Talk:Holodomor/Archive 8

Transliteration
The first sentence says the word in Ukrainian is "Голодомор", so shouldn't the English transliteration be "Golodomor"? Just asking, I don't know Ukrainian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.208.7 (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The letter "Г" in Russian is equivalent to the English letter "G" however in Ukrainian the same letter "Г" is equivalent to the English letter "H". Bobanni (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

post-traumatic stress
What do you mean?Xx236 13:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy of russification?
I suggest to exclude "policy of russification" as a reason of Holodomor. That was hardly the reason.Biophys 04:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this section should be be better integrated into the article, but russification was a major effect of the Holodomor's rural depopulation, collectivization, and mass resettling into the cities. —Michael Z. 2007-07-21 05:18 Z 


 * The section on russification provides the background for what is happening at the time, and ought to be kept. However, I am not opposed to clarifying the relationship between Holodomor and what caused it, especially if we're relying on reputable sources.--Riurik(discuss) 21:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Article needs improvement
This article is so politicized that it lacks a descriptive part. One should simply describe first what had happened, and only then discuss who is responsible, was it a genocide or not, etc.Biophys 13:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight
Introduction of this article tells: "Most modern historians agree that the famine was caused by the policies of the government of the Soviet Union under Stalin, rather than by natural causes". Right. What is then a reason to discuss unimportant "natural causes" for so long in this article? This section should be shortened.Biophys 21:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Previous Famines
As a matter of curiosity, have there been other famines in Ukraine? surely there was a lot of disruption during the Civil War? Wasn't there a famine in the 1890's? If so then there is at least a case for the claim that there was a crop failure involved in the mass deaths in Ukraine and elsewhere? Keith-264 15:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)83.100.189.100 15:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Title for the genocide theory section
We have a discussion there some prominent author supports the genocide theory while others strongly reject it. I think it is entirely appropriate to have the section titled with a question. It is neutral and does not look awkward. Title like Holodomor as genocide are seen as supporting the genocide theory as a fact, while say Allegations of Genocide would be seen as disrespectful to the theory supporters. I think we are better off to keep the consensus title Alex Bakharev 04:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't think that a question is appropriate for a title. "as genocide" simply introduces the topic of the section: the different views on refering to "Holodomor as genocide". In my opinion the question title looks stupid and should be changed to something else.  Ostap 05:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. There is no genocide "theory" section. 26 countries, including the US and Canada, have accepted the fact that it was genocide. There will always be Holodomor deniers, but there are always apologists for everything. The Holomor was genocide, and unless you can provide evidence that it wasn't, please stop belittling the millions of deaths. Thanks, Horlo 06:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please learn to separate referenced facts from referenced judgments. That Famine took place is a fact. That millions died is a fact. That the term Genocide is applicable is a judgment, hence a POV, even if referenced one. Notable POV can be given in the article in an attributed form but not stated as an undeniable fact which it becomes if it is slapped into the title of the section. Academic scholars do not agree with the term's applicability. We present both views in the article and the readers are to make up their minds. --Irpen 19:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The question title is not encyclopedic. Why not "Holodomor as genocide"?
 * Are you saying that the term genocide is always a judgement, and that there is no criteria for determining what is or isn't genocide? if it is always POV, then why not protest the Armenian Genocide being labeled as such, because its POV? I am sure there are some scholars who object to it as a genocide. What makes a genocide a genocide? Ostap 19:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There are those that, frankly, contend the famine was of natural circumstances and point to Soviet records that when Stalin was informed, he dispatched grain to feed the starving. So, a great tragedy, but not intentional.
 * Unfortunately I have not yet found a reputable source for the anecdotal statement that when the Ukrainians were not dying fast enough, Stalin sent Khrushchev in to machine-gun them. (That would be intentional and therefore genocide.)
 * There are then also those who say others in Ukraine died besides Ukrainians, ergo was not against Ukrainians specifically ergo not genocide, hence coined term "democide." &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ostap, how many people died is a fact. That grain was confiscated is a fact. Whether there was an intent of the Soviet leadership to exterminate the Ukrainian nation behind this is a judgment that historians and readers have to make based on the available data. Remember that the definition of the Genocide requires the Genocidal intent of the perpetrators of the crime against people. There are no known documents from declassified archives that the Soviet leadership's intent was to exterminate Ukrainians. So, the intent has to be derived from the actions by scholars who analyze all the facts. Some scholars consider the intent to be genocidal and some not. So do some governments. The elaboration is in the article. Obviously, the encyclopedia should rely more on the scholarship than on political declarations. So, what makes a Genocide a Genocide is a near-universal agreement within the mainstream historic thought confirmed by the usage of the term in the scholarly sources or the acceptance of the by the UN organ, such as an International Court of Justice. As far as I can remember, UN opined on the term's applicability only wrt to the Nazi Holocaust, Rwanda and Bosnian Genocide. Additionally, the near-universal agreement exists among the scholars on the applicability of the term to the case of Armenian Genocide. There is no such agreement in the case of Holodomor. As such, we should present the issue in a referenced form attributing the judgment to the scholars. --Irpen 20:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, political declarations are not made on a whim and shouldn't be discounted, they reflect scholarship.
 * But, what about the question title? That seems unencyclopedic.  "Holodomor as genocide" is not biased, and not a question.  I still think it should be changed to this. Ostap 20:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying the political declarations should be discounted. They should be presented in a referenced form but as political declarations exactly. As for the title, I think the current one is good. How about "Applicability of Genocide". --Irpen 20:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not 'Holodomor as Genocide"? It is considered genocide by a (very) large number of people, scholars, governments, ect.  The title reflects that this view is held and gives an introduction to the paragraph which is about "the Holodomor as genocide", while at the same time not violating what you said earlier.  Ostap 22:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Considerations more or less based on available data. Does someone remember about recent considerations: Invasion in Iraq – (very) large number of people, governments supports the excluding of threat of WMD etc. So, if they, will knew from the beginning, what the main reasons are not as stated ? I agree – there no obstacles to recognize Holodomor as genocide if your are read a "Harvest of Sorrow" published at "Empire of Evil era" but there lot of questions raised when compare it with declassified archives data and documents. Jo0doe 07:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever, but this discussion isn't even about the event being called genocide, this is about the title of the section. As it stands, the question title is unencyclopedic. Ostap 03:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Holodomor in Soviet historiography
How was holodomor described in Soviet historiography? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There no "holodomor" in Soviet historiography - in 30-40s 1932-1933 events called "break in agriculture" inflicted by "trotskist, kulaks, spies of fascists" in order to undermine credibility to kolkhoz and Soviet regime in rural areas "which tried to move "course to the road of hunger and starvation"      . Under Khruschev 50-60   - "difficulties with food supplement"  "caused in some cases by Stalins-Beria guardians"… Jo0doe 06:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you could provide references for this, we could add this to the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

image From "20 Years of Soviet Ukraine" book (1937 edition) (passages agents, trotskist and kulaks" virtually the same at "20 Years of Soviet Ukraine" words about "route of hunger" from "Summary of 1-st 5-years plan "Pyatiletka" 1934 2-nd edition "break in agriculture" widely uses in 1933-35 speaches of Ukrainian Leaders (Kosior and rest) Jo0doe 06:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ommited data
There no info on famine in 1932 (winter 1931/32, March-June 1932) – e.g. before law "on the safekeeping of Socialist property", "Restrictions on the freedom of movement, assault on Ukrainian national culture" and other factor which mentioned as prove of deliberate famine/holodomor.

In other hand there no info on wide spread of famine till late December 1932 (even fist decade of January 1933). (Reason of stating in holodomor referring to 1932 is unclear)

There was a huge (>650 pages) publication of declassified archives in 1990 related to 1932 and 1933  with reports on hunger, death and cannibalism obtained from OGPU and Ministry of Health in 1932 and 1933. Reports on difficulties with food supplement in Ukrainian cities caused by shortage of planned collections from nearest rural areas (1932 and 1933). Information about food aid (not only grain) provided in 1932 and in 1933 (starting February, 18 1933). etc.

So, the question is: The reasons of providing food aid (local and "Mocsow" available funds)(February-June 1932 and February-June 1933) remains unclear, if the famine was engineered by the Soviets specifically targeting the Ukrainian people to destroy the Ukrainian nation as a political factor and social entity?

Interesting what most of mentioned before documents does not "unfolds" in recent "SBU declassified Holodomor archives (more than 5 thousand pages) " – huge chunk of declassified documents  refer to 1930-31 and some of them to Crimea territory (hardly explains what SBU does not know what in 1932-33 Crimea belongs to Russian Federation and has only 12% of Ukrainian population (instead of 37,2% for Kuban Region (North Caucasus). But some recent citation from 1990 publication widely spreaded (especially about cannibalism cases).

Also there strange story with figures and data of export /import and seizure of the 1932 crop – actual data stated in documents are differ from stated. E.g. – there no "divided years" data (1930/31) which provided only till 1927/28. Actual data (cereals) : 1930- 4846024 1931-5182835 1932-1819114 1933-1771364 tons (wheat export shortened in 1932 to 550 917 ton from 2 498 958 in 1931 and 2 530 953 in 1930)



In other hand, seizure of the 1932 crop which "according to the US Government Commission on the Ukrainian Famine,  was the main reason for the famine" - was significantly less then in 1930 and 1931 – (million puds (16kg): 1930/31/32: July -2.7/16.4/2.0 August -  66/114/47 September -80/94/59 October -123/75/23 Total :393/395/255 (as of February, 5 1933 – day declared as end of grain collection in Ukraine)

Accordingly to the declassified SBU data – (reference- Directive of January 22, 1933) there was a report on number of intercepted and escorted back or arrested and sentenced in Ukraine (23/I to 2/II 1933)



arrested – 340 + 1650 (at railways); returned from Russian Federation - 8257 Jo0doe 08:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sholokhov ref
Don't have the Davies book, but quoting from book review: "Unlike Sholokhov’s, many pleas for assistance, including those from Party Secretaries in Ukraine, were rejected." Stalin's personal interest was Sholokhov, not general interest in the starving populace. Adjusted article wording to reflect properly.  &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless first decision of TSK VKP(b)about providing food aid was issued 18.02.33 and unclear number (2-7) after. Can we trust in stupidity of Stalin which few weeks ago applied titanic effort to confiscate foods in order to provide it as aid few weeks later? Or there exists some other reasons in such treatment?Jo0doe 06:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Many things happened in the Soviet Union which defied logic. I am working on tracking down some other references on what amount of grain was, or wasn't, in storage even as grain was being confiscated. I believe my rewording of Stalin's interest in assisting was more correct that what stands in the article now (reverted to prior version). Stalin responded to an individual official about that official's "home", not to a general plea for wider aid. To say that even Soviet leadership expressed personal interest implies a far wider interest in ameliorating the impact/extent of the famine than was the case in particular incident (Sholokhov) being described. The current article text picks the "best of" the Davies reference while leaving out the general case specifically mentioned (explicit denial of aid). &mdash;  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Data on Ukraine
Article is about Ukrainian – what's about to use data about Ukraine in addition to the whole of Soviet? Collectivisation  Number of tractors  vs working horses  harvest  and ploughing

Also there should be noted (in terms of Elimination of Ukrainian cultural elite) about the percentage of Ukrainians amongst Managers and Specialist

Interesting to know how will be assessed - by apologists and deniers -the figures of pupils in Ukrainian school    - especially by nationality Jo0doe 10:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Black List or Chorna Doshka
I've found a traces of Black List or Chorna Doshka much earlier - 1922-24 – so it`s not a "new invention". Also should be noted what Black List  position from 2 to 4 were excluded from list 25 01/33 - 2 (Gavrylivka) and  3 Lyutenki;  N 4 Kamyani Potoky - 17 oct 1933 - as they gain more success in plan of grain collection. Also it's only ban on supply on goods but not food (as mentioned,- since foods at that time does not supplied for trade proposes to rural areas)   and not "the confiscation of all financial resources" but withdrawal of credits provided by government. Jo0doe 14:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo0doe (talk • contribs) 14:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Statistical data
I've add statistical data specialy on Ukraine for mentioned period, but unfortunately not so lucky to add a reference

O.M. Asatkin Ukrainian SRR in figures statistical compendium, Kyiv 1936 http://www.flickr.com/photos/27-35data/910159987/

O.M. Asatkin National Economy of Ukrainian SRR statistical compendium, Kyiv 1935 http://www.flickr.com/photos/27-35data/910160723/ Jo0doe 08:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Map of Ukrainian SRR in 1932-33 borders
I've add a map of Ukrainian SRR in 1932-33 borders http://www.flickr.com/photos/27-35data/911004656/ which differ from later (1935 one) http://www.flickr.com/photos/27-35data/911004508/

So we can discuss now how The Foreign Office http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holodomor_Famine_map.jpg

explain "Soviets implied famine, which specifically targeting the Ukrainian people to destroy the Ukrainian nation as a political factor and social entity." on territory annexed by Romania (Bessarabia)and on some of the Russian Federation territories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo0doe (talk • contribs) 06:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

- OCt 26, 2007--fixed some awk. grammar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.67.28 (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Note from the Library of Congress on the Ukrainian famine:
Widespread wording: "Note from the Library of Congress on the Ukrainian famine: The policy of all-out collectivization instituted by Stalin in 1929 to finance industrialization had a disastrous effect on agricultural productivity. Nevertheless, in 1932 Stalin raised Ukraine's grain procurement quotas by forty-four percent (44%). This meant that there would not be enough grain to feed the peasants, since Soviet law required that no grain from a collective farm could be given to the members of the farm until the government's quota was met."

So, real initial data ( look at ) for grain collection (shortened later twice ) - 18.1% less then in 1931.

"44% statement" look like it has same source as "yellowcake uranium from Niger" in recent events..Jo0doe 09:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC).

Conference: The Holodomor of 1932-33: a 75th Anniversary Conference on the Ukrainian Famine-Genocide
http://www.inogs.com/

http://webapp.mcis.utoronto.ca/EventDetails.aspx?eventid=5049

82.155.56.168 22:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian Holodomor & the denial of genocides
International Conference: Organized by Guarini Institute for Public Affairs-John Cabot University With the cooperation of Comitati Pro Libertatibus and the Italian Association for the Study of Central and Eastern European History (AISSECO)

International Conference, Rome, Italy, Friday, November 9, 2007

http://action-ukraine-report.blogspot.com/#a20

http://www.aisseco.it/

82.155.212.45 11:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

rewrite needed
certain sections of the article read like they were (badly) translated from russian via babelfish. example:

''Food assistance was not limited only to grain, also provided assistance in following food means: meat, potatoes, fats, flour and fish. Due the limited stocks also for food proposes was used Foxtail millet and other food surrogates specially recommended by Ukrainian Institutes of nutrition. Separate efforts applied to assist a starved children - for starved children also allocated sugar, oils, groats and canned goods and financial assistance.''

if there are no objections, i'll do the editing myself.

Companera 01:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It was a reasonably well-refed section but someone inserted one garbage paragraph into it, the one you exactly noted. We all have missed that strange addition. Removed now. --Irpen 05:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"Someone" it's me. Probably it can be assumed as garbage – it's a citation from Soviet Archives Document Compendium issued at 1990 and located at http://www.archives.gov.ua/Sections/Famine/Publicat/ - biggest till present time published Soviet official documents collection related to 1932-1933. If based on that documented source – the correct title should look like "Insufficient prompt assistance provided".

Also para should be updated with 13,5 million  poods of grain (for rural areas only) in 1932 (till July) from Central sources.

Still, "findings of modern historians" cited here are in controversy with actual archival documents. So – history here will remain at "Note from the Library of Congress" positions. I also wonder what assistance for starved people and especially for starved children treated as garbage. Slava Ukraini! Jo0doe 07:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The point is that this paragraph was just bizarre. Your English is good enough to do better than that. Please add any important referenced info properly and supply your refs. Thanks, --Irpen 19:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Soviet leadership expressed personal interest?
I think this footnote gives the wrong impression to a reader. Given the information about the famine and the direct role played by Kremlin in instigating it, how can any respectable encyclopedia make such statements as:


 * On April 6, 1933, Sholokhov, who lived in Vesenskii district (Kuban, Russian Federation), wrote at length to Stalin describing the famine conditions and urging him to provide grain. Stalin received the letter on April 15, and on April 16 the Politburo granted 700 tons of grain to the district. Stalin sent a telegram to Sholokhov "We will do everything required. Inform size of necessary help. State a figure." Sholokhov replied on the same day, and on April 22, the day on which Stalin received the second letter, Stalin scolded him, "You should have sent answer not by letter but by telegram. Time was wasted" Davies and Wheatcroft, p. 217

Saying that Stalin scolded Sholokhov for not sending a telegram is like saying Hitler scolded Eichmann for not helping the Jews. We know that Stalin did not give a damn about helping Ukrainians that is why by mid-1930s the pile of dead was in the millions. I strongly oppose claiming that Soviet leadership expressed personal interest in aid distribution, especially NOT Stalin.--Riurik(discuss) 22:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That Stalin would unlikely have cared about what he thought as "chips" (individual human beings) that get lost during "logging" (fulfilling his long term goals of industrialization and fundamentally changing the country towards his own "vision") is one thing. "Лес рубят, щепки летят" was one of his favorite sayings. So, we should not make it look like he was sincerely scolding Sholokhov for not requesting aid on time. Therefore, this episode, likely true though, was a propaganda show by the Soviet leader. On the other hand, some aid effort did take place. Ukrainian historian Kulchytsky makes a convincing argument that the purpose of the aid was purely sustaining the agricultural workforce, rather than help the millions of people starving. I included this info in the article properly attributing it as it is, while a respectable, a POV. Note, however, that the fact that the aid was given is notable and should be given in the article as well. That the aid was insufficient to stop the famine is also a fact. Whether more aid was indeed available and whether withholding the aid was deliberate to enfamish the region is again speculative. I think we can remove this episode but the facts that the aid effort, though insufficient, was undertaken should remain in the article. --Irpen 22:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Grafikm_fr saw fit to revert my edit which I thought put the "personal interest" into proper perspective, having gone back to read the source. [Diff here]. PētersV 23:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought it was worthwhile to put it in again. I support the specific incident remaining in the article, it is what it is. We should simply not read less, or more, into it than there is in representing the original source. PētersV 23:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Vecrumba, your own edit was unacceptable. I hope it is clear why from my edit summary. --Irpen 00:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Irpen, fine I will go dig out the full reference again. Davies made the specific point in the context of Sholokhov that the aid was for his personal district and that other requests from high level officials went unheeded. You are cherry-picking (to use your term) to take the part you like (Stalin cared...) and leave the part behind you do not like (...but not a whole lot). Your revert is unfounded, but I will leave for now until we can discuss that part of the source in full. PētersV 02:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In reply to Irpen's reply to my original post, I still think this is an unnecessarily peace of "fyi" in an article that is already length-excessive, but you provide a reference and as long as claim is neutrally phrased and provided with a context, which it seems to now, I won't make an issue of this.--Riurik(discuss) 03:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Riurik, interestingly, I just checked Davies and he says that Stalin's exchange with Sholokhov was not mentioned in Soviet press until 1963 and were only published in full in 1994, so it was more complex than just pure propaganda effort. One would need to read the whole book section to make an informed opinion. --Irpen 05:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not what one would expect, but even so I would say (call me a cynic) that this is typical Stalin, cold and calculating, if anything he was making a record for posterity. I will agree that to make an informed opinion one would need to read the book (book section), but I will also point out that one does not need to assume good faith if previous experience shows otherwise, even on wikipedia.--Riurik(discuss) 04:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Vecrumba, you owe me no favors to "go dig out the full reference again." You owe it to readers who you supply with misleading info falsely attributing it to the source. I am tired of your games and decided to devote some time to this in order to be over and done with it and discourage you from playing with sources in the future.

