

''In controversy, the term democide, introduced by R.J. Rummel is "the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder".[24]. Moreover, arguments that the rural population (in 1932 75% to 85% of Ukrainians resided in villages) does not represent the whole nation, also what terminology to use for the designation of an event that led to the extermination of roughly one quarter of the population of the former Soviet republic of the Ukraine in 1932-1933, as well as the dispute to what extent the Soviet government deliberately aggravated the famine is rather unreasonable and often used for confrontation and politicization of the tragedy.[1]

Although the famine went outside Ukraine's borders into the Volga Basin and the Don and Kuban steppes of Russia, yet the full extensiveness of Stalin's intervention in crop seizure was seen only in Ukraine and Kuban - a region in Russia whose significant rural population was Kuban Cossacks - 18th century descendants from the Zaporozhian Host, and thus with potentially significant Ukrainian lineage.''

Really. Could someone clean that up? Maybe just eliminate that whole mess? There are sentences that are internally contradictory and reflect not just recognition of controversy, but push a particular agenda. Honestly, I think what the intro says puts it best and most succinctly. The term Genocide is highly fraught, and as in the introduction, I think it would be best to simply address the sides of the controversy breifly and matter-of-factly. This can be done -- cite the scholars, cite the political resolutions, refrain from calling either "apologists" or accuse "politicizing/exagerating." Let the reader look at the article on Genocide, look at the arguments and sources cited here, and decide for themselves whether they feel that this was a unique, ethnically-targeted, intentional killing, or whether it was just a horrible and unintended consequence of some horrid Soviet policies.

I think that "causes" very well highlights the different strands that played into creating the crisis. The question of terminology is clearly the real root of the problems here -- but that's not something that can be defnitively resolved by an encyclopedia. National and ethnic identity and politics did not disappear with the Soviet Union and then magically reappear afterward -- I think this article, or at least, the idea of this article -- is a perfectly legitimate recognition of the impact of a severe famine and violent state policies surrounding it on a particular nationality/group. Political/policy elements are no small part of why some people consider this to be unique and differentiated from the more general famine in the USSR at the time. That perspective and the facts that support it do not need to be presented in a way that says "this was a genocide!" nor rejected in a way that says "this is just nationalist exaggeration!"... And I think this article is a lot closer to NPOV than some people are willing to see. Cleaning up/combining "genocide?" and "politicization" would go a long way to making this article "controversial" only to those with an axe to grind.

Just my $.02. --69.74.48.25 20:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Genocide once more
According to the usual formulation of Genocide: Genocide is defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) Article 2 as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.".

The Holodomor occur is referred to the artificial famine in the region where Ukrainians, Russians and other people were intermixed. There is no single official document asserting preferential treatment of any national, ethnic, racial or religious group during that time and on these territories. Thus, it is not genocide. We can put any attributed opinions in the article, but presenting this as a fact is wrong. abakharev 00:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I inserted a new cat Category:Democides. It is a parent of Category:Genocide, so if anybody believe it was an ethnic Genocide, the cat does not contradict their believes. There are also other articles to the crimes usualy referred as Genocides like Khmer Rouge, Trail of Tears, Great Purge, etc. abakharev 09:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see first line of the article: Holodomor is named as Genocide numerous governments and historians. You must be not founded on own interpretation of Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide  --Yakudza 09:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And I guess for a reason. Indeed there were mixed populations in that part of Ukraine. However, by a strange twist of fate the Russians living there were mostly inhabitants of major cities back then - and were not targeted by the famine, at least not in a comparable extent to what was to the Ukrainians, Jews or Poles living in the rural areas.  // Halibutt 10:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well if we would look onto Image:Holodomor_Famine_map.jpg, the significant part of the worst (Red) areas is Southern Russia (espesially the Krasnodar Krai), Crimea (then Russian or even Crimean-Tatarian) and so called Novorossia (Nikolaev, Kherson and Odessa oblasts - the mixed region there Ukrainians were not a clear majority even among the peasantry). Also the map does not show the Kazakhstan - probably the worst hit area, populated by Kazakhs and Russians (not Ukrainians). Among significantly hit areas (brown) is the whole lower Volga regions (no Ukrainians) but not the Soviet part of Western Ukraine - Kamenets-Podolsky Oblast or Vinnitsa Oblast. abakharev 12:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If several countries and significant historians classified this as genocide it should be mentioned. If Russian historians disagree with that we can add that Russian state refuses to follow reckognition of the genocide. --Molobo 15:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Molobo, your "Russian historians disagree" remark is totally disgusting as ethnical profiling of Wikipedians and sources most favored by one or another editor around here. Not only Russian, but Ukrainian and western historians still debate on the applicable definition. What's more or less established is what happened and how it happened, while even the estimates of the victim numbers vary widely within the mainstream (I am not talking about fringe pro-Stalinist denialists or their opponents among the cold-war agenda pushers). What's not established is why were these policies carried. Genocidal intent is a crucial part of the Genocide's definition definition, which you all are invited to read and reread, and no documents surfaced to this day that prove such intent although much research was done. It doesn't prove the lack of intent either. The issue is not resolved and the article goes at length to explain it. Political statements by governments may or may not be policy based and are no basis for historical conclusions


