Talk:The Harvest of Sorrow

Poor sources
Please note that Wikileaks, this and some other sources currently used on this page (including writings by a revisionist historian) simply do not qualify as WP:RS. If you want to provide criticism of the book known as a classic work in the field, please use sources of the same or better quality. At the very least, that should be legitimate news sources, such as this BBC publication. My very best wishes (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Make up your mind: Is it unreliable or not the article from Jeff Coplon published in The Village Voice the 12 January 1988? If you think yes, then it follows that any article from that magazine should not ever be cited in wikipedia (like the tabloid magazines or the web forums) as the magazine itself is unreliable. Is this that you are saying? Or you just think Coplon himself is unreliable because on this particular book he had different ideas from the ones of Conquest?
 * Unfortunatelly he is not alone in this: historians Alexander Dallin of Stanford, Moshe Lewin of the University of Pennsylvania, Lynne Viola of SUNY-Binghamton, J Arch Getty, Sheila Fitzpatrick, demographers Barbara Anderson and Brian Silver, Roberta Manning, Robert William Davies, S.G. Wheatcroft, M.J. Bollingerand many others disagreed with Conquest's conclusions or figures. Most of sovietologists came to different or slightly different conclusions than the ones of Conquest, whoever as an expertise on this field and is not a political partisan he knows very well about that. Jeff Coplon's article was a good synthesis on the matter at the time. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 07:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually User:Iryna Harpy informed me here that the Jeff Coplon source is a valid reliable one, even if you find it in the Grover Furr's website. Therefore if it is valid there, it should be valid also in The Harvest of Sorrow if used in order to address Coplon's criticisms and criticism from other historians cited in this very same source. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

When the "criticism" section is five times as long as the description of the work itself, you know you got problems.  Volunteer Marek  21:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * When the "criticism" section is five times as long as the description of the work itself, somebody else should actually improve the article and add something more on the book itself instead to delete the edits of the other users. If you actually did not read anything about the book itself or on the criticism to the book, you should not stay here. My personal POV, as I don't see you writing anything new. Probably you don't know what to add in order to improve the article. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 07:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The article by Jeff Coplon is basically an attack page by a barely notable journalist (I could not find any RS about him) against work by the famous historian. Flushout1999 simply copy-paste or retells what Coplon is saying, instead of trying to make a neutral and informative page about the book, as required by policies. Hence, he/she paints Conquest not as a reputable academic/researcher (who he really was), but as a "writer for hire" for Ukrainian nationalists: in 1981, the Ukrainian Research Institute approached Conquest with the project of a book on the 1932-33 famine. The Ukrainian National Association, a New Jersey-based group with a venerable, hard-right tradition (its newspaper, Svoboda, was banned by Canada during World War II for its pro-German sympathies), sponsored the work with a $80,000 subside. My very best wishes (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Jacob Peters? The copyvio thing is new/different.  Volunteer Marek   01:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Who knows? I do not see any proof so far. My very best wishes (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello My very best wishes, you forgot to mention another unreliable source confirming the sponsorship from the Ukrainian National Association, the Los Angeles Times, here, so Conquest actually received subsides from the Ukrainians to write "The Harvest of Sorrow". Or perhas also the LA Times is a so-called "holodomor denial"? Who knows, but it does not look like that from the article. Copyvio is just a more subtle excuse to delete materials that do not meet the taste of some users, otherwise "deleting users" will give time to the "editing user" to correct the paragraphs in question. However to re-write things in a better way has revealed to be pointless. Solution is always the same: deletion of materials well sourced only because someone has preconceived ideas on a particular subject. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 07:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

As I wrote here I dropped now entirely the Jeff Coplon's source, keeping all the other reliable sources. I hope now the outcome will satisfy User talk:My very best wishes. Otherwise it will be another confirmation that there are users who are just looking for excuses to make unjustified deletions. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 06:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Some criticism and info about funding can be briefly included, but not by placing it at the first place. What you have written (actually per Coplon) is essentially this: he was a writer/propagandist for hire by Ukrainian nationalists. My very best wishes (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's pretty useless to answer you. Your vision is so biased that you don't even realize that it's at the first place because it's the first thing happened in the history of the book project. The funding is 1981, the book publication is 1986. Basically you want only to put forward your own personal point of view. You are just always looking for an excuse to delete. Yours is tendentious editing and POV pushing. I will ask protection of the page. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If your problem is with the funding paragraphs, why did you delete all and not just that paragraph? This is really proof of your biased vision and that you just want to delete everything with any excuse. As you deleted everything and not just the paragraphs you are mentioning, yours is just WP:SNEAKY: "reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages." -- Flushout1999 (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, you want an article on the book which has a criticism section which is about six times as long as the description of the book itself. That's a pretty good sign you're not interested in writing a neutral article. The cherry picking of quotes and sentences from the sources indicates the same thing. Other parts of the text are not about the source but basic Holodomor denial via weaseling. No go.  Volunteer Marek  21:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The cherry picking of what? I cannot change the criticism of historian J. Arch Getty according to your own personal point of view! What I should put in the section "criticism"? People saying they agree with Conquest conclusions? Again, it is yours that is really POV pushing and tendentious editing! You are only able to delete others edits. You actually did not add anything on the book itself, you just left some source I previously put myself in the article. That's a pretty good sign you're not interested in writing a neutral article. You are just interested in deletions, that's all, and it is quite apparent. -- 21:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flushout1999 (talk • contribs)