Here is your edit where you write:
 * While Stalin authorized distribution of aid in the case of a request by Sholokhov, whose own district was stricken, many requests even from senior party officials were rejected.(Davies, p. 217)

Let's do a simple decomposition of this short sentence. Its main message is that "many requests were rejected" and it says nothing about whether many or some requests were fulfilled. Moreover, singling out the Sholokhov case makes this look like fulfilling the request was exceptional. I don't have to agree or disagree with this information because, luckily, your edit claims that it is supported by the source, Davies, p. 217. If you have ever seen the book you claim is your source, you would know that the issue is not discussed at a single page but the book devotes an entire section to the subject.

After I pressed for confirmation, you, knowing full well that this info is not to be found on the particular page of the particular source, say that "you will dig out" the source again and, once you dig it out you would show that "Davies made the specific point in the context of Sholokhov that the aid was for his personal district and that other requests from high level officials went unheeded." You further accuse me of "cherry-picking to take the part [I] like and leave the part behind [I] do not like".

First, where do you get that "Stalin cared" is what "I like"? If you check the article's history carefully, you would find it was me who added the info refed to Kluchytsky about Stalin only caring for preservation of agricultural workforce. Your accusing me of Stalin-loving is just a new spite among those many I've heard from you in the past.

But that's not all. Your claim that Davies uses the Sholokhov example to make a point that it was exceptional is not supported by Davies himself. I went back to the book and reread the whole chapter "Grain in the Time of Famine, February-July 1933" were the whole issue is discussed, they make up pp. 204-230 of the 2004 edition ISBN 0333311078. In fact the book gives a great deal of info. Some calls for aid were fulfilled, some were rejected, both for seed and for food grain. It was a mixed bag rather than the picture you try to paint referring to Davies. I will expand the the article now and you, in turn, please do not try to misquote sources in the future. --Irpen 05:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * D&W do in fact do single this out as a unique event--"This was the only occasion on which the Politburo provided a specific amount of aid for a specific district." And D&W make the point on the very next page that many other requests were cut back or simply rejected. I also added to the article sanctions and other measures specifically against Ukraine which D&W mention which were lacking in the article. —PētersV (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation from Soviet declassified Archives Politburo Decision 16/ 03/32

"Politburo consider what the situation with seeds much more worst rather then stated in Kosior telegram…" Signed I.Stalin Politburo Decision 01/ 01/33

"For those members of kolhozes, and self-employed peasants, which of voluntarily returns hidden and stolen grain repressions will not be applied Signed I.Stalin

SNK and VKP(b) Decision 17/02/33 Allowed free commercial trade by bread in Vinnitsa, Kyiv oblasts (NOT KYIV) and Moldavian ASRR. Signed I.Stalin

18/02/33 VKP(b) Decree of food aid for Dneproperovska (1000000 poods), Odeska (800000) and Khsrkovska (300000) oblast (does not include aid for Donetska Oblast which provided by separate Decree in amount of at least 100000 tons of floor and grain) Signed I.Stalin

VKP(b) Decree 20/03/1933 "Improving of bread supply for workers and students in Ukraine" 1.	reduce a peck tax for Ukraine… 2.	Oblige Ukrainian TSK provide additional bread supply for increasing food supply for students and small towns and small enterprises in big cities. Signed I.Stalin


 * Reffering to the latest Riurik changes about this book - http://demoscope.ru/weekly/2003/0135/biblio01.php does it book was read before editing?

Does any conduct any similar by technique demografic analysis before?Jo0doe 07:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the article refers not to this book by Vallin but to his paper published in a highly respected journal: "Population studies".
 * Jacques Vallin, France Mesle, Serguei Adamets, Serhii Pyrozhkov, "A New Estimate of Ukrainian Population Losses during the Crises of the 1930s and 1940s", Population Studies, Vol. 56, No. 3. (Nov., 2002), pp. 249-264
 * An abstract to this paper is available here but a full version is copyrighted and cannot be posted. I have a full version and can email a copy to anyone interested but I cannot post it online of course. --Irpen 19:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, I've this book (CD included) - Chapter "La crise des années 1930" referred to period from 1924 to 1938 has 22 pages. Interesting what they simply stick to estimated only by natural increase/decrease data (on which based officially published 1927, 1929, 1930 population data) and does not really take into account intensive migration process (Ordered by 5-year plan for Ukrainian SRR to handle "agrarian overpopulation") which exist at late 20 and earlier 30 – they simply subtract them from total. So now we've at least 3 version of birth/death data for 1933 (millions) – ZAGS - 0.564/2.103, Kulchitski (Ukrainian Archive) – 0.471/1.85 and 1937 Census Data -0.359/1.309 [] Interesting, but last figures ommited by Shkolnikov Adamets etc.Jo0doe 07:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the original quote - Stalin to whoever. Did the grain get delivered? The philosophizing about what Stalin did or how much he loved his Ukrainian citizens seems more hashing over old/new/neverending politics - did the grain get there? I believe the stravation rate was just as high in most districts - not just the Ukraine.159.105.80.141 (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Add
Would be useful to add new para "Duration" and "Administrative changes" to article ? Based on Kulchitski ? proposed Text for "Duration" First stage Starvation started in late December 1931 and stopped in late June 1932. Initially there few villages and small towns were affected but till end of May "difficulties with food and cases of hunger" registered in 127 rayons (from 484 total) and whole Moldavian ASRR". Fist limited food aid was provided in mid of March. Centrally-provided aid started in late April. Total amount of aid provided from central sources for rural areas - 13,1 million poods (9,5 for seeds 3,6 for foods). Exodus of starved does not prevented and in some cases specially authorized. Second stage Starvation started in late December 1932 and stopped in late June 1933. Initially started in large (compared with 1931) extent at same as in 1931 areas. Later spread to most of Ukrainian administrative units (there very few rayons unaffected or affected with less effect (most in north part of Ukraine with less collectivization extent) including middle and large cities (Kyiv and Kharkiv) Fist limited food aid was provided at beginning of February, centrally – from mid of  February. Total amount of aid provided from central sources for rural areas till July 1933 - 35,19 million poods ~ 0,576 million tons[20] of grain for food, seeds and forage for Ukrainian SSR peasants, kolhozes and sovhozes.

Administrative changes In September 1930 center – district (okrug) – rayon administrative system was changed to center – rayon (503 total) governing system. Distribution of governing responsibilities take place till mid 1931 and does not finished till 2 February 1932 when new rayon administrative system was invented - center – region (oblast) – rayon, initially was created 5 oblast later  (in July) restated to 6 and to 7 in October 1932. Such changes become additional chaotic factor in whole picture of almost out of control situation with hunger. Jo0doe 16:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian Poor Peasants Committee = Komnezam
What about to replace/add to "Twenty-Five Thousanders" - with Komnezams, which (accordingly to the claims of most pre 70 soviet-ukrainian studies) plays significant role in collectivization process - 1,6 millions of komnezam members as compared with ~6k of "Thosanders" allocated for Ukraine. Interesting what komnezams were dismissed at early January 1933 (?inline with Stalin significant changes in agriculture?).Jo0doe 12:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Nansen photographs
Soviet famine. Many times photographs of the Soviet 1921-1923 Famine have been used to depict the Great Famine-Genocide in Ukraine in 1932-1933 as original photographs of the Ukraine Famine in 1932-1933 are few in number as the Soviets did not allow photographs to be taken and the region was closed to journalists and all the news media.

One photograph from a cemetary in Buzuluk, Russia shows a pile of 70-80 human corpses, mostly children who were found dead in the course of a 2 day period during December of 1921. This is an except of a telegram from Fridtjof Nansen to the Red Cross on December 9, 1921. "I have visited Samara region/Misery worse than darkest imagination/ Buzuluk district were Friends work has 915,000 inhabitants of whom 537,000 have no food left/30,405 died in September, October, November but deathrate rapidly increasing and before spring at least two thirds of population will perish if help not promptly forthcoming."  Look at this one and compare with this one Jo0doe 14:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 14:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Total area of Ukrainian SRR
Total area of Ukrainian SRR in 1926 - 451, 584 thousand sq. km (Census 1926 data). as of 1930 – 451,8  As of 1934 – 443,08. As of 1939 – 443 (Census 1939 Data) Does anyone handle 8 thousand sq. km difference in population estimation? Jo0doe 15:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the population estimation. The additional territories which were added from Poland did not suffer the Holodomor. When considering the effect of the Holodomor one should consider: a) the percentage of the total population of Ukraine that it affected and b) specifically the percentage of the rural population which it affected and which it targeted. Including number of people that were not affected and city dwellers who also were not affected distorts the eefect of the Holodomor on the Ukrainian population Bandurist (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What kind of genocide?
I think that one of the problems with this articles is that it might creates an impression that Soviet leadership meant this as a way to kill Ukrainians. I think that everybody objective would agree that this is not true. Soviet leadership have been absolutely heartless on countless occasions, but at the same time they care little about nationality. It's a well known fact (and this page provides a number of links to the info) that areas that were affected by famine extended to more then just Ukraine. Famine has been spread through most of agriculturally important areas within borders of the Soviet Union. This of course fits very well with the intention of the Soviet leadership at the time: which was to punish farmers that refused to abandon private farming and switch to collective farms. I guess it can be described a genocide, but a genocide of farmers and their families. Simply saying that it's was genocide is not enough as it might be misunderstood as if it was directed against specific nationality or group of nationalities. Even if it generalized to a genoside of Slavs (to include Ukrainians and Russians) it would still technically incorrect as many other areas (populated by other nationalities) where affected. In addition it seems that too much emphasis has been put on findings by politically charged entities (such as US Congress findings during the Cold War) that had a clear reason to be biased.

So in short: I think that we need to change genocide to "genocide of farmers". The magnitude of this tragedy would still be obvious, but this would describe event more correctly. Any thoughts? Hifisoftware 23:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"Genocide of farmers" with Mace map of Ukraine, Mace data and Mace vision - No objection.

But if compare it actual data - what we can see – most affected areas in Ukraine and the rest USSR – it's "grain production" areas, which accordingly to the Kontraktation system (1928-1932) must submit 1/4 of harvest instead of 1/8 in "grain consuming" areas (since they simply has better harvest). At same time it was areas of "total collectivization" – 85-100% of households and 95-100% of arable land was in collective usage. So – look like genocide against kolhozes and their members? What about the famine in towns, railway stations, and in institution in big cities which supplied through II and III class rationing system (well known fact but not fitted to "general canvas of right history"?)

What about the situation with prices on food in Ukraine at that time – why it was 5-15 times bigger then ever –at same time "cooperative" and "kolhozes" trade only available ( not "torgsins")?

Probably someone would like to forgot about Narkomzem, KolhozCenter, Tractorocenter, Narkomvnutorg and Gosplan and their officials – who actually were in charge and responsible for agriculture and food supply – better and easy to put all responsibility to one already guilty person. Your recent changes reflect this vision - but if such deserve to W-pedia?Jo0doe 07:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Jo0doe I am having trouble making sense of what you wrote... What's "Mace map of Ukraine?" What's "mace Data", and so on? I think that you are trying to say (correct me if I am wrong) that it was a famine, which I completely agree, but that's off topic to my initial statement. My point was that since people were affected in many different areas of the frmer USSR we need to make sure that we are not creating a wrong impression. Since Stalin was Georgian, it is my understanding that he spared his homeland from this famine, but most other areas were affected (particulary in Ukraine and Russia). Let me adress few of your statments one by one: "What about the famine in towns" - towns were mostly spared (compared to villages). It was a (barbaric and cruel) drive to force people to work in "kolhozes", not a genoside agains Russians or Ukranians. So naturally towns were far less affected (there were obviously no independent farmers: "kullacks", to starve). "why it was 5-15 times bigger then ever" - like I said, it was done to force people to work in collective farms instead of their own private farms. If you saw American movie: "Dr Shivago", there is a part when train drives though a burn-out village (somewhere close to Ural montains), and the only human being that seemed to survive were a woman with an infant. This was part of "red terror". So this famine is just another part (in my view) of this "red terror". Simmilarly brutal methods but different means. "Your recent changes reflect this vision" - which changes are you talking about? If you disagree with anything that I said, please let me know. I do want to hear.

Any other though? Anybody? Hifisoftware (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all I apology for last sentences – I mismatch “Hi…” with a different one “Hi…” I just would like to refer a “baseball cap history” were “one size fit for all” – e.g. Mace and company. 20-30 Soviet history it’s quite complicated thing – even for local researchers. There no much effort at that time to handle national movement (as someone would like to prove in resent time) – but fights between classes – poor and rich. Unfortunately Stalin does not “spared his homeland from this famine” – it (famine) simply has less effect there – you can find a letters (1932) from Beria (which was a head of this region at that time) with ask for food assistance for North Caucasus Region. I think it’s a “lost in time” issues when most of sovietologist join the 1932-1933 famine and collectivization in one cup. If such famine were exist in 1930 or even in 1931 – such vision probably will be have some sense (as your vision for "kolhozes"), but there was a winter-spring of 1933 - "kolhozes" already won – you can check the figures above. Also towns – especially small was affected in same or even worth extent (as ratio of rural/urban population). I never recommend to study (and base visions) on movies (especially H-wood:) – if it really “matter of trust” for you better to go to archives and try to work with real documents. About the “genocide apologists” – would be nice to compare their “logical findings”, statements and statistical data with true-one and with a full picture of story. You can do it even right now – when compare real 1933 map of Ukrainian SRR with a “foreign office” one – look at the date of books issue and simply rise a question – what are all of them are waiting for till “Empire of evil” time – why no such effort was applied before - at -20,-25-30-35-40 anniversary of Great Famine? Jo0doe (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Mace was a historian (died not that long ago at an early age) who contended that the famine was man-made. I don't have his text, though. —PētersV (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"Murder by hunger"
"Murder by hunger" is an incorrect translation of Ukrainian Holodomor, or Russian Golodomor,as mor just means death, no necessarily by murder. On the other hand since the translation is referred to BBC, I am reluctant to simply remove it, so I put it to the end of the lead. I would not object in removing the incorrect translation all together Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Since term Holodomor invented in late 1980 (1988 or 1989) by one of Ukrainian ,already forgotten by most, novelist would be good to note what "mor" "мор" traditionally refer to extensive deaths ( mostly from epidemic of plague, smallpox etc) and never to the expression moryty holodom, ‘to inflict death by hunger’. So would be logical to conclude such terms as extensive deaths caused by hunger or in scholastic version "hunger epidemic". Jo0doe (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Images
Perhaps the images which were added and removed can be put in a separate sub-page. That way they can be included while leaving the article focused on the topic. They are what they are, it is not our role to edit according to our personal projection of readers' sensibilities. I do agree that as they were added before they made it difficult to focus on reading the article. PētersV (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Just happened to pass by and noticed, why exactly is the opening section of this article so complicated, misleading and completely misses the point? The only thing relevant to the thing was that during the 1930-34 there was crop failure in Ukraine but the Soviet government kept shipping the grain to the world markets instead of feeding the hungry at home. The collectivization policies and mass deportations had also something to do with the lower agricultural production in Ukraine but that was not the reason why people starved to death. The reason was that the little grain available during the "bad weather conditions" in Ukraine was sold off by the government to earn dollars. So I hope the editors to whom this article is important are going to fix it up according to the facts. In case any refs are needed, please let me know. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * To Irpen, did I get it right, you accused someone in your edit summary of POV-pushing? I would suggest not to question the good faith of other editors in your edit summaries and overly elsewhere. It's not going to help to improve the article and WP in general. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you do not edit without knowing what sources say. I also suggest that you read an article before editing the lead. I also suggest that you take a look at this talk page (and recent archives) about the exports. Happy edits. --Irpen (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC) P.S. You latest edit is totally weird. Kulchytsky is the most authoritatively specialist on the Holodomor in Ukraine and he, actually, thinks that it was a genocide. In his articles cited he actually argues with other historians who disagree with the genocide's applicability when he reviews the state of the art within current mainstream scholarship. --Irpen (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me regards the cyrillic ref. The text in the article should say exactly who are these historians. the current statement is misleading and not clear and the ref can't be verified what exactly does it say. So please feel free to tighten up the "While historians continue...", where, what who etc.