 * I linked several thorough articles by Kluchytsky in the end, a leading Ukrainian specialist of the subject. Those fluent in RU/UA are invited to read his articles in Zerkalo Nedeli that I linked starting from the end anD going upwards. Also, there are several articles in English by the same historian (also linked). Before making claims, read the articles. Also, I linked another review of a very respected Ukranian diaspora historian Jonhn-Paul Himka. This article is rather about treatment of those events and instrumentalizing them by some for political purpose, a totally wrong (if not hypocritical) historical approach. Yakudza, please read at least the Ukrainian/Russian sources. Molobo, pls read the English sources. Alex, Halibutt, please read both. All in all, it should take no more than 15-20 minutes of your valuable time. --Irpen 16:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Just as I did at Talk:Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II, I'll stress that it is very important to cite sources. If there are academic publications that use the term genocide, note them. If there are others who dispute that this term should be used, cite them and note that there is no consensus within academic community. If one of this POVs is in visible minority, note that, citing sources again.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What Piotrus says here is obvious and is already done. I carefully crafted the intro along exactly these lines. None of the views here is the "minority view". It's just that no consensus emerged to this day. The immediate issue at hand is not whether to call it Genocide in the article. There are no edit wars on that now (while article needs work). The issue is whether the cat:Genocide applies under such circumstances. --Irpen 16:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not taking a stance on *this* particular issue, as I don't know enough about it, but in general I'd say that unless there is a consensus that an event X can be described as Y, then the category Y should not be used as it should not contain possible or disputed or partial entries. However, a new category of 'disputed Y' may be considered for such an events, listing entries for which there is no consensus in the academia, but for which there are at least *some* credible sources.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Obsolete Information
By the end of 1933, millions people had starved to death or had otherwise died unnaturally in Russia and Ukraine.

I don't mean any disrespect to the efforts of Wikipedia's editors, but this information is simply incorrect. Demographic data from former USSR archives have revealed since 1990 that the death toll in Ukraine amounted to 1.54 million. I would suggest for you to look up RGAE 1562/329/109. This can be located in "Years of Hunger" by Stephen Wheatcroft and R.W Davies. This consists of demographic data that had recorded 1.9 million deaths in Ukraine in 1933 compared to 522 thousand in 1927. Subtracting the 1927 total from 1933 gives us 1.4 million excess deaths in 1933. For 1932, there were 668 thousand deaths and compared to the data of 1928, there wer 100 thousand excess deaths. Therefore, 1.4 million in 1933 + 100 thousand in 1932 = 1.54 million excess deaths. It is available here on the website of scholar Mark Harrison of Warwick University: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/archive/hunger/deaths.xls

 The exact number of the victims remains unknown and probably impossible to find out even within an error of a hunder thousand.

Again, this is incorrect. In April 1990 of Soviet Studies, scholar Stephen Wheatcroft reported extensively on revelations from Russian archives in concern to demographic data. You can look up this article on jstor.org. He very accurately reported that there were between 4 to 5 million deaths in the whole USSR.

The estimates vary as much as from 1.5[3] to 10[4] million (with the numbers in the higher or lower end of the range being strongly affected by political or otherwise unreliable considerations).

It can be agreed that figures above 5 million are heavily motivated by right-wing politics, however, the figure of 1.5 million is correct at least according to reported demographic data from Russia's archives. Even way back in August 23, 1933 when such data was impossible to assess, Pulitzer Prize winner Walter Duranty of New York Times extremely accurately estimated that there were 2 million excess deaths in Ukraine, Lower Volga, and North Caucuses:

'''So with a total population in the Ukraine, North Caucasus, and Lower Volga of upward 40,000,000 the normal death rate would have been about 1,000,000. Lacking official figures, it is conservative to suppose that this was at least trebled last year in those provinces and considerably increased for the Soviet Union as a whole.'''

''Even the results based on the scientific methods also vary widely but the range is somewhat more narrow, 2.5 million (Volodymyr Kubiyovych) and 4.8 million (Vasyl Hryshko). Modern calculation that use demographic data including those available from formerly closed Soviet archives narrow the losses to about 3.2 million or, allowing for the lack of the data precision, 3 to 3.5 million.''

Not only is such information wrong, it is also unnecessary. With the availability of archival documents, estimates are completely worthless.

even the official Soviet statistics show a decrease of roughly four million people in the population of Ukraine between 1927 and 1932.

This contradicts the demographic data I have presented which shows that Ukraine's population declined by roughly 600,000 between the censuses of 1926 and 1937.

Mikhail Frunze


 * Frunze, your numbers coinside with the numbers in the table published by Kulchytsky which I copied to the article. However, the analysis of the overall numbers simply doesn't add up which means that Soviet statistical institutions simply did not register all the death events (as explained by Kulchytsky). Otherwise, the 1926 census number from which the officially registered number of deaths in the following ten years is subtracted, the officially registered number of births added and officially registered migration accounted for given us exact result of 1937 census. There is however the discrepancy. With census numbers assumed correct (there are good reasons to do so) the analysis of the annual numbers of deaths/births allows to infer where exactly the Soviet statistics was wrong and make a correction. This is all done in this article (also listed in the ref list, and I copied its calculations.