Copyright violations

 * Flushout1999, you made again an obvious copyright violation in your latest edit (using text from LA paper without "...") - after being warned several times about it - on your talk page  and on RSNB ]. My very best wishes (talk) 21:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and of course you think is bad faith. I'm sorry I don't remember every single thing that I posted, just go ahead and go in a noticeboard, whatever. You are just political partisans, it is evident that your main purpose is just to omitt whatever is not according to your own personal point of view that all of this is pretty ridiculous. Why don't you show me you can write those things in the article in my place in a better form? Here is my proposal: write about the funding or about this Conquest's declaration with your own words! Show me that you don't have a problem with the fact itself! Show me that you are not a poltical partisan! Let's see what you do. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of the "Reception" section
I have reverted the removal of the "reception" section. Do feel free to point out exactly what is wrong in it. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 23:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What's wrong here?

Have you read the source? Please don't keep removing sourced material stuff. All of the section is from the same source - which is a review of the literature, which both discusses the people supporting the thesis and opposing the thesis. The footnote is placed at the end, but the fact that everything comes from the same source is implied from the very first sentence, where it attributes Marples.
 * 1) Four first paragraphs in this section have not supporting references, even though they provide quotations "...". Where these quotations came from?
 * 2) It tells: "Conquest's thesis that the famine constituted genocide". Please provide any source (any book by Conquest) where he calls the famine literally "genocide", with pages.
 * 3) In the last paragraph, it uses this publication by selectively (out of the context) quoting views that look like criticism of this work by Conquest. But in fact, this publication strongly supports this book by Conquest. This is actually a distortion of the source . In particular, this paper quotes a historian who tells that "Conquest’s research establishes beyond doubt, however, that the famine was deliberately inflicted there [in Ukraine]". This is also clear from the whole text. But instead, this paragraph tells exactly the opposite, i.e. about an alleged "letter from Conquest stating that he does not believe that Stalin deliberately inflicted the 1933 famine". So, when and were exactly Conquest retracted/disproved his previous publications/views on the subject? This must be something better than unpublished letter. Based on his relatively recent books, he never retracted his views about this. My very best wishes (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

You have removed all mention of the fact that Conquest's thesis was controversial. In my version, I quote both sides. Conquest's thesis was that it was indeed a deliberate act of murder and genocide against the Ukrainian population - which was a controversial claim. Here is Craig Whitney's characterization of the thesis, quoted in the source: "but far more debatable is the thesis that the famine was specifically aimed as an instrument of genocide against the Ukraine"

You are free to suggest changes to the paragraph and have a different emphasis, but not to wholesale remove stuff. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 19:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * (a) I am removing staff that is simply not in the source. For example, here you included the following text: "Conquest supports the view that the famine was a planned act of genocide" [ref]. Please quote where this source tells such thing. I do not even see word "genocide" anywhere in this source; (b) as explained, above, the selective quotation of work by Maple is not fair summary of the source. My very best wishes (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Once again, here is main problem with your version: Conquest did not really said that the famine constituted "genocide" as claimed in you versio). If you think he did, please provide a quote from any of his books. He only said it was deliberate, but most scholars actually agree with this. My very best wishes (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. We have whole page about this, Holodomor genocide question. Do you see Conquest anywhere on this page? No. That's because he avoided this word. But if you prove me wrong by quoting his work, that's fine. Please do. My very best wishes (talk)