I have to reject your suggestion reading the article first before the lead. The lead should be most clear and lay out the major points what the article is all about, not vice versa. And I did read this talk page about the exports. That's why I don't understand why the fact is not mentioned in the lead as the major factor. Because some editors don't think so? Well, it's pretty clear that not everybody shares these opinions and analyzes mostly advocated by Fkriuk. But you know, the whole "content dispute" thing is too boring and I'm not willing to get into debates here. So you guys have fun, I just offered a second opinion.--Termer (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Which one Kulchytsky? Today - probably yes, but Kulchytsky in 1990 not, even Kulchytsky in 2003 -- so which one Kulchytsky? Would be usefull to note recent Kulchytsky statement http://www.history.org.ua/Journal/2006/6/4.pdf 1932 - hunger 1933 (till summer) - Holodomor. Even situation with export is unclear - recently published data mentioned what export from Ukraine in late (November) 1932 was not so significant to change something in the world. Jo0doe (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't believe this. why don't you listen to yourself. The people were starving to death but "the export was not so significant to change something in the world". So the last bits of grain were exported because if it staid in Ukraine it would have not saved anybody anyway? --Termer (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Still there no proof for significant export when "people were starving to death" - e. g. late December - late June. At same time we've 2 documental proof what till August from Ukrainian fields were exported 20Kof grain (out of 190 planned) and till 7 of December - 99K - e.g. "no million tons of food exported by bloody regime". About "last of bits" total collection in 1932 (till 5 of February) was even worth rather then in "unhappy 1927" - does rigime can trust to 22K of kolhozes with tractors what they work even less rather than peasants with horses? So in thier belief - grain was stolen (1990 Kulchitski version). And regime have a credible trace for that - when hundreds of centners were found at heads, acountants, brigadirs of Kolhozes - at same time ordinary members of Kolhozes starved to death as you mentioned. So - story should be investigated better. Jo0doe (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It is self explanatory that due to the crop failure and dearth in 1930-34 export was "not significant" and "declined considerably" from 5,832,000 tons in 1930/31 down to 1,441,000 tons in 1933/34. The only thing that matters here is the fact of export during the famine when people were starving to death. That fact speaks for itself but for some reason it's not mentioned as the fundamental matter in the head of the article. Nothing else matters really regards of the genocide. The fact that that the core of the genocide is not mentioned in the header bothers me personally. Am I the only one?--Termer (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Termer, please cease substituting sources with your personal opinions, inventing what they say and assuming what they should say. The scholars that support the applicability of genocide and those who find it inapplicable are listed in due order and in due section. If you care to read those sources, you would find what arguments they use. Your own opinion that "nothing else matters" belongs to your own blog, not the Wikipedia articles or, especially, their lead sections. And I never said that you should not read the lead before reading the article. I said that you should read the article before editing the lead. So, you should not only read sources rather than assume what they say but also read the talk page entries to which you choose respond. --Irpen (talk) 08:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Irpen: Please stop mocking me and please stop being a dick. I'm sorry but I'm getting fed up with your attitude. You should know by now that I have always backed up everything with sources and clearly said that right in the beginning here as well. Now, sure, I'm going to add the fact to the header + the refs, right from the Encyclopedia of Genocide [ISBN 0028658485]. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again - still there no credible source for export during famine "when people were starving to death" which period has clearly identified (late December 1932 - late July 1933) even if such document ever exist it will be well decribed. In other hand Kulchitski mentioned the fact from spring 1932 when some amount of grain prepared to be exported was reverted for starved Ukrainian peasants. Even more exist a traces of grain import (non significant but exist) in spring 1933 to Ukrainian ports. I assume what figures with quarterly and even monthly export data available at archives and the reasons why they still not published only one - they does not met current targets. One more note - figures as 1930/1934 never used in Soviet statistics (still there no mirror customs statistic from importers) of mentioned time (1930-1935) - such practice ended since 1928/29 - later was only exact 1930, 1931 , 1932, 1933 etc figures. So I really don't mind why such estimations were used (excluding "sole" aim to proof something).Jo0doe (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

well, it's my turn to be a dick, please take this concern to Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity. In case this referenced fact is removed from the article again, you guys don't leave me any more choices but to report this as a removal of referenced facts for consideration at Administrator intervention against vandalism. thanks!--Termer (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

This was about After recognition of the famine situation in Ukraine during the 1930-34 crop failure and dearth the soviet government in Moscow decided to export grain rather than retain its crop to feed the people. turned into Despite the crop failure, the grain exports continued,--Termer (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yet again, Termer you don't even read the edits you revert. Your referenced info was not removed but moved from the lead where it does not belong to the section on the exports. --Irpen (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

So Irpen you clearly missed my post right above yours that cited the thing you're claiming "I don't even read". that the core facts had been changed into meaningless phrase Despite the crop failure, the grain exports continued, and had been moved down away from the header where it belongs. Please do not do that again. manipulating the meaning of the sourced core facts that the whole genocide is based on and moving it away from the header would be really difficult to interpet as anything else than an attempt to undermine the genocide. Therefore, I have to restore the facts like these are listed in the source. Please feel free to counter cite any sources that might have any different perspective on the issue. What is not going to be tolerated though, anybody tampering with the cited facts and removing the meaning like was done with it twice by now. Thanks! --Termer (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it was moved down to the export section where it belongs. The header merely summarizes the state of the art of the scholarship that there is no agreement among mainstream academics on genocide applicability. The arguments themselves, belong to the main body. --Irpen (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Famine still needs explanation
When I look at this article, I still don't understand why so many people starved. It says there was drought, but not as bad as in previous years; export, but less than in previous years; and shortage of horses, unsatisfactorily replaced by cows. It's not clear to me whether 16 million horses instead of 19 million is enough to cause extraordinary famine, nor why there was a sudden shortage of horses. And how (specifically) did collectivization lead to all this trouble? 70.15.116.59 (talk) 08:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

So would be better to mentioned were is whole USSR data, and were is Ukrainian SSR - so if look at Ukrainian data - horses more then twice less (with very limited number of working)? Also look at Ukrainian SRR fallow land and winter tillage put into service .Jo0doe (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason it's not clear is simply due to a lot of ballast and wishy-washy noise attached to the simple fact:collectivization+drought=famine; famine+government decided to export grain rather than retain its crop to feed the people=genocide. (according to the parliament of Ukraine and 26 other governments; and not under the "legal definition of genocide" according to "some historians") --Termer (talk) 10:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

In brief (accordingly to archive documents): Regarding horses decline - 10 reason – mental – on initial stage of total collectivization (Dec 1929 – March 1930) many Ukrainian peasants prefer to slaughter their livestock rater then put them to collective (amongst village inhabitants)  usage. Later in 1930 quite wide spread an idea what tractors will replays horses anyway and immediately (which happened some decade later), 3-rd – poor treatment as a collective property instead private ( not mine – why I should care for it) also inadequate remuneration for such works, small number of relevant stables. 4-th – shortened of forage due the converting of forage cultures sewing to grain and technical cultures. Regarding so many – almost all USSR agricultural failure– caused due the improper agriculture management conducted by professional propagandists at state authorities responsible for agriculture (Narkomzem), collectivization (Kolkhozcentre), mechanization (Tractorocentre) and state enterprises in agriculture – sovkhozes (Sovkhozcentre). Excellent speeches, paper plans and promises – “1930 Enron” in state size. “Revolution methods” in agriculture techniques caused a significant decline in production also affected by significant drought in 1931 – but in reports everything is accordingly to the plan, and on paper all was right. Nevertheless in 1931 in Ukraine at least 1\4 of harvest remains at fields uncollected. At same time local authority (for personal gain) overfulfill the collection plans – so in many cases seeds for sawing, forage and grain for food was collected for such proposes. So when comes spring 1932 – in many kolkhozes – no seeds for sawing, no working horses, tractors drivers moved o cities for foods. But on paper provided situation was not so catastrophic. At same cooperative trade network don’t want to loose their speculative profits  - price on foods at Ukrainian cooperative shops (there no other shops at that time) was 3-5 time higher rather then in neighboring republics. So peasants instead of going to the fields for – going to neighboring republics for food, most of remaining uses provided from state seeds for food. So stockpiles at neighboring republics was significantly depleted and in same time any reasonable harvest in Ukraine can not be expected. But on paper situation was not so bad – so shortened plan for grain export is underway till November … Regarding "parliament of Ukraine and 26 other governments" they still No doubt what 1926 population of Ukraine was 31 +Millions and 28 +in Millions 1939 and plan of grain collection for 1932 was 44% higher, what starvation started in August 1932, ect. etc. etc. - But does it true? 213.159.244.43 (talk) 10:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am a neutral party in this dispute - I came here out of mere curiosity on a Saturday morning, and I find the subject interesting in a scholastic sense. I am not a communist or a Stalin-apologist, nor am I an anti-Stalinist, though I am opposed to all forms of authoritarianism.  I must say, however, that you, Termer, have been flirting with violations of the policy of Assuming Good Faith, as well as that of No Personal Attacks.  I think if you want your position to look more credible to outside readers, you should tone down your polemic and aggressive style of discussion.  The fact that someone disagrees with you does not inherently open them to assault, and that violates the very spirit of this encyclopedia, and any other form of intelligent discourse.  If you hope to persuade with your commentary, you fail to do so.  Tone it down, for the sake of your arguments if nothing else. Just Another Fat Guy (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, 213.x - if 1/4 of the harvest was uncollected and seed grain was eaten that would certainly do much to explain the famine. But how can 1/4 of the harvest have remained uncollected when people were hungry?  Was that all due to lack of horses?  And how could farmers have any illusion about what would happen if they ate their seed grain, no matter what the economic system? 70.15.116.59 (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

1931 – 1/4 of uncollected - there no hungry people in autumn 1931 since they supply themselves (but not plan) with food and forage – plan for collection fulfilled later through available sources (e.g. grain already distributed for food, forage and sowing seeds) which lead to in some areas to starvation and in most to deterioration of horse power, additional strike happens when emergency sowing reserves ordered to be created (after drought in other part of USSR) in kolkhozes. – Spring 1932 – no seeds, no horses no food in villages, peasants moving for food in other USSR republic since prices in local cooperative trade was 3-5 times higher. So balance was broken. Since they are mostly no private farmers but member of kolkhozes – they can expect for state assistance (food, seed and forage)– as it happened in 1921, 1922, 1924, 1928, 1929 and even at early spring 1932 e.g. before sowing. But state reserves already almost empty till end of 1932. Lack of horses courses what the significant less arable lands were put in service. So there no sowing – no harvest. But state (as they provided relevant amount of seed to have any reasonable harvest) expect – and responsible for estimation of future harvest authorities falsely prove it. Jo0doe (talk) 07:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"preponderance "
What "preponderance" are you talking about. What works on the subject have you read to judge? --Irpen (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Irpen. Regarding your question, "What "preponderance " are you talking about. What works on the subject have you read to judge?" -- I take it you refer to my recent edits on the Holodomor article. I was simply referring to the citations already in the text: These statements and resolutions—together with the fact that "the parliament of Ukraine and the governments of 26 other countries recognized the famine to be such", mentioned later in the lead—sound like rather strong statements defining the Holodomor as genocide, certainly not something to be characterized as "sometimes", which seems rather dismissive in the context. Without going into a counting came (who said how many times what), I think "oftentimes" is more appropriate there. Any reason why not? Turgidson (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * U.S. Commission on the Ukraine Famine, "Findings of the Commission on the Ukraine Famine", Report to Congress, Washington, D.C., April 19, 1988
 * US House of Representatives Authorizes Construction of Ukrainian Genocide Monument
 * Statement by Pope John Paul II on the 70th anniversary of the Famine
 * HR356 "Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the man-made famine that occurred in Ukraine in 1932-1933", United States House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., October 21, 2003

Do you have any grounds to judge that the use in the documents above amounts to "preponderance"? I asked you the question about the works you read on the subject for a reason. The scholarly state of the art is by no means one way or the other. And we should not make an article present this debate as the mainstream view vs a minority view. There is nothing of that sort. That said, I repeat my question. What works on the subject have you read? --Irpen (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but there is nothing in the WP rules that I know of that requires me to answer that kind of question, or that would predicate my making an editorial judgment in an article, based on an answer that you would deem satisfactory. How much I read, or how much I know on a given subject, is my own business; what counts here is what the sources say, and what's the best way to interpret them. And I think I made my case on that.  Turgidson (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

All right, so I take it that you learn on the subject from this very article then. Anyway, you need a source that would say that such "preponderance" exists to make such judgment as your own conclusion that these citations constitute "preponderance" is not enough. That source would better be scholarly. I assure you that such source does not exist but you a free to show me wrong by finding one. Until then, please do not restore your own judgment into an article. Thank you. --Irpen (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to bring to this talk page the discussion regarding this article I've been having with Irpen on my own talk page. I think we kind of reached an impasse on this, maybe a wider discussion will help bring about a consensus. First, some background: I did some edits to the lead of this article, and one of them caught Irpen's eye. The argument is whether to say the Holodomor is characterized "sometimes" or "oftentimes" as a genocide.  My take is that "sometimes" means this is a minority opinion, perhaps at best equal to the opposing views (which I take either deny this was a genocide, or minimize the role played by the Soviet government in perpetuating the famine).  Based on the opinions cited in the lead (the parliament of Ukraine and the governments of 26 other countries, the US Congress, Pope John Paul II), this does not appear like a minority view to me, to say the least.  And, of course, books such as "The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivisation and the Terror-Famine" by Robert Conquest, or The Black Book of Communism by Stéphane Courtois make the case in much detail.  Am I missing something?  Turgidson (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * All this "sometimes" and "oftentimes" is meaningless nonsense in my opinion. Why don't you just follow the WP:NPOV, meaning in case there are conflicting perspectives, each should be presented fairly. Meaning: "it is like this and that according to..." and "that and this according to...". thats all I want to know as a reader, the facts.--Termer (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me -- I used that "oftentimes" as a stop-gap, till something better than "sometimes" can be found. I'm also all for quoting specific sources, it's just the case that I'm new to this article, and I don't want to barge in and upset too much the balance, before seeing what the consensus is.  To be more specific, should we just say here that, according to the US Congress, the Pope, etc, the Holodomor was a genocide, whereas, according to Yaroslav Bilinsky, it was not?  Right now, these are the sources for the opposing views that I can see in the lead -- should there be more quoted?  Turgidson (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

All the facts and opinions are presented in the Genocide section in an attributed form. The lead just needs to summarize the state of affairs and this state of affairs is presented in detail in the main body of the article and it is clear that neither view has any "preponderance" and mainstream scholars are divided. Turgidson, as any other editor, is not qualified to make his own judgment on how often is one or the other used and push it into a lead. I asked him whether he has any scholarly background to cut him some slack on that (perhaps he is the academic historian) but judging from his answer, even that is not the case. --Irpen (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Irpen, let me remind you that "Editors should be civil and adhere to good wiki etiquette when stating disagreements. Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people." One more time, the issue is not my qualifications as "academic historian" -- rather, whether the lead presents a balanced view of the sources.  Turgidson (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not invoke NPA where there is none. Baseless accusations in PA is a PA in itself. The balanced view of the sources, that you claim you want the lead to present, is that there is no agreement among the scholars, and no even a majority opinion. Both views are held among the respected and mainstream academics. If you would have been familiar with the subject you would have known that. Since the "oftenness" is not obvious you must find the reference to this "oftenness" in the outside source before inserting it into an article, and the source must be very serious to go one step further and push it into a lead. --Irpen (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

To Irpen: I'm most familiar with the subject. I've learned it when I was about 10 years old that there was a genocide in Ukraine due to the Soviet government selling grain overseas during famine. In case you are familiar with any opposing POV-s, that there is no agreement among the scholars etc., please feel free to add these facts to the article. Nothing is going to justify you manipulations with the POV that's common knowledge in the western world, the only one I personally am aware of. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I added references to Kulchytsky, himself the proponent of the view that there was a Genocide, where he summarizes the state of the art within the scholarship including the positions of such historians as Davies, Wheatcroft, Tauger and others that argue to the contrary. Kulchytsky disagrees with them but present their views. Again, if you cared to read the reference I added you would find that lately Conquest himself also changed his view and stated that the term genocide does not apply. --Irpen (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing I'm referring to is that: the fact that's based on Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity - Page 1056 ISBN 0028658485 : After recognition of the famine situation in Ukraine during the 1930-34 crop failure and dearth, the Soviet government in Moscow decided to export grain rather than retain its crop to feed the people gets moved away and manipulated into abstract meaningless phrase: Despite the crop failure, the grain exports continued even though on a significantly lower level....--Termer (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The thing I am referring to is that this particular argument in support of the position that there was a genocide is no more and no less important to support the term's applicability than other arguments (like the travel restrictions and geographic distribution of the death rate). These arguments, along with the arguments for the lack of applicability all belong to the section where this is discussed. Your pushing it right to the lead is unjustified as it is just one of many arguments that scholars use in discussing the issue. --Irpen (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Turgidson at 21:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC) It seems it's clear who consider the famine to be genocide. What I'd like to know, who exactly are these "some historians" who don't?--Termer (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yet again, you seem to not read the entries at this page where you post your responses. I gave some names already and there are more. This is not an unreasearched topic, particularly since the times where archives were open. Please make an effort to read the responses to your entries before posting further. Thanks. --Irpen (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

yet again, I have nothing else to add than please consider formating the article according to WP:NPOV instead of manipulating the existing POV-s into wishy-washy meaningless nonsense.--Termer (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

PS. And please let me remind that "However", "Despite" etc. are listed at WP:Words to avoid due to these words can imply that one alternative is less favored than another.--Termer (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