 * To summarize, you cite the published numbers correctly. However, because these numbers don't match the census numbers, there is an error somewhere. The error is estimated in the article I linked and from this (taking into account the migration) the loss is ~3.2 million or accounting for the calculation error 3-3.5 million. --Irpen 07:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Wheatcroft
I looked over the edits made by user:Mikhail Frunze. I will do my best to put aside some time to merge two versions. His deletions of the sourced info and the map will be restored. OTOH, he brings new info referenced to This book seems rather noteworthy in the academia and its authors are not discountable from the amount of google info I could find. But since the book isn't online and isn't indexed by google books, I request the author to provide the quotes in addition to the page numbers. Not everyone can easily get a hold of the book and such info would be helpful. TIA, --Irpen 22:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * R. W. Davies and Stephen G. Wheatcroft, The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004, ISBN 0-333-31107-8.
 * There is very serious objections with position revisionist of Holodomor (including Davies and Wheatcroft). Please see series article "Why Stalin us destroyed?" (Почему Сталин нас уничтожал?) of Kulchitsky in newspaper "Day"., , , , ,  and more (see also fragments this article in other site subscribe.ru , ,  and inosmi.ru , ) --Yakudza 00:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yakudza, I know those Kulchitsky articles because I linked them myself. Among other things, K. warns about the is politicizing the issue and criticizes those who do. K represents a purely scientific and non-histerical approach which is needed if we ever want to get to the bottom of this.

Wheatcroft, however, is also a very serious work and we can't just delete it. He is a Prof and a head of history dept in the University of Melbourne. I asked for quotes and I hope I will get them. I will, in the meanwhile, restore the info deleted by Frunze and try to preliminary integrate his references as well provided that he will soon confirm them by quotes. For now, the most comprehensive review of Wheatcroft I found is here. Another one is here. Also here at art-Ukraine.com, definetely not a revisionist site, his presentation is feaured as well. Another respected author, a prof from Alberta,here speaks respectfully about both Kulchytsky and Wheatcroft emphasizing that unlike Conquest, these two both worked with the formerly close archives, while the author more agrees with Kulchitski. For now, I would like the quotes from Wheatcroft. --Irpen 00:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

also, Kulchytsky's 6-part work "Why did Stalin exterminate the Ukrainians? Comprehending the Holodomor. The position of Soviet historians"in Den is available in English. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6 I linked it to an article a long time ago. Pity if those who follow the article missed it. In part 4 Kulchytsky devotes some space to discussing Wheatcroft's work. An instructive reading.

I tried to merge the numbers and factual info linked to Wheatcroft recently added and expanded on the death toll calculations. I also touched up some other parts, restored the deleted info and removed some bullshit links. I, one more time, request the Wheatcroft's refs to be supplemented with quotes long enough to be sure nothing is taken out of the context. --Irpen 05:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what Wheatcroft has stated earlier, in his latest book he states 5.5-6.5 million deaths. Ultramarine 21:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 5.5 mln-6mln in the whole Soviet Union. Still as the peasants of Ukraine were the main victims it would give millions of dead in Ukraine abakharev 22:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all Ultramarine, didn't care to read the discussion, which is obvious not only from the error pointed out by Alex above, but from Ultramarine's misterious claim that Wheatcroft wrote something earlier and then wrote something later. The link Ultramarine posted is the review of the very same book under the discussion. Besides, I already posted tis very link above. User:Frunze added the following statement "Demographic data from Russia's archives show that in Ukraine there were 1.54 million excess deaths in the course of 1932-1933" citing this statement to Whatcroft's page 415. There is no disagreement here. This is the exact same number Kulchytsky cites to Soviet statistics. Now, the Soviet statistics was not known at the time of the Conquest's book as Soviet archives opened much later. One of the articles I linked above points that the major importance of Wheatcroft's and Kulchytsky's work is that they were written with the use of the previously closed archives where both researcher got apparently the same data, as far as the statistics goes. We are clear only up to this point. If the Soviet statistics were correct (that is the number of deaths and births registered each year were fully reliable and the migration was correctly accounted for) we would not have needed anything else to estimate the human toll. However, the is a direct evidence that there are incorrect numbers in the Soviet statistics because the numbers of registered annual births and registered annual deaths for 1927-1936 when added up to 1926 census should than match the results of 1937 census. The fact is that they don't. Now, there are good reasons to believe (described in links) that the census numbers are correct and the error is in the annual statistics, with some deaths being unregistered. The death toll is then calculated based on the censuses and the years for which the statistics is considered reliable (the details are in the article where Kulchytsky's calculation is currently present.)

Perhaps Wheatcroft does present his own analysis? I didn't read his book. That'w why I requested more info above.

Finally, upon rereading, I notice that nowhere from the refs posted by Frunze it follows that Wheatcroft estimaets 1.5 mln as the death toll. The exact statement is that these are excess deaths for 1933 according to the Soviet statistics. This statement is correct but I will change in the article which says instead that 1.5 million is the death toll by Wheatcroft's estimation.

Finally, if anyone read the chapter 4 of Kulchytsky's 6 article series, where he describes his disagreement with Wheatcroft, note that he doesn't dispute his numbers. The disagreement is mainly on the reasons of the Famine and wheather it should be considered a Genocide. Kulchytsky says yes, Wheatcroft says no. But this is a separate issue from the death toll estimation. --Irpen 23:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC) --Irpen 23:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

POV Pushing
 It was the largest national catastrophe of the Ukrainian nation in modern history, with loss of human life in the range of millions (estimates vary)

This comment is not only unsourced, it is also inaccurate. World War II resulted in 6 million dead Ukrainians while this famine resulted in a documented 1.54 million deaths.

the famine was caused by the deliberate policies of the government of the Soviet Union.