This edit-warring is highly irritating. Please don't edit-war and follow WP:BRD. Secondly, you have not answered the question: have you read the source? You removed sourced material, I restored it. You keep removing it, even though it is sourced. These are reviews of Conquest's book: those which agree with this thesis, and those who don't. There is a whole section in the book discussing Conquest's book and his thesis. As for the "genocide" claim, here are quotes:

inflicted there [in Ukraine] for ethnic reasons—it was done in order to undermine the Ukrainian nation... was specifically aimed as an instrument of genocide against the Ukraine.
 * Geoffrey A. Hosking, who agreed with the thesis: Conquest’s research establishes beyond doubt, however, that the famine was deliberately
 * Here is Marples, commenting on Whitney: Craig Whitney, however, disagreed with the theory of genocide:
 * Craig Whitney, who disagreed with the thesis: The eyewitness testimony may be reliable, but far more debatable is the thesis that the famine

These are all in context of reviews of the book.

You can't simply remove stuff by simply claiming that it is not a fair summary of the source. I happen to think it is a fair summary of the source but that is irrelevant: it is not right to impose your own version. Get consensus for it without repeatedly reverting: open an RfC or whatever. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 23:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Let me also add Mark Tauger here, also quoted in the source, who says (footnote 4) - For examples of the genocide thesis, see Conquest Harvest of Sorrow Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 23:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In footnote 4 Tauger refers to pages in the book by Conquest where Conquest tells that the hunger was "man-made" and planned, but he does not call it "genocide". Yes, the relevance of genocide was discussed by many scholars, however simply telling about" Conquest's thesis that the famine constituted genocide" look like distortion. There is a difference between man-made famine and genocide, and the whole page Holodomor genocide question is about this. My very best wishes (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * As currently written, this section is internally inconsistent. First, it tells that the hunger was a genocide according to him (this is not exactly the case, although his views were possibly interpreted in this way by some others). But in the end it tells: "he does not believe that Stalin deliberately inflicted the 1933 famine", in striking contradiction with everything he wrote in this and other, much later books (this is apparently wrong claim). My very best wishes (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding Tauger, the question is not whether it was genocide or not, the question is whether Conquest claimed it was. Tauger characterized Conquest's thesis as claiming genocide, as does Whitney. Hosking does not use the word "genocide", but says it was "deliberately inflicted for ethnic reasons" - which is very close. Marples treats them as synonymous in the whole section. Regarding the last sentence, firstly, it quotes Davies and Wheatcroft, not Conquest about the genocide (and the "deliberately inflicted") claims. Secondly, it is not necessarily inconsistent - people often reconsider their thesis in light of debates. Perhaps this is what happened. I don't know and don't really care. I am just reflecting the source. As I said above, if you think this paragraph does not represent the reception of the book accurately, you can suggest changes or add material. But don't remove sourced material. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 00:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Using a footnote from work by Tauger and an unpublished letter to describe views by Conquest on the subject (as you do here) was bad idea. No wonder, these "sources" contradict each other. My very best wishes (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The quote is from the footnote, and is a convenient, short characterization of the Conquest's thesis by Tauger. You can find the same characterization in the text. You can also find the same characterization in the the Marples source, by other people I quoted above. If so many people read Conquest's thesis as claiming a deliberately inflicted genocide in Ukraine, perhaps he did claim that it was a deliberately inflicted genocide in Ukraine. I am rather tired of arguing the same point over and over, so I will stop here. If you disagree, I have told you how to proceed. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 02:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I made yet another version. Here is the problem. Conquest apparently avoided wording "genocide" in his books as a controversial term. Yes, some others interpreted his work as supporting that it was a genocide, but this debate belongs mostly to the page Holodomor genocide question (I include the link) and should not be repeated here. The article by Marple is essentially about this debate.My very best wishes (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not happy at all with this version.
 * The issue is not just the word "genocide", but the thesis that it the famine was inflicted deliberately on an ethnic basis. This is how Hosking characterizes the thesis. Others, like Tauger and Whitney simply characterize it as genocide, and so does Marples. Again - the issue is not whether there was a genocide or not - for that, a separate page exists - but the characterization of Conquest's thesis.
 * I have no idea what the Telegraph source is used for: it does not say anything about Conquest's thesis - genocide or mass murder or anything else.
 * One should not use newspaper sources when scholarly sources are available. I gave several sources above which characterize Conquest's thesis as genocide and they should be used.
 * I am not at all happy with the condensed version of the "reception section". It does not mention several things. Conquest's book was the first serious investigation into the matter, but it was quite incomplete because Conquest could not substantiate some of his numbers and some people criticized him for relying too much on Ukrainian exile sources. Also, it does not mention the relationship with the later scholarship.
 * I agree that one should not go into too much detail about the question of genocide - but that is not the issue. The section is simply dealing with Conquest's thesis, not the general question.