PS. last but not least, please Irpen consider putting some efforts into finding a consensus instead of reverting all the edits that don't fit your opinions. In case you think the case should be taken into ArbCom, please let me know. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I take note that Irpen refuses to seek consensus in this matter, and keeps pushing the weasel word "sometimes". I strongly disagree with this choice of words, which, as I said, implies that the stance taken by the parliament of Ukraine, the US Congress, the governments of 26 other countries, the Pope, numerous well-known scholars (such as Robert Conquest and Stéphane Courtois) is somehow a minority stance, taken by only a bunch of isolated people, when, as a matter of fact, it is the commonly accepted stance.  Saying that this is all explained in the body of the article just doesn't cut the mustard -- it needs to be addressed clearly in the lead.  And trying somehow to dismiss the work of other editors on the grounds of how many books they may have read on the subject or not is not the way to go in order to build consensus, I submit.  Turgidson (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Turgidson' posting above.--Termer (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Termer, consensus and compromise is always a good thing but it requires both sides of the disagreement to make an effort to listen to each other and find an acceptable middle ground. Since, as shown above, you do not even read my talk entries, before responding to them, make edits contrary to claims in the refs that allegedly support them, and say at the talk page that references include soemthing that is just not there finding a consensus may be a problem as long as you continue to behave that way. --Irpen (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I do read your talk entries but I miss to understand how do your opinions justify to keep the text confusing in the header. And I still agree with Turgidson. --Termer (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead
I like the compromise solution by User:Biophys -- looks like he managed to cut the Gordian Knot! Hopefully, this will do it for this issue, and we can all move on. Turgidson (talk) 02:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Just to notice, User:WriterHound/Holodomor is making a new version of this article in his namespace. His version of introduction seems to be more clear.Biophys (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The version by User:Biophys is...srry WAS definitely cleaner. For another compromise, I'm going to restore the core of the genocide according to the Genocide Encyclopedia in the exports section instead of putting it under spotlight in the header then--Termer (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Now, since the header has become one confusing nonsense again and an attempt to fix it by User:Biophys has failed, I'm going to rewrite it at one point according to WP:NPOV by clearly presenting the opposing POV-s side by side. For the historians who disagree with the genocide, I'm going to list those 3 names or so listed here by Irpen. meanwhile, please feel free to provide any other sources saying clearly, who exactly says it wasn't a genocide. Thanks--Termer (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Good luck, Termer. I see that there are some editors here that simply do not care about reaching a consensus, and just keep inserting those weasel words ("sometimes"? c'mmon, gimme me break!) in the lead, despite all the strong objections. And I agree, I still can't fathom who exactly denies the Holodomor was a genocide.  On the other hand, take a look if you wish at "USSR 1932-1934: Soviet Genocide/Famine in Ukraine (Holodomor)" for a list of resources on the topic.  Turgidson (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Saying that people are inserting POV, that they 'don't care' about consensus seems to be bordering on personal attack, and you only a moment ago cautioned your opponent about the selfsame. To me, it seems you are acting as something of an instigator.  You need not be so abrasive to make your point.  65.60.137.13 (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Last confusing insertion uses two valid sources (one of them RFE/RL). It wrongly implies (by citing a Putin's representative) that term "Holodomor" is applicable to a number of different famines, whereas it is actually used only to this specific Ukrainian famine (the representative argues that people in other regions also died from hunger - yes, they died, but that were different hungers, not the Holodomor). The insertion also tells about denails of Holodomor by Putin's government. Well, this can and possibly should be mentioned, but not in the Introduction, but in a separate section called "Holodomor denails".Biophys (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, the BBC report by Laura Sheeter (mentioned in "External links") has this bit of news: "None of this, however, is deterring President Yushchenko. He says he wants a new law criminalising Holodomor denial - and to see new monuments to the famine built in Ukraine before the end of the year's commemorations." On the other hand, Petro Symonenko, the head of the Communist Party of Ukraine, "does not believe there was any deliberate starvation at all, and he accuses President Yushchenko of using the famine to stir up hatred." Maybe this should be mentioned in the article? Sounds relevant to me.  Turgidson (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thing's getting clearer, so it's basically yet again about the communist party responsible for the genocide denying it ever happened + rewrite history according Putin’s vision that has made it to WP. Well at least now it's clear where is the source for the opposing opinion and it's easy to write it in to the article instead of referring to "some historians" who "continue to disagree". It's never historians who'd do that, it's always politicians.--Termer (talk) 06:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I put the two declarations (by Yushchenko and Symonenko) side-by-side, with no commentary: let the reader decide on the two opposing POVs. But the lead still needs to be changed -- the moral equivalence implied by those weasel words cannot stand unchallenged.  Turgidson (talk) 06:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is how I'd rewrite the header. I think what any historians might say is really irrelevant (or can be looked at down in the article in it's own section). the only thing that matters regarding genocide is anything that's said in any parliaments or international organizations since it is a political question--Termer (talk) 08:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The Ukrainian famine (1932-1933), or Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор), was one of the largest national catastrophes of the Ukrainian nation in modern history with direct loss of human life in the range of millions (estimates vary).


 * On November 2006 the parliament of Ukraine adopted the bill On the Holodomor 1932-1933 in Ukraine that defines Holodomor as genocide against Ukrainian people, the governments of 26 other countries have recognized the famine as  genocide.


 * On the 70th anniversary of the Great Famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine 64 countries signed a Joint Statement where Holodomor was officially recognized as the national tragedy of the Ukrainian people, caused by the cruel actions and policies of the totalitarian regime.


 * The 34th session of General Conference of Unesco adopted a resolution on REMEMBRANCE OF VICTIMS OF THE GREAT FAMINE (HOLODOMOR) IN UKRAINE.


 * Russian federation does not recognize Holodomor as genocide but as a tragedy affecting people of many nationalities, including Ukrainians, Russians, Kazakhs and other peoples of USSR


 * In principle this approach sounds good, but one needs to work on the exposition. Eg, I think it's important to say, perhaps right there in the first paragraph, that this was not a natural famine, but a man-made one, and who exactly enforced it.  While at it, I'm also a bit mystified by the first sentence (in the article, and also the above):  why say "one of the largest catastrophes", as if loss of life of this magnitude occurred, say, a dozen times in the modern history of Ukraine, or, for that matter, throughout its history.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but my hunch is that it's either #1 in that infamous category (then just say so), or perhaps more likely #2 (WWII period), in which case just say "second only to WWII" (with a brief explanation).  Are there reliable sources which would explain this carefully, and make things crystal clear, instead of this fudgy way things are currently explained in the lead?  Turgidson (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

How about this--Termer (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор) or the Great Famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine was defined on it's 70th anniversary by a Joint Statement of 64 countries as the national tragedy of the Ukrainian people, caused by the cruel actions and policies of the totalitarian regime.

On November 2006 the parliament of Ukraine adopted the bill that defines Holodomor as genocide against Ukrainian people. As of November 2007, 26 other countries have recognized the famine as genocide.

The 34th session of General Conference of Unesco adopted a resolution on REMEMBRANCE OF VICTIMS OF THE GREAT FAMINE (HOLODOMOR) IN UKRAINE.

Russian federation does not recognize Holodomor as genocide but as a tragedy affecting people of many nationalities, including Ukrainians, Russians, Kazakhs and other peoples of USSR.


 * OK, this is better. It still needs some copyedit, and beefing up in a few places -- I can offer to help with it, but I'll wait first to see if a consensus develops to start rewriting the lead along these lines. Turgidson (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

just to make sure: the official statements by UNESCO that define Holodomor: the national tragedy of the Ukrainian people, caused by the cruel actions and policies of the totalitarian regime or any other official statements should not be copy edited or modified. Anything else that can be improved, sure.--Termer (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Both versions of the header are built mainly on the basis of political rather than scholarly reference. The header should:
 * 1) define the subject
 * 2) present the estimates of the scale of the famine
 * 3) inform that there is an ongoing debate about the applicability of the term Genocide to the event, there is no consensus on the latter issue among the scholars but the debate spread into politics (governments, parliaments and heads of state making statements on the issue is a political, not a scholarly debate.)

The arguments about applicability of the term given by each side should be given in the main body not the lead. Different estimates of the death toll should also be given in the main body, including the review of the methodology used for these estimates. I have seen no scholarly calculation that would give a figure over 3.5 million and until someone finds a reference to such calculation, any use of 5, 7, 10 or even 15 million should be clearly shown to be a part of the political, rather than scholarly debate. --Irpen (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It has never been up to scholars to define what is genocide and what is not since it is a political question. Scholarly reference would be relevant regarding "the estimates of the scale of the famine".
 * The bottom line: the header needs to be much more clear instead of meaningless "sometimes referred to" and abstract "Historians continue to disagree".--Termer (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The statement that the subject of genocide is not a matter of academic debate is outright absurd. It is wrong on a clear factual level because historians and social scientists have been studying the subject for years. The idea that politicians should take over the tasks of historians and social scientists and are higher authorities on the pursuit about the historical past reminds me more of Soviet totalitarianism than any model of a free society. --Irpen (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * who has said that "subject of genocide is not a matter of academic debate"? and who has said that "politicians should take over the tasks of historians and social scientists and are higher authorities"? I'm sorry but you Irpen keep twisting the thing around. The fact is and the only thing relevant really, the only reason UNESCO has not recognized Holodomor as genocide is due to government of Russia has been opposing the resolution. There is nothing more to it.--Termer (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yet again, this is no more than your personal opinion that you are free to post to your personal blog. Or you can try to publish it in a scholarly journal and after it passes the peer-review scrutiny, we will include it to the article.


 * The only way to properly write articles on such controversial topics where no consensus exists even within the mainstream is stick to facts and refer all facts to the scholarly sources, that is either published by reputable scholars or, if authors are relatively unknown, published by publishers known for subjecting what they release to academic scrutiny, such as peer-reviewed journals and books by University Presses or otherwise academic publishers. Everything sourced exclusively to political statements belong exclusively to the "politicization" section. This is as far as facts and numbers are concerned. As far as judgments are concerned (artificial or not, genocide or not), those have to also be given strictly in attributed form unless the clear consensus exists in the mainstream. That the famine could have been prevented but was not (making it artificial) is more or less a mainstream agreement. That the actions of the Soviet government amounted to an act of Genocide is a POV not universally shared. This should be stated in the lead and the rest belongs to the main body of the articles including the details on who holds which positions and what arguments it is based on. --Irpen (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm flattered Irpen, calling the facts such as the UNESCO resolution regarding Holodomor and the government of Russia opposing the mentioning of genocide in it my personal opinions is quite something. Just in case you missed something Irpen, Termer is not either UNESCO or the Russian government. --Termer (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You are again wrong on facts. The Russian government did not oppose the UNESCO resolution. As for your personal opinion, here is what you said (emphasize mine):
 * The fact is and the only thing relevant really, the only reason UNESCO has not recognized Holodomor as genocide is due to government of Russia has been opposing the resolution. There is nothing more to it.

That the reason why the UNESCO resolution did not carry the word Genocide is the opposition of the Ru-government, is your personal opinion. BTW, if the international community would overwhelmingly support the Genocide applicability, nothing would have prevented a resolution that would use the term passed by the UN General Assembly, as Russia has no veto power over these resolutions (while these resolutions have no enforcements, similar to the UNESCO ones but unlike the Security Council resolutions). In fact, the General Assembly adopted a host of anti-Israeli resolutions, specifically because US veto won't allow that in the security council.

Once again, I strongly recommend that you familiarize yourself with the topic beyond what you have "learned when you were about 10 years old" if you are interested in continuing this debate. --Irpen (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, should I take this as you implying like I'm actually 10 years old since the earliest possible date to learn about the UNESCO resolution regarding Holodomor was on October 8 2007?--Termer (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just click on the diff in my entry above. I bolded it for you. --Irpen (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I know what I've learned since I was 10 years old. There is no need to remind me that. Perhaps should I remind you that this is about the UNESCO resolution and [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4471256.stm Russia opposes designation as genocide,... if you recognise a crime you might have to pay compensation".]--Termer (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not what you said. You said that:
 * Russia opposed the resolution
 * The only reason of the absence of the word genocide in the resolution is the Russian position.
 * (1) is a lie, (2) is a speculation. Besides, it is your own speculation, thus it has no value on Wikipedia. If you cared to read the ref you cite, it gives an opinion of a scholar, Roman Serbyn, professor of history in the University of Quebec in Montreal. In his opinion: "Ukraine did not make a technically clear case" for Genocide. Your ref says nothing of the sort that you seem to imply that the Ukraine's failure to insert the word "genocide" into the resolution is caused solely by the Russian position. "No clear case for genocide" said by a scholar in very same article is more important for the Wikipedia article that a speculation by the Wikipedia user Termer. --Irpen (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

1. I have never said Russia opposed the resolution! 2. Nobody has ever said The only reason of the absence of the word genocide in the resolution is the Russian position. Please double check the proposal for much clearer header posted above that is currently supported also by Turgidson. thanks!--Termer (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You can try turning your statements around and claim whatever you want about what you said above. Luckily, anyone can see what you really said. That's a good thing about diffs. --Irpen (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

my mistake, got carried away up there. The idea was of course that Russia did not oppose the resolution but has opposed recognizing the genocide in general. If this is the only reason why the word was not included in the UNESCO resolution, can be of course a subject for speculations. Therefore it's the best just to stick to the facts only like listed in the proposal above currently supported also by Turgidson.--Termer (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So, anybody who wants to add anything or make any suggestions to the proposal above regarding the header please feel free to do so. The headers is going to be changed so that it would make sense instead of "most modern historians agree-continue to disagree". And I checked out the sources, non of the English sources speak anything about "legal definition of genocide", the book The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933 nor the collection of papers. Perhaps the sources written in Russian do? In any case it would be strange that any historians would disagree over legal issues like the header claims.--Termer (talk) 07:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

McHistory
Dear recent editors, unfortunately history is a little bit more complicated thing instead of BBC or Discovery Channel versions. So the facts differ: there no Soviet Census in 1927, there no final results of 1937 Census, resident and available population is always a different figures. US does not join the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide until November 1988 – so allegation of Genoside in April 1988 report to Congress it only words instead a legal basis. There no crop failure in 1930, 1931 (with some exceptions), 1933 and 1934, there no famine death in 1930, 1931 (with some exceptions) late July-end of 1933 (excluding aftereffect) and 1934. Demographists are better knew the demography rather then historians. Also collectivization in USSR widely started since XV Congress in 1927. Ukrainian SSR authorities made a collectivization efforts even since 1925. Extensive collection in 1932 has a results as much as 4,7 million tons (compared with almost 7 million in 1930 and 1931) and virtually equal to 1927/28 planned state collections in time when private trade has more then half of the grain market.

So, let me allow to revert politically charged to factually fulfilled version. Jo0doe (talk) 09:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, Kulchitsky is a historian - so his layman's demographical estimation belongs to the rest historians estimations. Moreover if you can compare Kulchitsky data on rayon's name spelling - with real one you can find a lot of impossible grammar mistakes Kulchitsky. --Jo0doe


 * Jo0doe, that may be so. But while he is not a demographer, he is a scholar, unlike politicians or journalists who make up all sorts of estimates and publish them in press. Kulchitsky's when he gives an estimate, cites sources and shows how he arrived to them (unlike the BBC article whose figure is totally out of the blue.) The article clearly says, that the thorough demographic research based on the same data used by Kulchytsky, arrived to a lower estimate. The reader may then judge what is more reliable. It is also noteworthy, that all the raw data is consistent in modern scholarly sources, the Soviet archival numbers are the same in Kulchytsky, Vallin and Davies/Wheatcroft. It is a good sign. --Irpen (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Missing section
This article simply lacks a narrrative/history secton. Is should neutrally describe first what exactly had happened at the Ukraine - year by year or month by month. Only after that one can discuss "Causes and outcomes" and was it a genocide or not. "Causes and outcomes" of what? That is not quite clear without the narrative section.Biophys (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I was actually thinking about this the other night, right now it feels like more of a "he said/she said" without a cohesive narrative--which should draw all the sources together instead of just listing who agrees/disagrees with what.
 * That said, I'm not sure we're at that point. Editorially, I believe that Davies et al. has been picked at to present a rosier picture than it does, but that will first require getting and reading the whole book first to get the full picture. To succeed at the narrative there needs to be general agreement on the current representation of sources--we may not quite be there yet. (Otherwise it will just be more fodder for reverts and frustration.) —PētersV (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that RR warring here came partly from asking and answering very difficult questions. Why this had happened? Who is guilty? What it a genocide? These are difficult to answer and polically charged subjects. Let's describe first what had happened. That is where all sources are most consistent. As for the best sources, please read WP:Source: better sources are the secondary ones (books) about the Holodomor written by notable experts on Russian history. Who are the best experts? That is easy to determine. Like in natural sciences, these are people who (a) internationally (rather than nationally) recognized; (b) who wrote many books on related subjects; and (c) whose biographies are described in WP since these people are notable.Biophys (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Probaly the best sources are also books that are notable enough to be described themselves in WP articles. Of course, any books that are not notable enough to be translated to English, are less reliable. They can be cited of course per WP:NPOV but as a minority opinion per due weght criterion if they contradict major sources. If there are serious disagreements, let's rank all sources used in this article according to such criteria.Biophys (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Does Holodomor is a "Russian history"? Let me cite a "notable expert" Dr. James E. Mace - "Her goods consisted of jellied meat, frozen jellied meat" "At the militia, two members of the NKVD went over to her and, instead of taking action against her, they burst out laughing. 'What, what you killed a kulak? Good for you!' And then they let her go." So the facts are - there no private freezers in USSR until post-war times. There no NKVD from October 1930 till late 1934. Hardly to trust what sovietologist Mace does not knew that. But why he mentioned this and lot of same stile "True Lies"? So the rest notable experts provide same "history about history" - does it WP:NPOV? Mr Robert Conquest "The 1926 census, like all censuses even in far more efficient conditions, cannot be totally accurate, and Soviet and Western estimates agree that it is too low by 1.2-1.5 million, (about 800,000 of it attributed to the Ukraine)." "Of the official figure of 170,467,186 the census gives Ukrainians as 28,070,404 (as against 31,194,976 in the 1926 census)." So the facts are - "Soviet estimates" tells about double-count for central european  rural areas (since enumeration conducted 14 days) and under enumeration for Caucasus and Asia republic. While final official figure the census 1939 gives Ukrainians as 35 611, (so preliminary data published in 1940 was 28,070) WP:NPOV? It's more look like "Niger yellow cake uranium" reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo0doe (talk • contribs) 08:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * To answer Byophys, I agree with your concern. The reason why the Genocide issue has so much space devoted to it in the article and talk, is that it attracts POV-pushers so badly. Just like some editors' sole interest to the article on the Ukrainian capital, is making sure that it reflects their view on how the city should be called in English, just like some editors created whole series of meaningless pages under "occupation" titles to push their pet term into article space, many editors' exclusive interest to this article is making sure it reflects their view on the applicability of Genocide. This attitude distorts the article content making it evolve towards devoting more space to the issues close to heart by the radical editors and making it less useful for mainstream (and largely not radical) readers.