There is not a consensus amongst academians on this theory. Stephen Wheatcroft, R.W Davies, Mark Harrison, and Mark Tauger have all rejected this the intentionalist theory and have provided substantial acrhival evidence that famine resulted from natural factors including poor weather, drought, and an inadequate availability of horses. Even Robert Conquest in p.344 of "Harvest of Sorrow" 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 interest' other than feeding the starving first -- thus consciously abetting it"

This was, however, ended and replaced with the a policy of effective Russification, as soon as the Soviet regime firmly took root, thereby causing significant social, cultural, and political conflict in the Ukrainian populated territories.

To my knowledge, never was the Ukrainian language in the USSR restricted. In consideration of the fact of how the Ukrainian people after 70 years of Soviet power are fluent in their native tongue, the use of the term "Russification" is baseless and inappropriate. Russification refers to policies that curtailed the use of the mother tongue of a minority group. With the possible exception of the Jews, there was not any sort of Russification in the USSR. The hundreds of nationalities of the former USSR speak their own languages, eat their traditional food, practice their traditional religions, have their own schools, etc, etc. The charge that Ukrainian culture was assaulted in the USSR is simply unfounded. I propose for this unsourced, blatantly Ukrainian Nationalist POV to be removed.

''Despite the decrease in agricultural output, Soviet authorities soon drastically increased Ukraine's crop production quotas (by 44% in 1932). The targets were unrealistic and some historians believe that this was intentional.''

This does not correspond to data presented by Stephen Wheatcroft and R.W Davies. According to page 448 of their work on the subject "The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933", the agricultural production plans for the harvest of 1932 had been reduced numerous times. In January 1932, the production plan was set at 90.7 million tons. Half way through the year in July 1932, the production target had been reduced to 76 million tons. In September 1932, it had been reduced to 67.1 million tons. Collection plans correspondingly dropped from 29.5 mn tons in Jan. 1932 to 23.3 mn tons in July 1932 to 22.8 mn tons in September 1932. I propose for this unsourced, inaccurate information to be removed.

''Mass arrests of the hierarchy and clergy of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church culminated in the liquidation of the church in 1930. Thousands of priests were tortured, executed and sent to labor camps in Siberia and the Far North.''

This was part of a broad anti-religion campaign that did not exclusively apply to Ukraine. Churches in Russia were similarly closed down. Mosques and synagogues were closed down as well. Plus, it is debateable as to whether the restriction of religious practice attempts to target the cultural identity of a group because people of every cultural background can belong to one religious body. For instance, observe the Catholics of Western Europe, West Africa, Philippines, and South America. If Catholic churches in France were to be shut down, I don't think that this would amount to an assault on French culture.

The artificial famine of 1932-33 fit well into the politics of assault on Ukrainian national culture.

It is hotly debated that this famine was artificial. Many scholars have rejected this theory including Stephen Wheatcroft, R.W Davies, Mark Tauger, and Mark Harrison.

Mikhail Frunze


 * Frunze (isn't there a WK policy against political names?), there is little debate on whether the famine was artificial. There is serious -- and valid -- debate on whether it was genocidal in intent. Your recent edits are a misrepresentation of the consensus, and I will make changes to them accordingly. Dietwald 08:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect. As I have said, the scholars Stephen Wheatcroft, R.W Davies, and Mark Tauger have published works that prove that there were natural factors involved with the harvests of 1931 and 1932. Their conclusions, based almost exclusively on archival documents, need to be given some emphasis if these fallacious Sovetologist theories must get any mention. I have documented facts of how the production quota for 1931 and 1932 were reduced. This flatly contradicts the incorrect claim that the 1932 quota was inreased by 44%. Mikhail Frunze


 * Frunze, we have had this debate before on this page. Please go through the records. The famine itself was avoidable, there is little doubt about that. You seem to mention the same three guys all the time. Isn't it time to find some additional sources? They say this was so, but their views are not widely shared. We can mention their points, but not include them as facts. Hence my edits. I did not delete your points, just weakened them. BTW: get a wiki name, it's free, and it makes you less suspect. Dietwald 07:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is such a joke! Holodomor not being artificial!? Absolutely preposterous to say something like this, It's like saying the Holocaust was not done on purpose. Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. Xioyux 02:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

POV Topic
I'm sorry, but there simply is not a consensus in mainstream academic circles that famine was limited either to Ukraine or that there was a genocidal attempt towards the so-called Ukrainian people. This page needs to be changed to accomodate the 160 million people of the USSR as a whole rather than one measley socialist republic that somehow deserves extra attention. This current "Holodomor" outlook is not reflected in Brittanica. It is not reflected in Encarta. It is not reflected in either of my high school history textbooks. It is not reflected in any college course. Of the 59 results on Proquest database of the term "Holodomor", 49 results are found in the psychopathic, Yushchenko-supporting, Russophobic, nationalist outlet called "Ukrainian Weekly". This is clearly a fringe point of view that is not accepted by any mainstream academic circles. The researchers Stephen Wheatcroft, R.W Davies, Robert Thurston, Gregory Freeze, and Mark Tauger completely object to any view that includes so-called "Holodomor" towards the so-called Ukrainian people. Wikipedia is supposed to accomodate all views and not give disporportionate emphasis on sectarian nationalist propaganda.

Modern calculation that use demographic data including those available from formerly closed Soviet archives narrow the losses to about 3.2 million or, allowing for the lack of the data precision, 3 to 3.5 million.