As such I have restored the previous version, with some changes. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 18:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have given two different characterizations of Conquest's thesis in the lead.
 * I have removed the sentence about genocide in Wikipedia's voice in the reception section. Instead, I have expanded the quote from Whitney slightly.
 * I have removed the Davies and Wheatcroft paragraph altogether because their thesis is hard to summarize.


 * Suggestion: add citations to the end of each paragraph, so that it does not look like a paragraph is left "hanging. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is definitely a good suggestion. Many claims in the new version by K. are obviously usourced, or at least they look unsourced. And no, I obviously disagree with his new version.


 * 1) Using Tauger for sourcing is bad because he is in a small minority on this subject, if not an outright "denialist" (he tells that the famine had happened because of poor harvest).
 * 2) Telling that "Conquest's thesis was controversial" is WP:OR. And what "thesis", exactly? This should be explained much better.
 * 3) Telling that he "had lacked sources to confirm his estimates of the death tolls" is puzzling. What estimates are we talking about, exactly?
 * 4) "prone to accept the Ukrainian nationalist myth". What myth, exactly? This is not at all clear even after reading the original source.
 * 5) Overall, this looks like a number of cherry-picked "critical"/defamatory statements, but the statements are uninformative and their actual meaning is not at all clear. My very best wishes (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

At this point, I have to ask again: have you read the Marples source? Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 02:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure, and as someone who read a little more on the subject, I am not at all impressed by this author. Actually, this review was cited only once in scientific citation database, which is a clear indication it was not helpful for others. My very best wishes (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, then why do you keep saying that the section is unsourced? Almost everything I quoted is from the source. To your points:
 * Regarding Tauger: to repeat - he is not used to argue one way or another about the genocide claim. He is used among others - Marples, Whitney and Hosking, both of which are quoted, to characterize Conquest's thesis.
 * I have already given not one but two characterizations of Conquest's thesis in the lead. A few people (Whitney, Tauger and Marples) simply characterize his thesis as genocide. Hosking characterizes it as saying that "the famine was deliberately inflicted for ethnic reasons, aimed at destroying the Ukrainian nation".
 * "prone to accept the Ukrainian nationalist myth" is a straight quote, which is highlighted by Marples, not me.
 * I have no idea what you mean by "cherry picked critical/defamatory statements". Both people who agree with Conquest and those who don't are quoted.
 * As to whether this source is good enough, may I again remind you that the only other source present earlier was a useless newspaper article, which said close to zero about this book? This source is a review article which discusses Conquest's book, among others. Feel free to improve the sourcing, with other articles specifically discussing the reception of Conquest's book. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 04:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see any issues with using David R. Marples as a source; he's a reputable historian. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is valid RS. No one said that it was not. But this is basically an opinion piece about "ethnic issues", rather than discovery or analysis of scientific data (as this book by Conquest itself) and therefore of little interest. Yes, he does not even care to explain what "myth" and what numbers exactly were disputed. My very best wishes (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You tell: "prone to accept the Ukrainian nationalist myth" is a straight quote. Yes, this is a quote, but it is meaningless. What "myth"? This is completely unclear. Same with other quotations. My very best wishes (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The quote is not meaningless. All the authors quoted in the review state that Conquest had taken the view of the Ukrainian exile/nationalist sources. Some found his thesis persuasive persuasive, some not. Please do not remove this again. You have removed this four times now: I am getting rather tired of it. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 04:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Telling that someone "had taken the view of the Ukrainian exile/nationalist sources" is meaningless until the source explains what these views are. Is it view that it was a genocide? Is it view that there are ethnic issues? Is it view that it was "man-made"? Is it view that Stalin was guilty or the the hunger was pre-planned? All of those are very different views. Actually, there is no such thing as "view of the Ukrainian exile/nationalist sources" because different Ukrainian exile sources have different views on this subject. And BTW, which "Ukrainian exile sources" you think were mentioned in the review by Marples? I did not see any. My very best wishes (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You are completely missing the point. The aim of the section is not to discuss Conquest's thesis, but the reception to the book. For this, we have to quote the reviewers, who have been published and/or mentioned in scholarly sources, both who agree with Conquest and those who don't. That does not mean one has to agree with the reviewers on anything or everything. I am not totally happy with your latest edit, but I am rather tired of the whole business so I will let it be. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 06:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not so. First of all, the meaning of the text is completely unclear. For example, if one inserts text about "myth", one must explain what "myth" this source is telling about. Secondly, WP pages are full of garbage, such as claims that "person A disagree with person B". Such staff does not belong to encyclopedia. Instead, if this is a scholarly debate as here, one should briefly say what was the concept/idea by person A, and why person B thinks that idea was wrong. My very best wishes (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am getting rather pissed at the repeated removal of reviewer quotes: you have now removed it for the fifth time. I will not be arguing the point any further, since I might as well be talking to a wall. Please get consensus before removing it again. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 13:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you lost an argument, that's fine, but then please do not revert changes that were fully justified above on article talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not the way it works. If you make an edit and it gets reverted, you need to get consensus to remove it again. In the meantime, the text stays the way it was. See WP:NOCON. Indeed, I have addressed some of your points, but I am not forced to keep replying to you forever. You are free to believe that you won the argument, if you like. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 14:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What consensus? You made this change unilaterally some time ago, without discussing with anyone. First time I saw it, I tried to fix this problem. You can't say that consensus is on your side. My very best wishes (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that you are not the only person who is watching this page. The section was in the article for six months; nobody objected to it in the meantime, so it can be considered stable by any standard. See WP:EDITCONSENSUS: Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. However, I am happy to open an RfC which asks editors the following question: "Should there be a reception section which says (the text of the current version)". Since you had earlier removed the whole section in this edit, are you happy with this RfC? Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 15:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it never was my intention to remove this section. I actually agree to have such section (possibly under different title) and I am even more or less happy with current version. But I think it should be improved. This should be done by adding more content, explaining statements that are currently unclear, removing something that should be removed in the process, etc. This is just a normal process of editing. My very best wishes (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is something covered in a very large number of publications. I think you simply selected a random review that was not about this book by Conquest, but about the most divisive "genocide" issue of Holodomor. Hence the problems. One of the problems: the book by Conquest was not about the "genocide" issue, and that was not main idea of the book, as someone might think after looking at the current version of this page. How to fix it? This is obvious. One should focus on review papers specifically about this book or mostly about this book, such as this or this. My very best wishes (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