 * As for the sources that are best to use, the presence of the WP article on the book or the book's language is rather wrong criteria. The most important sources we should mainly rely upon are those that are written by academic scholars based on the archival data, which pretty much exclude all pre-Perestroyka sources, including Conquest, Mace and Soviet works (per Soviet version the Famine did not even exist.) Among the sources already listed at the article's reflst, there are several already based on the archival data. We should primarily rely on those and they have enough info to fill the section you requested. --Irpen (talk) 09:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So, there are no objections to write down a narrative section explaining what had happened? Then I can try it. As about sources, please see WP:Verifiability. It tells: In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; and so on. It does not tell anything about such arbitrary criteria as "archival data" or "pre-Perestroyka sources" and rightly so. The cited statement by Dr. James E. Mace (ukrweekly.com) is hardy a scholarly source. So, this example only supports my statement about using only most reliable sources.Biophys (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * regarding Irpen last comment. The only reason any "POV-pushing" (what a nice pet term BTW) can happen is due to the article is not written according to WP:NPOV. meaning instead of clearly citing any opposing views, so that conflicting perspectives within the topic would be presented fairly: "back-versus-white" so to speak, the article remains to be one confusing gray area that's only possible to be painted either whiter or darker. Thats where you get this "POV pushing" from. In case the article was formated according to WP:NPOV, there would never be any use for the pet term of "POV-pushers". Since what woud be there to push in case conflicting perspectives would be presented fairly? Therefore how about following the WP:NPOV? that should solve all the issues including he ones brought up above--Termer (talk) 10:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

To Biophys: the only thing I am saying is that we are dealing with the subject whose scholarly investigation was greatly obstructed in pre-Perestroyka times both in the USSR and in the West. The archival data is bread and butter of the historic research and lack of it greatly undermines its value. The whole pre-perestroyka data is based mostly on the witnesses' statements and individual memories projected and extrapolated over the range of people where they may or may not apply which is inherently less reliable than the historic archival documents. Once the archives were open, the situation changed dramatically and any research performed with the scholarly reliable methods is inherently superior to the research which was not. Older works are not always inherently inferior to the newer ones. Many works on medieval history produced in 1950s and 1960s are as relevant now as they were back then as this research was based on the same chronicles and archaeological data that was available to historians 50 years ago. It is not the case for the Holodomor.

Termer, I answered this earlier. Once again, you would be well advised to read the responses to your posts. --Irpen (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You answered me earlier why WP:NPOV policies are not followed regarding this article Irpen? Please could you point me to that again, I really must have missed it. Thanks! --Termer (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * NPOV is followed, Termer. --Irpen (talk) 03:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So much is clear that we're having serious communication problems again. So lets take it to the forth round. Confusing statements like Most modern historians agree-Historians continue to disagree are not written according to WP:NPOV but according to the NPOV that does mean "no points of view", it's just one gray area. Like pointed out by many above, it is actually impossible to understand  what is going on with this story. The real story is hidden behind useless statistics that doesn't tell anything. etc. --Termer (talk) 09:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What new archive data are you talking about? Do you mean claims that "scholarly estimates of the possible loss of Ukrainian SRR range between 1.5[ ref 2][ ref 3] and 3.5 millions [ref 4]"? I can not read French (ref. 2 - please translate!), but I can read English (ref 3, "Population Studies"). It tells: "Our estimates suggest that total losses can be put at 4.6 million, 0.9 million of which was due to forced migration, 1 million to a deficit in births, and 2.6 million to exceptional mortality." According to their terminology, "forced migration" means sendinf people to Gulag. Hence, 3.7 millions of forced deaths (this is for Ukraine only), which is not very different from estimated by Conquest and Black Book. If eveything else in this article was doctored like that, it should be re-written. And please, no Russian-language blogs like ref [4].Biophys (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the article indeed contained an error. The correct number according to this ref should be 2.6 million (not 1.5 it said). Your 3.7 mln is incorrect. You are misreading the conclusions section (your quote is from p. 262 of the J. Vallin, et al Population Studies, 56 (2002), 249-264). If you look at last paragraph of p. 252, you would find the correct number 2.6 million.


 * "The remaining difference of 3.5 million is the consequence of both exceptional mortality and net out-migrations.[...]"

Then they give an estimate of the out-migration and further write:
 * "As a result, 0.9 million must be subtracted from the 3.5 million arrived at above, which means that the mortality effect of the crisis seems to account for 2.6 million of the total losses over the period 1927–38. It is true that, for consistency’s sake, the out-migration effect should have been reduced before doing this reduction, since a share of outmigrants died before the 1939 Census. But having assumed zero voluntary migration, the crude estimate of forced migration can be considered as compensating for the latter."

This same number (2.6 mln) follows from the conclusion section you quote as well, you just misread it. Of 4.6 million population deficit, 0.9 mln comes from forced migration and 1 mln comes from the deficit of births, that is the children that would have been born in the absence of the catastrophe and were not born as the drop in the birth rate inevitably came hand in hand with the rise of the death rate. So, 2.6 mln excessive deaths plus 1 million of births deficit plus 0.9 million migration loss gives the 4.5 mln. I don't know where extra 100K is lost in the math but they do not say it clearly. They clearly say that they cannot account for voluntary outmigration (only the forced one) and assume the latter to be zero. I am correcting the number in the article to 2.6 million per Pop. Studies article pp. 252 and 262.

I am not sure what you mean by Ref 4 being a "Russian language blog". Could you elaborate? To my knowledge, the article does not have any blogs as refs. At least not the paragraphs I edited. Ref 4 actually gives 3.5 mln estimate, that is higher than Vallin.

Also, I am not sure why you conclude that
 * "According to their terminology, "forced migration" means sendinf people to Gulag."

I believe the term "forced outmigration" includes not only GULAG NKVD labor camps (you meant those by "gulag", right?) where only the arrested and convicted (mostly on bullshit charges) were sent but also those who were "dekulakized" and forcibly deported and resettled that is not within the labor camps system. Deportation was a rather different and separate atrocity from "gulag". The total number that accounts for deportations is actually much higher than the "sent to gulag" (the penal system) number. I hope answered your questions. --Irpen (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The weakness of "J. Vallin et al" estimation reside in what it's ones again "history about history" – rather then evaluate all available documents and use in estimation all figures -  they simply use already available data, since the main objection of their effort was the scholarly work "Mortality, and causes of deaths in Ukraine in XX century" rather then prove or dispatch some "historians" claims. In one hand it's good – since they scholarly write down "many millions" demanded by politician but on scientific look (predominantly demography) many of their presuppositions are lack of integrity, even more some quite important factors missed or omitted. The major one mislead is "but having assumed zero voluntary migration". Number of "people to Gulag" significantly less rater then "kulak dispatch" and " work-settlement". "J. Vallin et al" also does not into account available in archives but not used at all data of resettlement in 1927-1929, and event not try to partially estimate the number of "voluntarily" "industrialization" out-migration from Ukraine to "construction fields of socialism" happened in 1929-1933. Let me cite the railway passengers figures (millions) 1925/26 – 56.3 1927/28 -60.5 1928/29 -74.6 1930 -126.7 1931 -161.8 1932 – 212.8  1933 -193.0 1934 -197.2. Even it's possible to find an 1932-1933 (pre 22/I Decree) Ukrainian OGPU reports about figures of peasants out-migration from Ukraine to "construction fields of socialism – even under accounted it's hundreds of thousands. Jo0doe (talk) 07:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Biophys, one more time, 1 mln "sent to Gulag" is neither here nor there. 1 million is a total number of deported which is much larger than those sent to NKVD Labor Camps system (if you know what "gulag" is). It is plainly false. And this clearly does not belong to the lead of this article either. The article is about Famine, not about Stalinism atrocities as a whole. Keep this article on topic. I will add this number to population losses section for a more complete view but this is not the mead material for the famine article. --Irpen 18:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:Source
Famous Soviet and Ukrainian statistician M.Ptukha estimated projection for Ukrainian SRR population till 1960 (in 1930 borders, no Net migration taking into account)

Ptoukha M. La population de l`Ukraine jusqu`en 1960//XIX session de l`Institute International de Statistique;. Tokyo 1930 La Haye 1930

So - it least everyone can mathematically estimate a probable birth deficit. Jo0doe (talk) 09:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainians or Cossacks Holodomor
Would be also useful to deface the situation with "predominantly Ukrainian population territories" North Caucasus region – major okruga (regions) population figures (thousand) and nationality distribution registered by Dec. 1926 Census (R – Russian   U- Ukrainian in %) Donskoy  (1132 R-45,8 U-44,0) Kubanskiy (1448 R-33,4 U-61,5) Armavirskiy (927,4 R 59,5 U-32,9) Stavropolskiy (727,7 R-62,5 U-33,8) Terskiy (643,3 R-58,4 У-30,2)

Ref. - Summary of Soviet Regime in figures 1917 -1927 (Itogi sovetskoy vlasti v tsyfrakh M. 1927 Jo0doe (talk) 09:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Conquest's guesswork
Dear colleagues, we are lucky to have Conquest's "calculation" available online. This particular chapter of his book, Harvest of Sorrow, is here. One can find how he arrives to this 6 million number. In the chapter he complains for the lack of 1937 census data (classified) and for the compromised 1939 census data (falsified), for lack of published ethnicity distribution even for the falsified published census and attempts to account for this and other deficiencies. The modern calculations published in 1990s and later generously cite the opened 1937 data and explicitly state that it is considered reliable by a wide consensus of scholars. Note that Wheatcroft, Kulchytsky and Vallin while arriving to somewhat different results cite in their work same raw archival numbers they used to make their calculations and do not cast any doubt on their reliability. Their demographic calculations give different results, but they do not cast doubt on the data they used.

Please do not put the scholarly calculations and wild guesswork in the same line as a demonstration of how the estimates differ. It is like presenting the mass of the Jupite's moons as being in the range defined by the numbers obtained by astronomers in the mid-century who looked at it through old optical telescopes at one end and by the data obtained from  Voyagers that actually flew there at another end.

It is OK to use older sources when there is no indication of new discoveries that make them outdated but here it is just not the case. Even Conquest himself admitted the change of the state of the art in the field once the more modern research by younger historians based on the archival data was published. --Irpen 08:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, it’s look like infamous for public scholar http://demoscope.ru/weekly/2004/0177/nauka03.php responsible for Census 1926 (and not only)  know less about demography and made a projection purely rather then “most  modern historians”. It’s more look like claims what Chebyshev works are worst since he have not same possibilities in calculation rather then modern scholars. Ok – why it for “useless statistics” – better to have “frozen meet”, Soros Foundation researches and many “happy people” which can find a similar to Hollywood and BBC stories at WP. – So lets revert the article to “right” version. Like recent War and Peace version http://arts.independent.co.uk/books/news/article2303037.ece – why read so heavy books? P.S. "1937 data " does ever exist? "1939 census data " (falsified) - really? Still it mentioned as adjusted  So why Valin at al use in their estimation “falsified” 1939 instead of “ truly 1937” ? Probably they are scholars instead of "historians" like "Kulchytsky at al" Jo0doe 14:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, let's simply follow WP:Attribution policy, and do not do original research per WP:NOR. There are several scholarly sources on the subject per WP:Attribution and they provide several different estimates. This is very common situation when precise estimations are difficult or even impossible: different authors come to different results using different methods, even in natural sciences. Hence we should provide a range of values (say 2.6 to 6.0 million) per WP:NPOV. We can not decide who of authors is right and who is wrong per WP:NOR. We can only use most reliable sources, and as such the secondary source (book by Robert Conquest in Oxford University Press) is more reliable than a primary source (an original research article in journal). So, please do not suggest to exclude the most reliable sources. They describe majority opinion.Biophys 17:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

They describe outdated opinion. There is not a single scholarly source published since archives were open based on guesswork. And that Peer-reviewed journal article is a primary source is outright nonsense. --Irpen 17:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Those are Conquest numbers (page 306 of his book)


 * Peasant dead 1930-1937 - 11 million
 * Arrested in this period dying in camps later 3.5 million
 * Total: 14.5 million
 * Of these:


 * Dead as a result of dekulakization: 6.5 million
 * Dead in Kazakh catastrophe 1 million
 * Dead in 1932-1933 famine: 7 million (5 million in the Ukraine; 1 million in the North Caucasus, and 1 million elsewhere)

He said explicitly, based on extensive research published by many people (not only his research), that "no fewer than fourteen million odd peasants lost their lives" and this is probably understatement (page 305). I am not qualified to challenge his research. And even if you think that you are qualified, WP is not a place to do that kind of original research.Biophys 17:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It is your original research that numerous data cited in Conquest book are wrong.Biophys 18:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Conquest's research is not based on archival data which was simply not available to him. It is not my research. He says so himself. Look how he tries to "derive" the missing numbers indirectly from Soviet publications devoted to other matters. The numbers he tries to derive are available to later historians. What you are trying to do is like trying to discuss modern view on Egyptian hieroglyphs but using the work done before discovering the Rosetta Stone that allowed their decipherment. --Irpen 18:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The book is published in 1986 and it was based on many hundreds of sources. What you are doing is like trying to "disprove" a textbook written by a notable internationally recognized scientist using a couple of articles written by journalists who have no idea about the subject and a couple of non-notable publications in journals.Biophys 18:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not trying to disprove anything. What "articles written by journaluists" are you talking about? Please name them. --Irpen 18:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Biophys, here is a quote for you by professor David Marples, a professor of history at the University of Alberta.


 * "First of all, Conquest's book, written before Soviet archives opened, is inadequate. At the very least, some of the advanced research in Ukraine should be translated into English; particularly that of historians like Kulchytsky and Yuri Shapoval. Second, if this atrocity - and to call it anything other than an atrocity is unconscionable - is to receive the attention it deserves, then it is essential that Conquest's work be superseded by a thorough study based on archives and villages of Ukraine; one that in contrast to the studies by Tauger, Davies, Wheatcroft, Viola and others, pays more attention to the national republics of the former U.S.S.R. and Stalin's obsession with disloyalty among his non-Russian subjects."

Luckily for us, who want history to be known, this is happening these years. --Irpen 18:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So, there are different opinions on this subject, and one of them is by non-notable professor David Marples. There are also different scholarly estimates on the number of victims. I suggest only one thing: to provide the range of estimates per WP:NPOV.Biophys 19:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Biophys, remember also about WP:RS. Sources outdated by the newer discoveries are less reliable (that is if there were indeed new discoveries since they were published.) This is especially so if the author himself retracted his statements. BTW, what makes you think David Marples is a non-notable professor? He is the author of ten books on Soviet and post-Soviet affairs published by most reputable publishers and a recipient of numerous awards. Why is he non-notable by your standards? --Irpen 23:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Retraction?
Irpen said above that estimates of the number of victims by Conquest are unreliable because he retracted himself these estimates. I could not find any published text with his actual statement about the retraction. When someone officially retracts his work, he always pubslish the reasons and explains himself what exactly went wrong. Please, provide the text. As about other published research, it is no better or much worse than that by Conquest. Soviet archives were never completely opened.Biophys 00:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not say that they are unreliable because he retracted them. They are unreliable because they are viewed to be such by later scholars. References specifically calling his work obsolete are given above. As for retraction, he retracted the view that the famine was Genocide. He diod not "retract" his numbers. It is meaningless in view of the fact that newer numbers were obtained after the data which was not available to him became available to scholars. No one claims he falsified his results. This is besides the point. Any response to "non-notability" of David Marples? --Irpen 00:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is very simple. Does the book by Robert Conquest published 1986 by Oxford University Press qualify as a reliable source per WP:Verifiability? If it does, please stop deleting the reference.Biophys 00:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You keep inserting this book into the sentence that speaks about modern sources. It is out of place there. But I moved it to the section where other results obtained before archival opening are given. Please do not insert the "gulag number" to the lead. This is not the main subject of the article to be in the lead. Also, as I explained to you, it includes not only those sent to GULAG NKVD system but all the deported ones. --Irpen 00:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Repeated deletions of Robert Conquest
I am really sorry, but no one proved that his data are not valid. Since they satisfy WP:Verifiability and WP:Source criteria better than any other sources used in this article (a book by a notable historian published in 1983 by Oxford University Press), it should stay in the lead per WP:NPOV policy. If you disagree, I suggest to make an RfC or something with only one question: "Does this particular source satisfy WP:Verifiability requirements or it does not?"Biophys (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Several scholars wrote, refs on this very page, that his data is outdated and inadequate. Can use in the article but outdated guesswork cannot be given in the lead next to the modern numbers. --Irpen 00:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Davies and Wheatcroft observe that Conquest used contemporary emigré memoirs, reports by diplomats, and more recent writings by dissidents and explicitly observe that new archival information does not fundamentally change Conquest's presentation of the famine. Davies and Wheatcroft also indicate that archival access was still incomplete with regard to their own work, so we cannot state that Davies and Wheatcroft are definitive (though undoubtedly having more information to work with) any more than we can say Conquest is definitive. Narrative should incorporate all reputable sources appropriately, not seek to exclude one or the other in some sort of "he said/she said" contest. PētersV (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words in the lead
Irpen: please do not delete tags without justification. However you spin it, the Holodomor is not referred to as genocide only "sometimes", but lots of times -- in fact, by 26 countries in the world. Derogating that preponderance of opinion (shared by the President and the Parliament of Ukraine, and the US Congress, inter alia), is not the right thing to do. The lead must reflect reality, and not fall into the moral equivalence fallacy that equates a preponderance of opinion (those who recognize the Holodomor as genocide) with a very tiny minority. And, by the way, who are those denying the Holodomor was genocide, except for Petro Symonenko, Mikhail Kamynin, and a tiny fraction of scholars?. Turgidson 18:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Turgidson, what word do you propose to use instead of "sometimes"? Sometimes in not weasel, it is factual. You have better ideas? --Irpen 18:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, "sometimes" is not factual: it implies a minority view, certainly <50%. I proposed oftentimes, to indicate this is the majority view (ie,  >50%).  Now, if you don't like oftentimes, there are other solutions -- eg, the one proposed by Biophys, but you (or someone else, I forget now) deleted that as well.  I can try and think of other possible compromise solutions, but I don't think we can make progress on this, until you (and other editors who share your point of view) come to the conclusion that "sometimes" is an inappropriate word to use in this context, and seek to find common ground with others, in order to arrive at wording which is balanced, neutral, and reflects reality. Turgidson 18:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "sometimes" reads like Derogating that preponderance of opiniom and I do have a better idea. I've been acctually suggesting the idea for a week by now, meaning, how about following WP:NPOV instead of using NPOV in the sense of NoPointOfView? Instead of "sometimes" it should clearly say by who Holodomor is defined as Genocide, meaning, the parliament of Ukraine, any schools of historians etc. And then it should say who oppose calling it genocide, and anybody who doesn't have a take on the subject or has not decided yet either it was a genocide or not would not be relevant really ...--Termer 18:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We say so in the Genocide section. The lead summarizes it rather than duplicates sections closest to heart of a particular editor. As for adding to this section, here is a review of who thinks what written by an academic scholar. --Irpen 18:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

who is "we", Irpen you're keep referring to? as far as I'm concerned there are coupler of editors here who keep telling you the same thing you alone keep rejecting and keep reverting in the article. Perhaps there is something to it if it's been pointed out by many. Also, the same that applies to "sometimes" is valid for "implying that". These things need to go and the lead hast to be most clear and factual instead of reading like an essay.--Termer 18:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yet again, Termer, you are not reading responses. I cited more sources lately. Care to read before posting nonsense. --Irpen 18:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Please try to keep good faith and take my word for it that I do read your responses. However nothing I've said to you has not made it through yet--Termer 18:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, even Pravda presents what is arguably a more balanced picture of the Holodomor as genocide than the lead of the WP article! Isn't that a bit ironic?  Turgidson 19:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the last post by Turgidson was more clear than what I've been telling to Irpen? In any case that's exactly what I'm talking about.--Termer 19:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, here is a list of scientists sorted by their seeing the Holodomor as Genocide or not. Feel free to complement is and once we are done, you would show how you figure out the "preponderance" and propose what the lead should say


 * Genocide applies:
 * 1) Stanislav Kulchytsky, Institute of History of Ukraine, the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine This work (in Russian) summarizes his view why this is Genocide better than anything I could find. One cannot reduce it to a quote or two. His main position is that Genocide has to be redefined not as an ethic one (of Ukrainians by ethnicity) but as national one (citizens of the Ukrainian republic) and he claims that such the term Genocide defined as such applies to the events.
 * 2) Roman Serbyn, prof. Emeritus Université du Québec à Montréal
 * "the 1930s this was a direct genocidal undertaking by the government"
 * "Ukraine did not make a technically clear case." ... "He believes the "genocide" designation has proved elusive because the famine is often considered to have been aimed at a social group (peasants) rather than a national or ethnic group. However, a strong case can be put showing that by closing the borders so Ukrainians could not escape to Russia, Stalin was targeting Ukrainian nationals, he says".