This is disproportionate emphasis on a single author whose views do not posess a consensus. The journalist Walter Duranty In "The New York Times" correctly estimated in 1933 that excess deaths in Ukraine, North Caucuses, and the Lower Volga amounted to 2 million. The demographic reports from the Tsunkhu archives have proved these estimates to be correct as there were indeed 2 million excess deaths in these aforementioned regions. These Tsunkhu figures can be found on p.415 "Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933" by Stephen G. Wheatcroft and R.W Davies: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/archive/hunger/deaths.xls

Additionally, Wheatcroft and Davies estimated 1.5 million excess deaths in Kazakhstan but there exists no archival documents to back up these conclusions. It is probably an overestimate because 1.5 million dead out of a population of 6 million is too inconsistent with the much lower proportion of Ukraine of 1.5 million dead out of a population of 28 million.

The map by Maksudov has to removed because it has been contradicted by the above archival chart.

The artificial famine of 1932-33 fit well into the politics of assault on Ukrainian national culture.

This unsourced assertion is strongly objected to by respectable academic scholars including Stephen Wheatcroft, R.W Davies, Mark Harrison, Mark Tauger, and Gregory Freeze. Wheatcroft and Davies, the ones who have actually done research on the topic, have documented how disastrous weather resulted in decreased agricultural production. They have documented how the lack of horses obstructed the harvest. Mikhail Frunze
 * Mikhail, please note the discreapancy within the official Soviet statistics. The yearly records of deaths and births (formely classified) don't add up to  census numbers (also formerly classified). So, either of the two is incorrect. There are reasons to believe that census results are accurate (see refs). The rest is in the refs. Please read them, rather than my not so good attempt to retell them shortly.


 * The context of the assault on the intellectual elite and their connection is not well written. I will get to that some time soon.


 * The article doesn't assert that the famine was limited to Ukraine. Neither it states that it was a genocide. To the contrary, the lead pargraph states that it was a part of the wider famine and that opinions on the Genocidal intent differ. It is however legitimate to have an article on these events from the Ukrainian context. Be it called "Ukrainian Famine" or "Holodomor", is secondary. Soviet Famine of 1932-1933 would have been a legitimate article as well. Here is the analogy for you. There was an article titled Soviet partisans. That article has been lately attacked and is now in a chaotic state but that's a separate issue. At the same time, we have a separate article on Soviet partisans in Poland. While that other article has even bigger problems, it's the problems that has to be addressed rather than the article deleted. From the SP position, the section of "actions in Poland" is redundant, since it's covered by the Ukrainian, Belarusian and Lithuanian section. However, actions in the territories annexed from Poland in 1939 specifically, is also a legitimate angle. Those articles need a lot of work, but not a merge. --Irpen 00:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Estimation of deaths
In the "Estimation" section, Vasyl Hryshko is cited with 4.8 million deaths for the Holodomor estimate. I tried to look up the source of this, and could not. After some search of academic journals, I came across an article by Yaroslav Bilinsky in Journal of Genocide Research (1999), 1(2), 147-156 titled "Was the Ukrianian Famine of 1932-33 Genocide?" In this article, Vasyl Hryshko is cited and the number of "over 6 million" is stated. That is why I replaced 4.8 with 6 in the "Estimation" section.--Riurik 18:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I took Gryshko's data indirectly from 2002, Kulchytsky's article. Here is the Russian version and here is the Ukrainian one. Read it in whatever language you are more comfortable with. The article makes a good reading but if you don't have time, search for "Гришк" string within text. Maybe Hryshko made several estimates in different works. I don't know how we handle this disagreement.


 * Actually, further overhauling this section is high in my todo list and I firmly intend to proceed to it as soon as I am done with a couple of more urgent things I have to finish first. The major thing is reconsiling several sources which I think I know how to achieve. But I can't prevent others from doing it on their own, of course. I have some sources on my desk and the bookmark list to work from. --Irpen 00:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for providing the citations. Then I suppose, either one may be "ok" as you point out. Bilinsky's article is apparently available on the internet http://www.faminegenocide.com/resources/bilinsky.html, although the first time I came across it was in a hard copy.  Also, Hryshko may have quoted the 4.8 figure in his work (see below), whereas it is Prof. Bilinsky who provides the 6 million figure (see para. 11 of Bilinsky's article).  At any rate, I must concur that this section, and for that matter the entire article deserves better quality organization and writing.  Regards, --Riurik 02:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hryshko, V. I. [W. I.] (1983) The Ukrainian Holocaust of 1933, edited and translated by M. Carynnyk (Toronto: Bahriany Foundation, Suzhero, Dobras).


 * Riurik, thanks. I will then return the claim that Hryshko cited 4.8 million dead as we have a direct statement for it. Bilynsky's main statement is that Hryshko considers Holodomor to be Genocide. Whether 6 mln is Hryshko's or Bilinsky's figure is somewhat ambiguous. IMO, the question of Genocide and the number of victims are separate ones, the former is a matter of interpretation the latter is a matter of facts. We have plenty of scholars who consider H. Genocide while giving rather different estimates. The issue about Genocide lies with the original intent of the guilty party and starving a population of an entire area to death with a Genocidal intent is a Genocide whatever of the offered numbers is taken as an estimate.