So, if the current version is acceptable, then fine.

As for the rest, nobody prevented anyone from adding additional sources: indeed I said the same above. I have not read the first link (if you have an ungated copy, I will be happy to read it), but I have read the latter one. It is fairly detailed, but I don't find it much different in tone to the Marples source. That is not surprising, since it appears in East/West Journal of Ukrainian Studies, put out by the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, of which Marples was a director. You keep harping on the genocide question, but that's not the issue. Conquest's claim was that the famine was intentional and aimed at destroying the Ukrainian nation. Here is how the latter source characterizes it: He[Peter Wiles], like Hosking, accepted the intentionality of the Famine against Ukrainians. This was a controversial thesis. Again, quoting the latter source: A number of reviewers questioned whether the Famine had been intentional. Others believed that it could not be seen as directed against Ukraine and Ukrainians. Whether to call this "genocide" or not is only one aspect of the matter. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 17:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that 2nd source is ideologically similar as that by Marples, but it provides a lot more detail and explains everything that needs be explained. First source is an academic review of the book that explains various novel and disputable aspects of the book. My very best wishes (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Merge?
Should we merge this article with Robert Conquest? There is a section there dealing with the book. The readable prose size for that article is about 17kb, which leaves plenty of room (About 30-50kb is considered readable). This page has languished for a long time; it would probably also help in getting more eyes to look at it. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 04:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I personally find it useful to have an article on the work itself if it's being extensively used as a source on Wikipedia, which this book is. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The book itself is important enough to merit a separate article. The article on Conquest is large anyway. --Dorpater (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The book has won two major Ukrainian literary awards. Meets the notability criteria for a standalone article. Opencooper (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is obviously a notable book which deserved a separate page. My very best wishes (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Citation from a private letter by Conquest
- The included content is simply not about the book. Please also see discussion here. Authors did not actually claim that anything was retracted by Conquesta as follows from their book published in 2016. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not rehashing a discussion already happening at Talk:Robert Conquest. That would be quite inane.31.187.0.144 (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This material might arguably belong to page Robert Conquest because it is about his views (although I think it is undue even on his page). But it does not belong to this page because it is not about the book The Harvest of Sorrow. The cited reference does not even mention this book anywhere. My very best wishes (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems quite obvious to me that if an author recants claims made within a book, it should be mentioned that he has recanted such claims.31.187.0.144 (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Various ideas on Holodomor subject could belong to Holodomor page. Here we should only use sources that directly mention the book (the subject of the page), not sources that discuss Congest or Holodomor (there are lots of them). My very best wishes (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)