3. Nicolas Werth (France) 4. Ronald Vossler (USA) 5. Yves Ternon (France) 6. James Mace (USA) 7. Andrew Gregorovich (Canada) 8. Yaroslav Bilinsky (USA) 9. Gerhard Simon (Germany) 10. Andrea Graziosi (Italy) 11. Leo Kuper (USA) 12. Ferdinando Adornato (Italy) 13. Oxana Pachlovska (Ukraine) 14. Federigo Argentieri (Italy) 15. Laurent Rucker (France) 16. Ettore Cinnella (Italy) 17. Mark von Hagen (USA) 18. Massimo De Angelis (Italy) 19. Yuri Shapoval (Ukraine) 20. Gabriele De Rosa (Italy) 21. Daniel Beauvois (France) 22. Lubomyr Luciuk (Canada) 23. Alain Besançon (França) 24. Frank Sysin (Canada) 25. Renzo Foa (Italy) 26. Mark Carynnyk (Canada) 27. Mauro Martini (Italy) 28. Taras Kuzio (Canada) 29. Vittorio Strada (Italy) 30. Wsewolod Isajiw (Canada) 31. Stephane Courtois (France) 32. Alain Besançon (France) 33. Etienne Thévenin (France) 34. Egbert Jahn (Germany) 35. Sante Graciotti (Italy) 36. Vasyl Marochko (Ukraine) 37. Taras Hunzack (USA) 38. Wolodymyr Kosyk (France) 39. Francesco Perfetti (Italy) 40. Lucio Villari (Italy) 41. Johan Ōman (Sweden) 42. Orest Subtelny (Canada) 43. Hubert Laszkiewicz (Poland) 44. Valery Vasilyev (UKraine) 45. Jan Jacek Bruski (Poland) 46. Ewa Rybalt (Poland) 47. Simona Merlo (Italy) 48. Michael Marrus (Canada) 49. Maria Pia Pagani (Italy) 50. Bernard Bruneteau (France) 51. Catherine Coquio (France) 52. Ruth Griffith (USA) 53. Henry R. Huttenbach (USA) 85.240.65.171 (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.240.101.125 (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

SOURCES:     

Anon, please add the affiliation and the specific reference to the statement by each scholar like done above and below. --Irpen 04:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Genocide does not apply:
 * 1) R.W. Davies : "Neither Davies nor Wheatcroft, both senior British economic historians, believe that the Ukraine famine was genocide.)"
 * 2) Stephen G. Wheatcroft (see above)
 * 3) Mark Tauger, University of West Virginia, "the perspective of the famine as genocide: "is wrong. The famine...was not limited to Ukraine or even to the rural areas of the U.S.S.R...and it was far from the intention of Stalin and others in the Soviet leadership to create such a disaster."
 * 4) Lynne Viola, University of Toronto "...another leading historian who does not ascribe to the view of the famine as genocide"
 * 5) Michael Ellman, University of Amsterdam: "What recent research has found in the archives is not a conscious policy of genocide against Ukraine. Instead, what has been found concerning Ukraine is a combination of two factors. First, the general all– Union policies of squeezing agriculture and punishing the peasants, which had their proportionately worst demographic effects in Kazakhstan but which affected the whole country, particularly the normally grain surplus areas (such as Ukraine) which had to provide the crucial grain procurements." From "The Role of Leadership Perceptions and of Intent in the Soviet Famine of 1931–1934", Europe-Asia Studies, 57, No. 6, September 2005, pp. 823 – 841
 * 6) Robert Conquest (after publication of Davies book)
 * "Statements by Conquest signify his departure from his earlier views published in 1986. His original position was based on the witness accounts. Now under the pressure of "revisionists" he denounces what was said during the "cold war". In other words, while he continues to blame Stalin for the murders, he refuses to qualify them as "precalculated intentional murders". From Stanislav Kuchytsky, "Holodomor of 1932 — 1933 as genocide: the gaps in the proof", Den, February 17, 2007.
 * "Davies presented the work, yet a manuscript, to Robert Conquest and convinced him to retract the statement about the Famine-Genocide in Ukraine

Feel free to add. --Irpen 19:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll be waiting for that documentation. In the meantime, let me add a quote from a recent article on "The Politics of Genocide":

Last week, Russian politician Grigory Yavlinsky called on the Russian government to undertake "a de-Stalinization program" to remember the millions of victims of Soviet repression. Russia's Memorial Human Rights Society issued a statement asking the Russian government "to acknowledge past crimes and offer apologies to the victims," including the former Soviet Union's repressed ethnic groups.

It's time for Russia to make peace with its past, by showing a willingness to make peace with its neighbors. Acknowledging Stalin's genocidal complicity in the 1932-33 state-sponsored Famine in Ukraine would be an important first step.
 * It looks like Yavlinsky is joining those who recognize the past crimes of the Soviet Union. Does he acknowledge Stalin's genocidal complicity in the Holodomor?  I'm not sure, perhaps one can find out.  Turgidson 19:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's stick to scholars. Politicians should not be allowed to take over a scholarly debate. Their views belong to the politicization section of the article. The article should be primarily based on the scholarly views. --Irpen 19:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Let's stick to scholars, and Robert Conquest is the most prominent of them. What you cited only shows the presence of different opinions on the subject, as always in social sciences/history. All of them, as well as opinions of politicians like Yavlinsky, can be represented per due weight criterion. Biophys 19:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yavlinksy and politicians belong to the politicization section. On Conquest, see above. --Irpen 20:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course. I wouldn't even mention that in the article: having the views of chiefs of state, of the Pope, and a few other leading politicians should be enough (though it's still not clear what the right balance between how much should be detailed in the lead and how much should be left to the body of the article is). I just mentioned  Yavlinsky's view (in addition to Pravda's coverage) as evidence here on the talk page that even in Russia the view of the Holodomor is not uniformly against acknowledging it as a genocide (perpetuated by the Soviet Union).  But I gather that's still a minority view in Russia -- thus, if the lead were to talk only about the Russian view, it would be appropriate to use the word "sometimes".  But this is the English Wikipedia, we are talking about the world view here (yes?), and out there, the view of the Holodomor as genocide is widespread -- and that's a fact.  Turgidson 20:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the list of scholarly views I compiled above and demonstrate the obvious to you "preponderance" that warrant "oftentimes" instead of "sometimes". BTW, if you know of any other scholarly opinions, please feel free to add them. --Irpen 20:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Temer's point. It should be possible to summarize the issue in the lead without the need to use weasely words like sometimes. Look for example at Katyn massacre which clearly notes the dissenting position of Russian government.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what do you mean by "dissenting views" here, Piotrus. Could you elaborate? --Irpen 20:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I will let Piotrus answer for himself, but I think he refers to "The Russian government has admitted Soviet responsibility for the massacres, although it does not classify them as war crimes or as acts of genocide, as this would have necessitated the prosecution of surviving perpetrators, which is what the Polish government has requested." Clearly, the position of the Russian government is a minority view--certainly worthy of mention in the lead (since, after all, said government is the legal heir to the government who perpetrated the massacre), but not at the price of degrading the majority view as only being expressed occasionally, "sometimes" -- perhaps by a bunch of guys in a tavern somewhere, over a drink or three?  Turgidson 21:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly what, Piotrus? Could you based on references show how is that a "minority view"? Did you read this section of the talk page? --Irpen 02:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is a problem, Turgidson. You need to show that the Russian gov's view is a minority one. The above list I composed does not suggest it. Nevertheless you claim so. What source says that the Genocide view is a manistream one and the opposite view is a minority view? I am also looking forward towards Piotrus explaining himself more clearly. --Irpen 21:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't there a list in the article of over 20 someting governments that recognize it as genocide? Do these count in this?  Ostap 23:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in the politicization section.
 * "these scholars have worked extensively in Russian and/or Ukrainian archives, so their claims cannot be dismissed lightly. Their views clash with those of various world governments that have already recognized the famine as genocide"

--Irpen 23:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But wait, you asked to show that the russian government view is a minority one. It seems to be so. Ostap 23:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really, there are 100+ countries. Additionally, not s single international body adopted such statement.

Most importantly, though, it is clear from above that the view that Holodomor was not a Genocide is not a "minority view" but the mainstream scholarly one. --Irpen 23:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 100+ governments and only one that dogmatically denies genocide... "mainstream"? I wouldn't go that far. Ostap 23:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Dogmatically? Look at the scholarship. A view based on mainstream research is hardly dogmatic. Note also, that Ukraine did not manage to succeed in inserting the term into UN GA and UNESCO statements either. Those bodies declined to support the statements with the term inserted. Yes, Russia "opposed" the inclusion. But Russia has no veto power anywhere but the Security Council. --Irpen 23:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: User:Alex_Bakharev (no justification for the tag, see talk) Did see talk, more users agree with the thing that the header is one confusing piece of a text, going to restore the tag until the issue gets solved and the header starts to make sense and things become factual instead of historians agree -sometimes -implying that -Historians continue to disagree. As all attempts to clarify the header have been reverted due to edit warring, therefore the tag is well justified until the header lists the facts, instead of what reads like a commentary--Termer 08:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment in my opinion it doesn't matter really who exactly is the minority or majority here. the only thing that needs to happened, It should say: Holodomor was this and that according to the UNESCO resolution; was genocide according to these parliaments and historians; was not genocide according tho these historians and politicians. I'm not getting it, why is such a simple thing made into such a complicated issue here?--Termer 08:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Should be noted about the “Genocidal recognition” factual basis – it’s still remain on “ frozen meat” position – were population of Ukrainian SSR in 1926 stated as 31.195.000 and in 1939 - 28.111.000, stories about encircled by Red Army and NKVD units Ukrainian SRR borders and other politically charged “arguments”, never info about aid provided etc.

Доповідач докладно поінформував народних депутатів про те, як це робилося в Україні, навів численні факти, які свідчать, що загальнолюдські втрати України згідно з даними переписів 1926 і 1939 років склали як мінімум 8 мільйонів чоловік. У 26-му році в Україні було 31 мільйон чоловік. У 39-му році 28 мільйонів. Середній приріст в СРСР за 12 років склав 12 відсотків. Це означає, що без голодомору в Україні мало бути 36 мільйонів. So if we compared first position of Kulchitskiy in 1990 (his letters to International Commission of Inquiry into the 1932-1933 Famine in Ukraine. ) with present time position – it’s look like what he ride this thematic for personal gain and deliver any “right vision” as requested by anybody who paid for this. Jo0doe 09:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

What was so difficult to understand about my last comment? There is no "right vision" or "wrong vision" here. There can be only "He Says, She Says". If anybody can spell it out more clearly than that, please help out. Thanks--Termer 09:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Any compromises should not make an article or it's header very confusing. Whats wrong with making the header factual instead of keeping it like it reads: a commentary? I'm sorry but Most modern historians agree...is sometimes...implying that...Historians continue to disagree all together very abstract and doesn't make much sense.--Termer 20:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * RE: Alex Bakharev (The article is a result of a long compromise, no better terms are proposed).

Termer, let me reiterate that what you suggest, the article should include exactly who said what with attribution, is already done. Take a good look at the genocide section. All views are there in the attributed from. Your version of the lead attempts to basically duplicate this section in the lead. If one reads the lead proposals a couple of threads back, both of those suggest that an entire lead should discuss the applicability of Genocide. In fact the applicability of Genocide is just one of many issues the article covers, like what was the background, what actually happened, how many people died, how many people were not born (demographic consequence), the significance of the Famine in modern Ukraine, the politicization, the applicability of Genocide as a term to describe what happened. The latter section shows that there simply is no consensus. You claim you read what I write at the talk page. I many modern respected scholars by their view on whether Genocide is an applicable term and provided references. If you are interested in the subject, please do some more research and expand the list. In no way it follows from it that the genocide view has any "preponderance" as you and Turgidson are suggesting.

Provided that statements about Genocide are already given in an attributed form in the main body, how else do you propose to summarize the state of the art in this field but to say that there is simply neither a consensus, nor a single mainstream view? "Oftentimes" suggested by Turgidson that implies the "preponderance" is simply false and cannot be used. What exactly are your suggestions for the lead? --Irpen 20:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The simple fact that "There is no consensus" sounds 10 times better than "most agree-sometimes-continue to disagree". Also it would tease the reader to go on instead of, well: "if these guys can't make themselves clear in the header, why should I trust this article all together and I better look up for some other sources on the subject than WP"--Termer 20:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * suggestion: There is no consensus among historians and politicians if the famine caused by the policies of the government of the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, rather than by natural causes, falls under the legal definition of genocide. The parliament of Ukraine and the governments of 26 other countries recognized the famine to be such.

Still would need copyediting but something like that for the section...--Termer 21:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like we are now moving in the right directions. --Irpen 21:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thinking more, this version makes it look like while there is no consensus on Genocide, there is a consensus about famine being deliberate. This in fact is not so. The famine's being artificial is a majority view but not a consensus opinion.
 * "...it was far from the intention of Stalin and others in the Soviet leadership to create such a disaster.". Prof. Mark Tauger

At the time, as far as Genocide goes the majority view seems to be that it was not, while the opinion that it was is a significant and notable minority view. (Kulchytsky, Serbyn and perhaps some others). --Irpen 21:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've rephrased the section according to consensus. feel free to copyedit. also, the ref list became ridiculously long. perhaps should be narrowd down to few major refs only.--Termer 21:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Got the last comment by Irpen also written into the text.--Termer 21:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

More, here are excerpts from Tauger's letter with more useful refs:


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


 * I would recommend to Ms. Chernihivska the following publications regarding the 1931-1933 famine and some other famines as well. I will begin with my own because I believe that these most directly relate to her question.


 * Mark B. Tauger, "The 1932 Harvest and the Soviet Famine of 1932-1933," Slavic Review v. 50 no. 1, Spring 1991, 70-89, and my exchanges of letters with Robert Conquest over this article, Slavic Review v. 51 no. 1, 192- 194 and v. 53 no. 1, 318-319. Tauger, Natural Disaster and Human Actions in the Soviet Famine of 1931-1933, Carl Beck Papers in Russian and East European Studies, no. 1506, June 2001. These two articles show that the famine resulted directly from a famine harvest, a harvest that was much smaller than officially acknowledged, and that this small harvest was in turn the result of a complex of natural disasters that [with one small exception] no previous scholars have ever discussed or even mentioned. The foot notes in the Carl Beck Paper contain extensive citations from primary sources as well as Western and Soviet secondary works, among others by D'Ann Penner and Stephen Wheatcroft and R. W. Davies that further substantiate these points and I urge interested readers to examine those works as well.


 * An additional study on the issues of harvests and statistics from a comparative standpoint is Tauger, Statistical Falsification in the Soviet Union: A Comparative Case Study of Projections, Biases, and Trust. The Donald W. Treadgold Papers in Russian, East European, and Central Asian Studies, no. 34, August 2001.


 * An additional study on the issue of shortages is R. W. Davies, S. G. Wheatcroft, and Tauger, "Soviet Grain Stocks and the Famine of 1932- 1933," Slavic Review v. 54 no. 3, Fall 1995, 642-657.


 * Tauger, "Grain Crisis or Famine? The Ukrainian State Commission for Aid to Crop Failure Vicitims and the Ukrainian Famine of 1928-1929," in Donald Raleigh, ed., Provincial Landscapes: Local Dimensions of Soviet Power, U Pitt Press, 2001. This article discusses a real Ukrainian famine that has never been mentioned in any Western study and only peripherally in one or two post-Soviet Ukrainian works.