 * As for a rewrite, it will be done. The first thing is to reconcile the Wheatcroft ref with others and, actually, they are reconcilable while the way user:Frunze edited the article it may seem that they are not. I will take care of it when I have time. --Irpen 02:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

POV and other nonesense
Still, with the correction for this number, the total number of death in Ukraine due to unnatural causes for the given ten years was 3,238 thousand, and taking into account the lack of precision, especially of the migration estimate, the human toll is estimated between 3 million and 3.5 million.

This is wrong. The declassified Soviet demographic records show that excess deaths totalled 1.5 million deaths. Puzzling as to how you reach a figure of 3 million dead even though the demographics clearly show that there were 1.5 million deaths beyond normal.

Is there a reasonable explanation as to why the work of one single author is receptive to 4 full paragraphs? This is a clear violation of NPOV policy. There is a misrepresentation that the figure 1.5 million is an estimate. It is not an estimate. It is a fact derived from declassified demographic records. They can be found here: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/archive/hunger/deaths.xls

Numerous problems with this are present. Scholars have refuted the Cold War era myths in regard to this famine. No reasonable scholar feels that this was a famine exclusive to Ukraine. It was found that the 1931 and 1932 harvests were disastrous. These disastrous harvests alone clearly caused the famine. Collections by the state did not have anything to do with the famine. Collections by the state did not exceed 30% of total production. There was famine not because of collections but because of a series of inadequate harvests. Mark Tauger found that the famine was in fact caused by natural factors. And it has been documented that the Soviet government actively sought to help regions struck by famine.

I largely agree with the above. But reasons for famine where not soley due to bad wheater. But also caused by farmers resitance to collectivization itself. hundreds of thousands of cattle,sheep,goats, etc. where sluaghtered by farmers as a form of resistance. -smert007

Russification
I have removed the discussion about Russification in Ukraine because it is baseless. Ronald Grigor Suny's "The Soviet Experiment" shows that that even the majority of Russian children in Ukraine SSR were instructed in the Ukrainian dialect in the 1920s and 1930s. In the USSR, the state distributed newspapers, journals, radio, and programming in more than 100 different languages. Soviet currency contains the official language of each of the 15 former republics.

Filler
''In addition to the direct losses from unnatural deaths, the indirect losses due to the decrease of the birth rate should be taken into account in consideration in estimating of the demographic consequences of Holodomor. For instance, the natural population growth in 1927 was 662 thousand, while in 1933 it was 97 thousand, in 1934 it was 88 thousand. The combination of direct and indirect losses from Holodomor gives 4,469 thousand, of which 3,238 thousand (or more realistically 3 to 3.5 million) is the number of the direct deaths.''

This tries to put forth a distorted impact of the famine. The main concern is the amount of excess deaths rather than these abstract "demographic consquences." These will be removed as they do not pertain to the issue of loss of life.

Jacob Peters

Baseless Statement
Most modern scholars agree that the famine was caused by the policies of the government of the Soviet Union under Stalin, rather than by natural reasons

This is incorrect as there is a sharp debate between those who have provided evidence showing that poor weather and the absence of traction power had seriously obstructed the sowing. The views set forth by these scholars who have conducted groundbreaking research have not been seriously challenged. These views are endorsed by RW Davies, Stephen Wheatcroft, Grover Furr, Mark Tauger, D'ann Penner, and Gregory Freeze. These are all scholars, not politicians, who teach at higher education campuses. Their views therefore need more emphasis. The only ones who have alleged that the famine was brought about by the policies of the Soviet government were those whose work was published before the declassifying of Soviet archives.

I would just like to point that I and a number of other scholars have shown conclusively that the famine of 1931-33 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.

http://www.as.wvu.edu/history/Faculty/Tauger/Tauger,%20on%20famines%20and%20scholarship,%20H-Russia%2004.16.02,%20my%20p.pdf

Partisan Sources
http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/1986/448620.shtml

Absolutely ridiculous. What if I were to derive material from Pravda which challenge claims of famine? A nationalist Ukrainian outlet is not a serious, scholarly, objective source and neither is a Marxist outlet.

Neither are the so-called findings by the American government, prior to the declassifying of the archives, of any objective value. It is a flagrant violation of NPOV policy to take deliberately partisan, non-scholarly sources. It would frankly be no different than citing material from the Nazi German period which systematically exaggerate famine. Likewise, it would be no different than citing Soviet sources in regard to conditions in America.

Use of Nazi Source
http://www.colley.co.uk/garethjones/otto_schiller_daily_telegraph_1.htm

Otto Schiller worked for the Nazi German government. Needless to say, it is not an objective, unbiased source. This is a flagrant violation of NPOV.

Improvement
Finally there has been improvement on this page. In no longer reads like a CIA polemic. I will proceed to add more work by Wheatcroft & Davies and Tauger.Jacob Peters


 * I am waiting for you to finish with your changes but before you leave, please make sure that every ref to Wheatcroft is supplied with the page number. --Irpen 03:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The article underwent some extensive editing yesterday and today by anonymous account and by user:Jacob Peters. Some of their edits are likely to anger lots of people. I am also very uncomfortable with such a drammatic change. Nevertheless, their edits brought in some sourced information. Therefore, I urge everyone to refrain from wholesale revert. I started to carefully go through the recent edits and processed the lead paragraph. I almost finished processing their chamges to the first section but, unfortunately lost data in my browser and will have to try again this weekend. It will take little effort to purge some obvious nonsense, such as calling the countries and historians that recognize the Genocide a "reactionary" and "conservative", respectively, but calling the "weather theorists" as "progressive". This is an easy part that will take no time. Processing substantial changes will take a significant effort and I plan to spend some time this weekend on that. If others want to jump in, please do but I urge care.

Here is one hint on the caution with Whatcroft data. There is no question that numbers and facts he cites that are based on declassified archives are factually correct. Other researchers who publish these data cite the exact same numbers to every digit. But here is one example that illustrates why caution needs to be applied to the data. The article correctly cites the following statement properly referring it to Wheatcroft
 * " Between February and July 1933 at least thirty-five Politburo decisions and Sovnarkom decrees authorised issue of a total of only 320,000 tons of grain for food for 30 millions persons"

What is ommitted here is that there was another resolution that ordered dividing peasants hospitalized and diagnosed with dystrophy into ailing and recovering patients. The resolution ordered improving the nutrition of the latter within the limits of available resources so that they could be sent out into the fields to sow the new crop as soon as possible.

This is just an example that illustrates why the recent edits need to be not reverted wholesale but worked on with care and dilligence.

No one is of course prohibited from editing the article, but I urge everyone to be careful, unlike the recent editors. I thank Alex for semiprotecting it. At least, the endless anonymous editing will stop now. Later, --Irpen 07:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This seems to be a complete rewrite of previous version, which was stable for quite some time. Now the recent edits are more pov, have numerous misspellings and affected the formating of the entire article.  Will be involved in editing off and on as well.--Riurik (discuss) 00:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

A question of reason
The portuguese article is only the best! Why?

Because they proved the genocidal nature of the Holodomor...

Dear Wheatcroft lovers (Jacob Peters and another folks!), please read this paper [] or [] or or  or []!

Do you want more? I have a lot...

In the Wikipedia, Genocide its like the Nanking Massacre, or the Pontic Greek Genocide, or the Revolt in the Vendée, or the Rohingya Massacre, or the First Jewish-Roman War, or the Darfur conflict, or the Bar Kokhba's revolt, or the Kitos War, etc, etc, etc, etc, but not the Holodomor!

Amazing!

LuisMatosRibeiro 20:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh how interesting, only links to .ua papers... That's not even funny. Seriously though, do you think these leaflets qualify as academic sources?
 * It was not a genocide. Simply put, the fault of the Ukrainians was not being Ukrainians, but because they were living in one of the most fertile places of the former USSR. If this area was inhabited by Chinese or E.T., the result would have been the same. What people also forget is that Holodomor affected other parts of the USSR as well... -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  21:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi again, so where were we...ahh yes Genocide - Holodomor was genocide against the Ukrainian people by the communist totalitarian regime of Stalin and his sychophantic comrades; during the manmade famine of 1932-33, Russians, Kazakhs and others were murdered as well.  The cited papers may have a .ua ending, however they host reputable sources such as Kulchytsky whose credibility has been proven by other editors on this talk page and elsewhere.--Riurik (discuss) 21:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Russians, Kazakhs and others were murdered as well" - ah, finally we're getting there. So the Holodomor was the genocide of whom? The answer is - no one in particular. The question is not whether it was man-made or not (which must be debated specifically), but I find attempts to say that it was specifically directed at Ukrainians slightly ridiculous. It was directed against peasantry in general, actually... -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  21:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "It was directed against peasantry in general..." - except that a huge chunk, over 4.8 million, of that peasantry just happened to be Ukrainian peasants. That other nationalities died from calculated policies of Stalin is not subject to much dispute at all.


 * Also, if your line of reasoning is extended to its logical conclusion, then it stands that because other nationalities died at the hands of Hitler's regime during the Holocaust (Shoah) the genocide was not really committed against the Jews? Obviously that is absurd.  Jews were exterminated by the Nazis together with other nationalities and ethnicities (poles, ukrainians, romanians, russians, belarussians, gypsies, and so on).  I am sure that we both agree on this, hence your argument that ("other nationalities died during Holodomor") does not invalidate the historical occurrence of the Holodomor as a genocidal act at the hands of Stalin.  Finally, genocide/democide when millions of people - Soviet citizens - die because of grain extortion, when the military and the police are ordered to seal off chunks of territories in order to stop anyone from fleeting the starvation zone, that qualifies as calculated, intentional murder, that is genocide.--Riurik (discuss) 03:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Riurik, if the huge chunk happens to be ukrainian peasants, it is also because Ukraine was producing a sizable percentage of the grain production. As I said above, would Ukraine be populated
 * So, my argument is the following: if the Holodomor affected more than just Ukraine, it cannot be considered as an act of genocide, since a genocide is by definition directed at an ethnical/religious group. Anything not directed at a particular ethnic group does not qualify as a genocide. A mass murder, perhaps, but not a genocide.
 * What bothers me even more in the current state of the article is that some people (both on wiki and especially off-wiki) are trying to make the Holodomor look like an act directed specifically against the "poor Ukrainians", which it was not. The resolution Ukraine is trying to submit to the UN states that it was a genocide directed specifically against Ukrainian people, which it is not (again).
 * That's called POV on wiki... -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  11:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Some thoughts. Among the links posted by LuisMatosRibeiro, while not to academic papers, several are written by authors known as established academics, so the links are acceptable. Academic does not automatically mean NPOV, true enough. But if the article in a general use newspaper (that is not peer reviewed) is authored by an academic who established his credibility in peer reviewed publications, the article is usable as a source.