 * R. W. Davies reviewed Conquest's book Harvest of Sorrow in the journal Detente, 9/10 (1987), 44-45.


 * Finally a large group of Western, Russian, and Asian scholars are publishing a vast collection of formerly secret Soviet documents entitled Tragediia Sovetskoi Derevni, which contains extensive evidence that this was a Soviet-wide famine. Three volumes have so far appeared, published by Rosspen, and they are obtainable through Russian-language distributors like Panorama of Russia and the Russian Publication Service.
 * Mark B. Tauger mark.tauger@mail.wvu.edu
 * Associate Professor, Dept. of History
 * West Virginia University Morgantown WV 26506-6303

HTH, --Irpen 21:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Irpen not that it matters really but I think things like even more controversial issue starts to read like a commentary again, therefore I think you overdid it a bit. I would leave it up to the reader to decide what's "more controversial" and stick to the plain facts only. Thanks!--Termer 01:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a note that I don't think the commentary added to the article by User:Riurik at one point, sorry to say, was a very smart thing to do. I know, the ignorance of some scholars who miss some important facts in their studies must be frustrating but it remains to be a fact by itself that these guys have not seen genocide in it what happened in Ukraine. And our job here is to cite the facts, not become involved in the controversy itself. Therefor I'd urge to stop this kind of behavior because it's not helping to make this article and its header more fair. Thanks! --Termer 06:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We are just seeing what happens if the sides in the discussion behave unreasonably. I mean those who attacked using "some" and "most" in the lead that were perfectly adequate in summarizing the text in the main body. "Most" vs "some" perfectly summarize the current state of the art in the scholarship. Yes, this is less precise than to say exactly who said what but summary can never be as precise as the detailed description. If you are going to summarize anything, you always loose the exact details. The details are in the body. The lead summarizes the text correctly. Having unreferenced "most" and "some" in the text would be indeed weasel-like. Here, the text is referenced. The lead, ideally, should not have references at all and should merely summarize the article's referenced text. The good lead should do so as adequately as possible while staying within 3 paragraphs or 4 paragraphs tops. --Irpen 07:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

the use of "some" and "most" is never going to be encyclopedic. Although it makes more sense than before, saying that some argue that natural causes may have contributed to the disaster suggest like the most modern historians who agree... completely reject the idea that the drought had anything to do with the famine. Thats not the case of course and needs to be fixed.--Termer 17:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

We've good example here Iraq_war "Some U.S. officials cited claims of a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.[50] No evidence of any operational or collaborative relationship with al-Qaeda has been found.[51]" Would be good also to mentioned "In late February 2002, the CIA sent former Ambassador Joseph Wilson to investigate dubious claims about Iraq's attempted purchase of yellowcake uranium from Niger. Wilson returned and informed the CIA that reports of yellowcake sales to Iraq were "unequivocally wrong." However, the Bush administration continued to mention yellowcake purchases as justification for military action--most prominently in the January, 2003, State of the Union when President Bush repeated the allegation, citing British intelligence sources" since here we've same story - facts which used for Genocide allegations and "intention to destroy ukrainian nation as political entity" has same kind background Jo0doe 17:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, take the anti-Americanism somewhere else. Ostap 19:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

...and the header still reads like most modern historians agree that... natural causes may NOT have contributed to the disaster

Suggestion rephrase: While most modern historians agree that the famine was caused by the policies of the government of the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, some argue that natural causes may have been the primary reason for the disaster. --Termer 07:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Implemented Termer's proposal Alex Bakharev 11:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV facts cannot be “anti-…” as it can be imagine Regarding “most modern historians” should be noted what  they "study" the “story” from summer 1932 and most of them mentioned NKVD units at 1932-1933 as real case. Moreover they mentioned grain procurement 1932 as extensive while not mentioned what final result of procurement in 1932 (officially ended February, 5 1933) was as high as in 1927/28 when more then half of grain was procured on free market (while in 1932 free market does not exist at ll) and etc. etc. But they clearly reach the target of their researches – “Genocide”. So, we should decide – should we stick with BBC version or with WP one? Jo0doe 17:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Daughter articles
Forgive me if this has been raised before. The talk page history is quite long. How about shortening this article by moving some sections into daughter articles? - Jehochman Talk 07:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Malevich at all
I think everything in Ukraine now tended to be related to the Holodomor. But fact are differ – Malivich can not be at Ukraine in 1932-1933 since he was in Leningrad, moreover since earlier 1933 he seriously ill. Other pictures from 1986 exibition - since OGPU was in charge for such matter - such pictures should be extremly difficult to take, moreover - there no evidence of such situation (extencive death from starvation at streets Kharkov ) in archival sources for 1932. As for 1933 - such situation can be possible, but "casual wear" does not match time and place. Jo0doe 16:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Douglas Tottle
I propose we remove the section on Douglas Tottle, or move it to a Denial of the Holodomor [renamed 5-Jan-2007] article. Wikipedia is not meant to give a platform for fringe-theorists and revisionists. (Fringe theories) Ostap (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Tottle's reserch is hardly revisionism, he was fighting revionism of anti-communist Ukrainian nationalists. Well sourced and as far as I have seen, only the people he caught in lies and using nazi propaganda "sources" have tried to say otherwise. --Mista-X (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Tottle is not a scholar and his "research" does not and cannot have any standing for this reason alone, disregarding the rest. However, he is the most notable representative of the denialist camp most frequently sited by those who share such POV. Mentioning him stating that he is a journalist rather than a historian relays to the readers the exactly right information on how serious his "historic research" should be taken, while noting the most prominent of the denialists. I think it is OK as it is done. --Irpen 02:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If his work didn't receive serious attention, then why is he mentioned here, in this serious encyclopedia? Or is wikipedia just the World's funniest joke? Ostap (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * His work did not receive any scholarly attention because it is junk, but it received attention all right because it is a most prominent modern work from the denialists. If we mention that some claim that Holodomor is fiction, citing the most prominent work that makes such claim is appropriate. We should of course provide the reader with all the info he would need to make a judgment about this work's quality. Not all junk is notable, but prominent junk is notable. --Irpen 03:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is prominent, not have I seen any reason to believe it is. Besides, this should be moved to a separate Holodomor denial article.  Surely there is enough material for such an article.  If I started it, would I be banned infinitly for vicious POV forking? Ostap (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the ban of you would ever be in the picture, Ostap. But do you consider it a valid separate encyclopedic topic? Compare with Holocaust denial, this by itself is a vastly researched topic. I emphasize that the HD is researched in itself, and there are scholarly works devoted specifically to the denial, rather than the Holocaust. Are there works on Holodomor denial to devote a separate article to it? I have not seen the work where junk by Tottle, nonsense by Symonenko and blasphemous slurs by Zhirik are analyzed together in some scholarly way. You can of course compile a set of various disparate incidents, anti-Ukrainian quotes and pictures but we really should not have articles on something that does not have any scholarly research devoted to it. On some topics it is impossible to write an encyclopedic articles no matter how valid the topics are. One reason may be the existing topic's being non-encyclopedic in principle (this is not the case for the Holodomor denial.) Another reason may be lack of systematic research to serve the basis for the article. If scholarly works on denial exist, then the article can be written. --Irpen 04:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have this book, but perhaps Stalin's Apologist: Walter Duranty: The New York Times's Man in Moscow Oxford University Press would be a good reference. I guess I will remove that article-split proposal then. Ostap (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Douglas Tottle is same historian as Robert_Conquest also novelist and ex. IRD officer but treated here as historian. Regarding Walter Duranty - he wrote: There is a serious shortage food shortage throughout the country, with occasional cases of well-managed State or collective farms. The big cities and the army are adequately supplied with food. There is no actual starvation or deaths from starvation, but there is widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition. for 30 March 1930 Lie? - look like half-truth and archival documents prove such. So, once again history can not be comprehended through BBC or comic books. Jo0doe (talk) 09:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So you compare Conquest to tottle? Ostap (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Same - politicians demands rather then historical approach. Jo0doe (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So, Conquest is not a historian? Ostap (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Conquest's book was indeed commissioned by the Congressional investigators, you have a point here JoeDoe. But there is a difference between a book (even if biased) written by an accredited scholar (PhD and Professor) and published through an academic publisher and the opus produced by some street guy who self-published it. Tottle's book about Famine is like Rezun's books on the WW2. As for Conquest, his research is outdated anyway, but there is no need to put him in the same league as Tottle. He suffered enough academic embarrassment. --Irpen 06:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I assume what you agree with my provision what history can be divided at least in two division – pure history when history researched in order to have better understanding of the past and political history when same facts can be described depends on current political demands "were never what they cost" – falsification, manipulation, dances on bones etc. It like a true love and prostitution .    So we should remain on Ersatz history position and trust in sunken barges full of Ukrainian by nationality children?  "PhD and Professor" – as far as I knew Paul Joseph Goebbels also was a Doctor and what? Jo0doe (talk) 07:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you are pushing too far. Conquest is not Goebbels in any way. Compare him to Soviet historians whose research was compromised due to being commissioned by the party. It does mean that they assertions have to be examined with greater scrutiny. It does not mean that their entire research is useless junk. --Irpen 07:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I talk about "PhD and Professor" and not compared the "legendary" propagandist and "so-so historian". If you can compare a lot of Soviet historian works – you can see what most of them simply omitted slippery ground rather then make a propaganda charged efforts – simply it's a "playground" of other Authority. Junk of couse - better to go to opened archives and read an exact info rather then try to find were and when you are cheated Jo0doe (talk) 09:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Patriotist
Look like Ukrainian patriotist significantly improve the general picture – I really like this facts: Repressed Bandurists (see also   since english versions -are not WP:NPOV), NKVD after 1930 and before 1934 at all. So why we should not add this Robert Conquest (I appologies but I've not English version – so patriotist will help to translate) selection : "Harvest of Sorrow"

Навіть безпритульні діти з “некримінального елементу” отримували суворе покарання. У березні 1933 р. на полтавському залізничному вокзалі спеціальний вагон перевели на бічну колію, і дітей, що юрмилися навколо у пошуках їжі, числом до 80, загнали до нього силою з наміром везти до колонії. Їм дали сурогатної кави з підсмажених зернин і трохи хліба. Проте діти швидко померли, і їх довелося поховати неподалік.(Note about Ersatz coffee)

Між тим, за твердженням старшого співробітника ОДПУ, ще 1932 року вийшло конфіденційне розпорядження стріляти у дітей, які обкрадали залізничні вагони, що проходили транзитом. Але страчували не лише за крадіжки. У Лебединському дитячому центрі 76 дітей, що заразилися сапом від неякісної конини, було розстріляно. Отож, “небажаних” дітей позбувалися за допомогою різних засобів. Повідомлялося також, що деяких топили в баржах на Дніпрі (так робили і з дорослими). (Number of barges in 1928-1938 – is an open and freely available statistical data )

Also current falsification in Criminal prosecution for withholding or bargaining of grain section  - "Additionally, the age limit for the death penalty was reduced to 12 years old: children were shot for gathering ears of corn left in the field after harvest." should be removed as lowering of the age of legal responsibility appeared after April 71935 And special instruction № 1/001537 — 30/002517 April 20 from 1935 were explanations were provided and mentioned what  death penalty is an most exeptional measure and should be in close control. Jo0doe (talk) 08:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * About "falsification," it is from a reputable source. Can we state unequivocally that your example is the earliest of any such policy statement or edict? PētersV (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Same as "yellowcake uranium from Niger" or "frozen meat of kulak" - which one "reputable source" ?Jo0doe (talk) 06:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of Pravda
Re: the link mentioned some way above, I never thought I would ever say anything positive about a report in Pravda but it appears that a paraphrasing of the article's last few paragraphs would be more direct and to the point (and accurate) than some of what's said now in the article, and I quote:
 * "Long kept secret by Soviet authorities, accounts of the great famine still divide historians and politicians, not just in this nation of 47 million but throughout the former Soviet Union.
 * "Some are convinced that the famine targeted Ukrainians as an ethnic group. Others argue authorities set out to eradicate all private land owners as a social class, and that the Soviets sought to pay for the U.S.S.R.'s industrialization with grain exports at the expense of starving millions of its own people.
 * "The dictator Josef Stalin's collectivization drive affected the entire U.S.S.R, but was particularly calamitous for Ukraine, which had some of the former Soviet Union's richest agricultural land. The campaign coincided, as well, with the Kremlin's efforts to root out a growing Ukrainian nationalist movement.
 * "Estimates of the number of people who perished in Holodomor differ, but there is no doubt the death toll was horrific. Yushchenko estimates 10 million Ukrainians died, while Stanislav Kulchitsky, a Ukrainian historian, believes the number is closer to 3.5 million.
 * "Authorities set production quotas for each village. But these quotas generally exceeded crop yields and in village after village, when farmers failed to meet their targets, all their food was confiscated.
 * "Residents were prohibited to leave their homes - effectively condemning them to starvation."

Surely if Pravda says anything of this nature in this way, it's of major significance. PētersV (talk) 02:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The Pravda article says all there is to say about the subject unlike the WP article that's just filled up with noise, reading it reminds me how Radio Free Europe was jammed back in time.--Termer (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not mentioned here a The Sun or other same stile "sources" - so for "frozen meat" adepts - there lot of possibility to do so - as Badurists do that. But does someone will donate a WP for that info? Better to go to buy some tabloids with same quality of data Jo0doe (talk) 06:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Vodka, balalaika, matrioshka… NKVD, GULAG… Stalin&Khruschev&Sputnik
Should be good to remove cold-war era cliché since archival data provide a different info. – We have now "At the same time, the "Twenty-Five Thousanders" (industrial workers and mostly devoted Bolsheviks) were sent to help run the collective farms. In addition, they were expected to quash the increasing passive and active resistance to collectivization by engaging in what was euphemistically referred to as "dekulakization": the arresting of 'kulaks' — "well-to-do" farmers and transferring their families to the Urals and Central Asia, where they were to be placed in others sectors of the economy such as timber."

At same time known what dekulakization and was a main responcibility of selsovet ПОСТАНОВА ЦВК СРСР ПРО ДОСТРОКОВІ ПЕРЕВИБОРИ СІЛЬСЬКИХ РАД І РАЙВИКОНКОМІВ В РАЙОНАХ СУЦІЛЬНОЇ КОЛЕКТИВІЗАЦІЇ 31 січня 1930 р. Центральным исполнительным комитетам союзных республик РСФСР, УССР, БССР, ЗСФСР, УзССР, ТуркССР и ТадССР В своем постановлении от 25 января 1930 г. о новых задачах советов в связи с широко развернувшейся колективизацией в деревне Президиум Центрального Исполнительного Комитета Союза ССР указал, что сельский совет, не перестроивший своей работы, сельский совет, не ставший во главе колхозного движения, отстающий от темпов социалистического преобразования деревни, не умеющий организовать бедняцко-батрацкие массы - такой сельский совет подлежит немедленному переизбранию.

and began before of their arrival to countrieside and their number was so insignificant (7,5 K of Twenty-Five Thousanders for 24,8 K kolhozes) to has any visual impact. -

Також не вистачає в окрузі й організаторів колективізації. Обіцяні окрузі робітники в рахунок "25 000" ще не прибули. (3О січня 1930 р)

Also should be splited law "on the safekeeping of Socialist property" and "on fight with speculation" Постановлением ЦИК и СНК СССР от 22 августа 1932 г. «О борьбе со спекуляцией» органам прокуратуры и местным органам власти предписывалось «принять меры к искоренению спекуляции, применяя к спекулянтам и перекупщикам заключение в концентрационный лагерь сроком от 5 до 10 лет без права применения амнистии» - e.g. current verbs

Acts as minor as bartering tobacco for bread were documented as punished by 5 years in prison. and rest wording. Also should be notable to stae the reason of establishing the law "on the safekeeping of Socialist property" (instead of current "punishment of peasants") – За последнее время участились, во-первых, хищения грузов на желдортранспорте (расхищают на десятки мил. руб.), во-вторых, хищения кооперативного и колхозного имущества. Хищения организуются глав[ным] образом кулаками (раскулаченными) и другими антиобщественными элементами, старающимися расшатать наш новый строй. По закону эти господа рассматриваются как обычные воры, получают два-три года тюрьмы (формально!), а на деле через 6-8 месяцев амнистируются. Подобный режим в отношении этих господ, который нельзя назвать социалистическим, только поощряет их по сути дела настоящую контрреволюционную «работу».

Без этих (и подобных им) драконовских социалистических мер невозможно установить новую общественную дисциплину, а без такой дисциплины – невозможно отстоять и укрепить наш новый строй. 

Я думаю, что по всем этим трем пунктам нужно действовать на основании закона («мужик любит законность»), а не на базе лишь практики ОГПУ, при этом, понятно, что роль ОГПУ здесь не только не будет умалена, а – наоборот – будет усилена и «облагорожена» («на законном основании», а не «по произволу» будут орудовать органы ОГПУ). 

Rather then put all together - e.g. Vodka, balalaika, matrioshka… NKVD, GULAG version.

and noted May, 8 1933 Decree were " В ЦК и СНК имеются сведения, из которых видно, что массовые беспорядочные аресты в деревне все еще продолжают существовать в практике наших работников. Арестовывают председатели колхозов и члены правлений колхозов. Арестовывают председатели сельсоветов и секретари ячеек. Арестовывают районные и краевые уполномоченные. Арестовывают все, кому только не лень и кто, собственно говоря, не имеет никакого права арестовывать. Не удивительно, что при таком разгуле практики арестов органы, имеющие право ареста, в том числе и органы ОГПУ, и особенно милиция, теряют чувство меры и зачастую производят аресты без всякого основания, действуя по правилу: "сначала арестовать, а потом разобраться"." "Обязать ОГПУ, НКЮ союзных республик и прокуратуру СССР немедленно приступить к разгрузке мест заключения и довести в двухмесячный срок общее число лишенных свободы с 800 тысяч фактически заключенных ныне до 400 тысяч." and " отношении осужденных провести следующие мероприятия: а) Всем осужденным по суду до 3 лет заменить лишение свободы принудительными работами до 1 года, а остальной срок считать условным. б) Осужденных на срок от 3 до 5 лет включительно направить в трудовые поселки ОГПУ. в) Осужденных на срок свыше 5 лет направить в лагеря ОГПУ. 6. Кулаки, осужденные на срок от 3 до 5 лет включительно, подлежат направлению в трудовые поселки вместе с находящимися на их иждивении лицами."

Should be good to clear the situation in "On December 6, a new regulation was issued that imposed the following sanctions on Ukrainian villages that were considered "underperforming" in the grain collection procurement: ban on supply of any goods or food to the villages, requisition of any food or grain found on site, ban of any trade, and, lastly, the confiscation of all financial resources.[33][34] Measures were undertaken to persecute upon the withholding or bargaining of grain. This was done frequently with the aid of requisition detachments, which raided farms to collect grain. This was done regardless of whether the peasants retained enough grain to feed themselves, or whether they had enough seed left to plant the next harvest." Since regulation was not new and not as stated here – at's alsmost POV – why not to use a full version of story – Jo0doe (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but this time I have to point it out that nothing you say Jo0doe has made any sense to me so far and the same goes to this what reads like a commentary to some kind of archival data that is directly linked into the text at the header of the article. Just wondering, am I the only one who completely misses what is this long text mostly in Cyrillic all about posted  above? --Termer (talk) 09:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly noone in 1930-s expect what Termer would like to read all Soviet legislation act in nonCyrillic version. So, if you would like to be more involved in situation - you should be more confident with Cyrillic, otherwise your understanding of topic will be as high as current topic named. So I return second paragraph to place there it was before, becouse duration should be there. Jo0doe (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving the text to talk for sorting it out how this could be used.--Termer (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC) -
 * See also WP:PSTS - Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires... administrative documents...; Jo0doe (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Unicity of situation also confirmed the usually soundless soviet encyclopaedia sources – the Ukrainian case named as "breach in agriculture" while the rest same cases in other region was omitted or deserve a "temporary difficulties" terms.

The duration of the Holodomor, as can be determined by archival data, was a six and a half month period from late December 1932 till beginning of July 1933 (excluding after-effects), at same time some scholars mentioned the hunger (which distinct from Holodomor itself)  that existed from late December 1931 till beginning of July 1932 when starvation affected a confined area (Moldavian SRR and southern regions of Vinnitsia and Kyiv oblasts and the northern region of the Odessa oblast (presently in the Kirovograd oblast).

and WP:NOTCENSORED
 * Does the last action of Termer can be treat as WP:VAN - Blanking : Removing all or significant parts of pages' content without any legitimate reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense. Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason given in the summary. Adding known inaccuracies: Adding information in bad faith that you clearly know is false. What about WP:NOT - Propaganda - Cold War propaganda?

Also what about Image vandalism : including the intentional placement of images that bear no relationship to the topic, replacement of existing images with unrelated, silly, or shock images? - e.g. Malevitch, Bandurists and Cold War (or even Nazi) Propaganda? Jo0doe (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Jo0doe, perhaps it's me but I still do not understand what are you talking about, including what images and what should be the meaning of this section I brought to the talk page for discussion? I believe it says up there Please...discuss substantial changes here before making them. So what are the changes you'd like to add to the article Jo0doe? --Termer (talk) 09:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

About "Duration" - see "Add" topic of November 12 2007 - so noone against - I add as proposed. Since "Holodomor 1932-33" is a politicians and propaganda euphemism which join two historical events (which has different reasons and outcomes) in one cup  – hunger of 1932  and holodomor 1933 (see Kulchitskiy link for better understanding the differences). Images does not reffered to you, but added by somebody "images that bear no relationship to the topic, replacement of existing images with unrelated, silly, or shock images" still there. It's like Alexander the Great illustrated with and Alexander (film)Jo0doe (talk) 11:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Holodomor images
"Many times photographs of the Soviet 1921-1923 Famine have been used to depict the Great Famine-Genocide in Ukraine in 1932-1933 as original photographs of the Ukraine Famine in 1932-1933 are few in number as the Soviets did not allow photographs to be taken and the region was closed to journalists and all the news media." So Голодуючі діти в одному з населених пунктів Полтавщини. Репродукція з фотодокумента РДАКФД, оп. 3, п. 265, спр. 14. Од. зберігання 5117 - It's recent (after 1992) addition to archives rather than original document of 1933 or 1932. Even more If you can able ta get an access to 1916-23 documents - It's easy to find many similar images but with real date stamp.Jo0doe (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

thumb|right|200px|Victim of the Holodomor, 1933
 * To Irpen, re: inserted/deleted/reverted/deleted image [[Image:Holodomor.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Victim of the Holodomor, 1933]]
 * If authenticity is a concern, you should have said so in the first place.
 * Your comparison to not having war photos is not appropriate. You are not the Wiki picture police. The Holocaust article, for example, has substantially more grisly pictures yet no one has complained that the meaning of the words has been lost. Your protection of sensibilities is your personal, not encyclopedic, interpretation.
 * I have seen more than one appropriate picture be added by more than one editor to be immediately deleted by you. Please stop doing so without discussion. If other editors believe the image is editorially appropriate, it stays. Potential deletions of images minimally to be discussed here. Whether Holodomor was or wasn't intentional is immaterial. Words do not do it justice, images such as this most recent one are not only appropriate but necessary.
 * I'm packing to get on a plane but I didn't want to leave addressing bringing up this issue until my return. —PētersV (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the addition of the photographs. In this case one picture says more than a thousand words. recently numerous photographs have been released by the Ukrainian Security services from materials that had been confiscated. I saw quite a number of photographs done by a Chernihiv photographer which were done by him before he was arrested, sent to the Gulag and died in 1938. These photos are part of the exhibit the Ukrainian Security Services have put on exhibit. It would be useful to remove photos that do not have proper passportisation (acreditation) and replace them with those that do. Bandurist (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm hoping we can have a discussion based on the situation the pictures illustrate . Resolving intent (or not) is not required. —PētersV (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with both Bandurist and PētersV — in fact, it was I who added that image, both to this article, and to the one on Denial of the Holodomor, only to be reverted by Irpen. Now, Irpen wrote to me here, explaining his concerns with adding the photo, and I said, "OK, I won't insist, unless other users agree it's appropriate." (See the rest of the discussion there). So how to proceed? I don't want to get into an edit war (that's not my style), but rather, let's try and arrive at a consensus.  Where to start?  Turgidson (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with Irpen that we need to insure images are authentic (image, what is stated it describes, attributable to specific period). If we're satisfied the latest image is authentic and we can use it, it is as good a place to start as any. If not, then Bandurist's source may be a good one to pursue.
 * Editorially, I completely disagree with Irpen's concerns that picture would distract or put off readers. On the contrary, I have inevitably found that such pictures open the reader's eyes to the fact that something horrific has indeed occurred--it's not just words--which then motivates them to find out more, not just to read the article, but to do their own reading and research. —PētersV (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with PētersV. Please no censorship of images, and no censorship of reliable sources.Biophys (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably 1921 Picture of Nansen does not match the 1932-1933 events. So "recently numerous photographs have been released by the Ukrainian Security services from materials that had been confiscated" - it's disinformation - SBU does not present any new photos regarding 1932-33 events all photos (with starved) provided by them widely known as 1921-22 pictures of Nansen. Please remember - it was a 1932-33 - no digital camera at every outlet on the street, cameras was realy ugly (Leica available for chosens as also as FED - and thier owner was well known to OGPU - I even not speak about processing) . So fairy-tailes about "Chernihiv photographer" has same origin as "repressed Bandurists" story      Jo0doe (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a typical original research by a wikipedian. It is you who claim something to be a "forgery". Should be disregarded per WP:NOR. Biophys (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, al least Irpen is consistent. He was against my insertion of a shocking image into the Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya article, he was insertion of a shocking image into the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, now he is against insertion of a shocking image into the Holodomor article. In the two previous cases his judgement was found correct, I see no reason to not follow the same logic here. If some editors are unable to work on an article because of a shocking image or some readers would not read the text then it is a strong reason to remove the image.

To Biophys - WP:NOR only applies to the article space, we do not insert original research into the articles. Period. Unfortunately, we do have to use original research in the talk space. Particularly whether a source is reliable enough to include an info as a fact or as an attributed opinion or not to include it at all is always a question of some editorial judgment obtained by an original research. It is known that many photographs publicized as Holodomor images were actually taken during the 1921 Volga-region famine. The photo in question is obviously a studio-made work of professional. Such works were strongly encouraged in 1921 because the images were useful for the propaganda purposes and very strongly suppressed during Holodomor. Thus, the authenticity of an image may require additional verification. On the other hand, IMHO it does not matter much, I guess all famine victims look similar (we might have some embarrassment though if the wrong attribution of the image will be discovered and publicized by Holodomor-deniers) Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi
 * Jo0doe you wrote "* Probably 1921 Picture of Nansen does not match the 1932-1933 events. So "recently numerous photographs have been released by the Ukrainian Security services from materials that had been confiscated" - it's disinformation - SBU does not present any new photos regarding 1932-33 events all photos (with starved) provided by them widely known as 1921-22 pictures of Nansen. Please remember - it was a 1932-33 - no digital camera at every outlet on the street, cameras was realy ugly (Leica available for chosens as also as FED - and thier owner was well known to OGPU - I even not speak about processing) . So fairy-tailes about "Chernihiv photographer" has same origin as "repressed Bandurists" story


 * - I find myself disagreeing with you again. (I seem to be disagreeing with you all the time). Here is the site for the recent exhibition regarding the Holodomor organized by the Ukrainian Security Services Ukrainian Security Services Holodomor exhibit


 * Here is a list of the new documents uncovered by the Ukrainian Scurity services Documents relating to the Holodomor


 * Here is an example of a confiscated Anti Soviet flyer regarding the Holodomor that was recently found in the archives Anti-Soviet flyer re Holodomor from 1933


 * More: A Requiem fopr those that died from 1933


 * This is the recent book published by the Security Services from the archives regarding the Holodomor Book about the Holodomor

Bandurist (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey Joe


 * Here is the source for the "fairy story" about the Chernihiv photographer:

page 33 .
 * У 2007 р. під час проведення виставки «Розсекречена па�

м’ять» в архіві тимчасового зберігання Управління СБ України в Чернігівській області в одній з архівних кримінальних справ було виявлено унікальні фотознімки. Їх автором є Бокань Микола Федорович – фотограф�кустар, який мешкав у смт Ба� турин Чернігівської області. Збереглися виконані ним фото� знімки та записи, датовані, зокрема, 1933–1934 роками. Фотодокументи підтверджують голодування сім’ї і смерть від виснаження одного з його синів – Костянтина, а також повне руйнування багатьох українських родин внаслідок соціальних катаклізмів радянської доби. Обвинувачені у систематичній антирадянській агітації та контрреволюційній діяльності Бокань М.Ф. та його син Борис, який допомагав батькові виготовляти фотографії, у 1938 році були засуджені відповідно до 8 та 5 років позбавлення волі. Обидва загинули у сталінських концтаборах.


 * Translation:
 * In 2007 during the exposition "Declassified memory" in the archives for temporary holding for the directorate of the Security Services of Ukraine in the Chernihiv oblast one of the archives of a criminal nature were discovered unique photographs. The author was Bokan, Mykola Fedorovych - and professional photographer, who lived in a village of town size Baturyn in the Chernihiv oblast/ There survived photographs made by him and recordings dated specifically to 1933-34. The photographs confirm the starving families and the death from emaciation of one of his  sons - Konstantyn, and also the total ruin of many Ukrainian families as a result of social cataclisms of the soviet period.

Blamed for systemic anti-soviet agitation and counter-revolutionary activities Bokan M F. and his son Borys, who helped his father developed the photographs, in 1938 were sentenced to 8 and 5 years of loss of freedom. Both died in Stalinist Concentration camps.


 * I accept your apology.


 * Joedoe - I would also like to say that many of the sources of your information come from very entertaining sites. I particularly like the last couple I checked on regarding the Holomor which also advertised articles about recently published nude photos of the singers of Via Gra, and also Zhanna Frisky, and materials about a program called Dom 2 and Elena Berkova. It is rare thing in the west to have Holodomor materials in such "academic" sources. It is even rarer to use them as references. Bandurist (talk) 06:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Very interesting find, Bandurist.  How about adding some of the info you found into the article?  Just in case you need more, here is an article that mentions Bokan:  "These documents are being published for the first time, as are the photographs taken by a peasant from Baturyn, named Bokan, which are a damning indictment of the terror by famine."  Turgidson (talk) 07:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not a specialist on this topic, nor have I training in scholarly methods that would aid in the writing of such an article. I only have a passing interest, mainly because my father (born in 1928) in Berezotocha (14 kms from Lubny (Poltava oblast)lived through it. My Grandfather was a scientist at the VILAR (The All-Union Research Laboratory for Agronomic Studies) in Berezotocha. They were caught in the middle of these "interesting" times. I remember a huge argument when an article appeared in "Novoye Russkoye Slovo" in New York about the Holodomor signed with my fathers name. We lived in Australia but my Grandmother (a Chemist who had been educated in Leningrad) had just returned to Dnipropetrovsk from a government "all expenses paid" 8 years exile in Kazakhstan and my Uncle still lived in Ukraine.

As the discussion heats up regarding aspects of the Holodomor, what is leaving an impression on me is the number of articles being published in non-scholarly sources in what the Russians describe as the "Yellow press". These articles with their opinions are specifically designed to form national opinion and the articles are very anti-Holodomor and in general quite anti-Ukrainian. Looking over the Russian wikipedia I have been looking at the sources and references given for some of the opinions. They are not put forward by scholarly or in scholarly publications, but what is troubling is that these opinions and are now making their way here. The source materials in Ukraine are being sorted out. They are being looked at in a systematic manner. With each day they will become available in publications because this has become a government priority. It is heartwarming that Kazakhstan has also joined Ukraine in searching and making available the documents regarding the Famine. It is however disappointing and disturbing that Russia has not made these documents available, as the bulk of the source materials are "where all train lines end" in Moscow. In the mean time we can expect more Yellow press materials with questionable sources appearing here. Bandurist (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC) Probably we read a different WP rules. As for highly respected Alex Bakharev “actually taken during the 1921 Volga-region famine” probably you need to read 1-edition of Big Soviet Encyclopedia (articles Hunger and Drought ) and you can prominently find what there was not only “Volga-region famine” but also a “South-Ukrainian region famine”. I apologies for probably new for many of WP editors finding but Nansen commission visit an Ukraine also – and many of famine victims (especially a child from Gulyay-Pole, Nikolayev and Kherson areas) depicted and presented as “1932-33 Regime victims” at many occasion. As regards “IMHO it does not matter much” – why not use a Somalia pictures or depict Italy-Ethiopian war with recent Iraq war - I guess all war victims look similar. As regards to “famous” 2006 prepared Ukrainian Security Services Holodomor exhibit – all of “1932-33 famine victims” picture clearly identified as taken at 1921-22. I really don’t know the USS intent to modify widely known picture of hunger and epidemic victims from December Buzuluk 1921 as “They goes for bread, Kharkov 1933”. Since that pictures disappeared from 2007 Holodomor Exhibition I assume what they will at least knew their own “mistakes” about such “facts”. In regards to Documents relating to the Holodomor – I got a full version of it on CD – recently distributed by USS – so there few of them really interesting in favor of topic – and them I already include into relevant para of article some months ago. As regard to "fairy story" about the Chernihiv photographer – I assume they has a same origin as “They goes for bread, Kharkov 1933” or even related to the “famous” Zhukovs Order from 1944. It’s pity to knew what someone who worked hard on this “new finding” does not paid an attention about real ID for that time. So the words «300 дней (триста!) без куска хлеба к скудному обеду. 2/IV, 1933 г.». У липні 1934 р. М.Ф.Бокань у записнику поруч з цією фотографією дописав: ”Теперь уже 600” (док. № 7); and “фото могили Костянтина Боканя. Напис на пам’ятній дошці: «Скончался 30 июня 1933 года на поле от непосильного труда в колхозе и недоедания» clearly depict “frozen meat” origin. One more note – deleted be Irpen picture submitted by Western Ukrainian Diaspora to РДАКФД in early 2000 but the “In 2007 …were discovered unique photographs”. So see SSU wording – “Серед архівних документів надзвичайно мало фотодокументів тієї епохи, адже сучасники трагічних подій обґрунтовано побоювались репресій каральних органів за збереження документальних свідчень про Голодомор. До наших днів дійшли переважно фотоматеріали, зібрані нечисленними іноземцями, які в ті роки перебували в Україні.” Any comments ?
 * Dear “frozen meat of kulaks” apologists and also as Wpedians which first time in their life have seen an internet banners advertising on free-host pages. I really appreciate your recent effort, but I can’t see any future progress for this article, - why you not add respected scholars facts about number of barges with Ukrainian by nationality children (I’ll provide an exact figures on barges fleet in 1927-35), volumes of kulaks meat sold out under NKVD approval (I’ll support it by figures of meat and milk submitted by sovkhozes in 1932-33 ?.

For wpedian who add “After recognition of the famine situation in Ukraine during the drought and poor harvests, the Soviet government in Moscow continued to export grain rather than retain its crop to feed the people” – probably you don’t look at figures above and below – whole Soviet grain export in first half of 1933 – 0.354 million tons – and “about 0.576 million tons of grain for food, seeds and forage for Ukrainian SSR peasants, kolhozes and sovhozes” – only to Ukraine and only to agricultural sector, even no speaking about import of grain since March 1933. NPOV? – more look like soapbox. Also, inline with this kind of logic, regarding Holodomor-deniers – I assume it would be an encyclopedic to include in such kind of “NPOV” and “WP:PSTS ” article everyone before such term inventing in 1989 – since they does not recognize Holodomor – but “only” malnutrition, starvation, hunger and “widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition” – since they not mentioned this facts as Holodomor. Also, inline with this kind of logic, should be banned every person who deny the existence of starvation at USSR and especially in Ukraine at time of August 1933, September 1933 … till September 1935 (e.g. during time of post-factum western publications about hunger as currently existed event). Jo0doe (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

So once again about images - please compare with this one - picture 6a019 and that one with this one

And Ask – WHY??? If such (and same) pictures will not be included – does they get same response from visitors? Propaganda – anyway - so what speeking WP about including a propaganda and known for propaganda sources? Jo0doe (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)