As for why Ukrainians, this is exactly where the crux of the matter is. Is it because, indeed, Ukrainians were the most agricultural nation, additionally sitting in the fertile land? Or was it a part of the plan to crush the potential separatism of the nation whose allegiance was considered absolutely crucial for the survival of the USSR? Several academics suggest just that. Those are notable opinions and should be covered. At the same time no hard facts and documents were revealed with orders to specifically target Ukrainians. Also a notable fact and should be covered that evidence, no matter how convincing to some scholars, is circumstantial.

Also questions: is Soviet statistics from the formerly classified archives reliable? Most scholars think so. Is there still non-declassified info? Several articles say that all the crucial data is available now. Notable fact and should be covered.

Next question, formerly classified yearly death/birth statistics (that's where 1.5 mln "excess deaths" come from) do not add up to the census data (also formerly classified). A notable fact that should be covered. How do we explain this descrepancy? We have a sourced explanation in the article.

Next question, the harvest in 1932 was indeed low as the opened archives show. Is it relevant? Of course it is! Is the harvest alone responsible for the famine? Impossible. The catastrophic famine did not happen in the non-Soviet Ukrainian lands where weather was roughly the same.

Next comes the question of state reserves. The paper of Tauger (cited), notably a scholar who does not agree with the Genocide applicability, confirms that the state reserves were still being filled, while the famine was already raging and when the relief effort was started, a significant share of reserved grain was ordered to be not distributed and the orders to fill reserves through grain confiscation were still given.

About the relief, are the documents ordering the relief authentic? Of course they are. Are the numbers on amount of grain distributed by relief effort correct? Also likely true. Soviets did not need to lie to themselves in the classified statistics because they wanted to know what's going on. However, is the secret order to separate the affected people into those who could possibly work in the field and give food aid to them only authentic? Very much so! Are the orders of crop confiscation authentic? No doubt - as well as the data about the amount of collected grain. And so on and so forth.

As long as we present all the facts untendentiously, the unfamiliar reader will be able to make up his mind as many scholars did (and they also do not agree with each other). As for the users who already made up their mind here, it is unlikely they will change their views.

The question of Genocide indeed reduces not to how many of those perished were Ukrainians and how many were not. The question is the presense (or lack of) the specifically anti-Ukrainian genocidial intent in the action of the Soviet leaders, because in the definition of the Genocide the intent is the crucial issue. In legal issues the proof in intent is a very difficult challenge. Lack of documents where such intent is directly expressed leaves it to trying to derive the intent from the actions which is a very non-trivial puzzle. Some scholars think they have can do it. When we get the agreement of the majority of them, we will add the article to Cat:Genocides.

What damages the article a whole lot, is the tendentios approach of part of its editors who edit it with the sole intention to white-wash or demonize the Soviet leadership. The rest of us are then forced to process their changes and argue with such editors instead of carefully developing the articles further. --Irpen 23:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Here are some stuff that you might like to see, have a look on the census data on Demoscope and look at the age distribution of the population. This is IMO, quite crucial, because infant mortality would have been highest in famines. Take the 1939 census and just skim the numbers of the age between 0 (born in 38) and 10 (born in 28). At the age of five, the numbers read almost half of what they normally should be. Stalinskaya Oblast, and around that year ther is a depression), just for fun plot the stuff into excel for all the oblasts. Even for the whole republic that data is mirrored.


 * Now then we all know that in general the Soviet census of 39 was forged. However if take subsequent censuses and look at the same age period (obviousely war would play a big role), but on the whole the same picture emerges. 1959, look at the now 25 aged people and those surrounding - identical drop. Is this information in the article?--Kuban Cossack [[Image:Flag of the Russian Empire (black-yellow-white).svg|25px|]] 14:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The major factor that led to the lower than expected 1937 census were declining births rather than increasing deaths. From 1931-33, it is shown that there 5 million projected births that did not take place.

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/archive/hunger/deaths.xls

Jacob Peters


 * Not quite usable as is. The yearly data Jacob Peters refers to is unreliable as the yearly deaths/births net sums for 1929-1937 do not add up to the population difference between 1937 and 1929 according to the respective censuses. The fact that such a difference exists is well known. The only way to explain the discrepancy is that either yearly statistics or the census data or both are incorrect (btw, both were classified in Soviet times). It is generally accepted, however, that the 1937 census results are indeed truthful. Interestingly, the census was conducted so immaculately from the POV of the statistical science, that it widely louded and those who oversaw it were praised and received state decorations for their scientific work. Only later when it became apparent that the census totals fell short of Stalin's expectations, the scientists were repressed, census remained classified ever since and the falsified numbers were instead published.


 * From the common sense POV it also seems likely that census is more reliable than the yearly deaths/births reports (since one of the two got it wrong). Census makes an instant picture of the situation at the specific time and all the preparations (enough census takers assigned to each districts and facilities to sum the data up) are taken in advance. At the same time, if the death rate soars up to the digits that are totally unexpected, there are simply not enough facilities to register all deaths properly. Note that the numbers taken during the census and during the yearly deaths/births registration were meant to be accurate. No government would deliberately falsify the data meant to be classified and used for the planning, governing and other purposes. So, we are not talking of falsification of the deaths statistics. But it is still wrong because it contradicts the more reliable census data. --Irpen 23:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)