Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor

Where is the dispute?
As far as I know, the dispute is strictly at Holodomor and its talk page.

Who is involved?

 * User:Paul Siebert
 * User:Lothar von Richthofen
 * User:Igny
 * User:Volunteer Marek
 * User:Vecrumba (screen name: P ЄTЄRS J V)
 * User:Greyhood
 * User:The Last Angry Man
 * User: Galassi
 * User:Lvivske (screen name: Львівське)
 * User:BesterRus
 * User:Ljudyna
 * User:Fifelfoo

Note: I (User: Qwyrxian, the editor opening this dispute) am not a party to this dispute. I am involved in this article strictly in an administrative capacity, having fully protected the article on 26 September following an edit war that began on 19 September. Also, I may have missed one or two users, so if there is someone else who believes themselves involved in this present dispute, they can list themselves here. All of the people listed above were involved in either the edit war or the related discussion on the talk page, though if anyone feels they are only peripherally involved, they could be removed from the list. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the dispute?
The current dispute relates to the article's lead. Specifically, there is a dispute as to whether or not the lead should describe the famine as "man-made", whether or not it should be described as a part of the larger Soviet famine occurring at the same time, and whether or not the "relief" parameter of the infobox should be filled in. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What steps have you already taken to try and resolve the dispute?
The cause for this coming to the cabal is that the disputants were "trying" to "resolve" the issue through edit warring. Some discussion has occurred on the talk page both before and after the protection; see Talk:Holodomor, Talk:Holodomor, Talk: Holodomor, Talk:Holodomor, and Talk:Holodomor. In addition, some aspects of this dispute have been discussed at least as far back as last year; see Talk:Holodomor/Archive 15 and Talk:Holodomor/Archive 14.

What issues needs to be addressed to help resolve the dispute
The debate is quite intricate, and involves a large number of sources. Some editors have accused some of cherry-picking sources, and of creating the appearance of a consensus in sources when one does not exist. There appear to be concerns that some sources, particularly older ones, may themselves not be reliable (that they may be biased, single-POV representations of the event). Much of the dispute seems to be a focus on WP:DUE, rather than a concern with basic facts. If there are other issues, I invite the involved participants to list them as well; however, I do not believe that it will be helpful to turn this into a free-for-all covering every single dispute that has occurred on this article (the talk page archives show quite a number of different concerns have arisen in the article's history). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What can we do to help resolve this issue?
The involved editors need to find a way to sort through all of the information and various POV to agree on a consensus version of the lead. This may require changes to the body of the article as well. It's possible that the editors may benefit by first laying out all of their sources; alternatively, they may want to try to point out those that they feel are the most authoritative. It may be that neither the prior consensus version nor the modified versions of the lead are optimal, and perhaps mediation can help them see alternative wordings that would be acceptable to everyone. Part of the problem is that there are so many editors involved, and many of them appear to be extremely knowledgeable about both the subject matter and Wikipedia policies; of course, this is a good thing, but it can sometimes make discussions explode into a dozen different directions with citation not only to real world sources but also a whole variety of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and essays. I hope that a mediator can help organize and focus discussions. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Notes by Steve Zhang
Opening case. It will take me some time to review the dispute. This is quite a large dispute, so it may be one that I will co-mediate with colleagues of mine. Let's start of with an agreement to ground rules, then we will proceed from there. I would ask for no discussion on the dispute to occur here until we gather an agreement on the ground rules by all parties. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking....  07:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a note, as a relatively complex case this will be co-mediated by Mr Stradivarius, TransporterMan and myself. Once the case is started, I want to get a breakdown of the current issues that needs to be addressed and we will work on it step by step. We will use a proposals format for discussing the lede section, where we can together discuss potential changes to the lede and compromise until we come to an agreement. So, agreement to ground rules, list of issues to be addressed, and then we will begin. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking....  22:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Great. Everyone is on board. I want you to all add this to your watchlist, as I will not be providing updates on talk pages anymore. After that, in the discussion section, I want you to each write a brief statement of no more than 250 words. I would like you to answer the following 4 questions.


 * 1) What are your interests in regards to the Holodomor articles? How did you discover and start editing the article? Do you have any potential conflicts of interest?
 * 2) What problems you think have caused this dispute to require mediation?
 * 3) What is your view of the dispute at present, and what issues need to be addressed in this mediation, that would help resolve this dispute amicably? Give a list of issues, if possible.
 * 4) What do you hope to achieve through mediation?

Remember, keep it focused on content. After that, we will start working on the lede section together through the proposals page. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking....  20:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, can each editor list the timezone they are in next to their signature in the ground rules agreement section. It's more so I can keep some track of when each of you edit, as I am located in Australia (UTC+11). Thanks. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  11:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * @All Parties, let's keep discussion and commenting on each other's opening statements to a minimum. There will be time for that later. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  19:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * @TransporterMan, I think that if the entire article needs mediation, then that's what we shall do. I think the best way to go about is to do it section by section, starting with Legal recognition. Lede sections should summarise the entire article, so that should be done last. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  20:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We really need to get things moving. To do so, I'm going to do a few things. Firstly, I'm imposing a cut-off date for opening statements. Any party that hasn't entered an opening statement, but has been actively editing, by 00:00, 23 October 2011, will not be able to enter an opening statement. By not doing so, you risk being excluded from the mediation. If you wish for another party to act as your proxy, please advise us as soon as possible. I also need a list of current issues that need to be addressed in the mediation. After we have a list, we will go from there, but I think an agreement on what sources to generally use first may be advisable. Let's round out the opening statements first though. If there is some reason you are not able to enter an opening statement by this deadline, please let us know. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  20:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have a few comments to make as I think at this stage it is important to do so.
 * On the mediation in general: I am concerned that so many parties have negative thoughts at the chances of this mediation. After all, you all agreed to abide by the ground rules, which also required you all to acknowledge that compromise will be required. I also noted that these ground rules are not something to be agreed to lightly. I concur with the views of several editors here that drawn out, prolonged discussion will not be the best way to sort out the issues here. My colleagues and I are discussing ways we can mediate this dispute without walls of text. I also note the concerns of Volunteer Marek about the potential issues that will face these articles down the road. For what it's worth, I'm not planning on going anywhere anytime soon. If disputes re-arise in the future, it takes about 5 minutes to have an admin re-protect the article. I'm working on other things at present as well, but I think it would be wise for me to not show all my cards right off the bat. I don't think any of you have been in a dispute that I have mediated in the past, so I will let my various mediation techniques and methods be a surprise to all of you.
 * On behaviour: I am rather disappointed to see that poor behaviour has occurred. I'll remind you all that being on your best behaviour within the mediation but throwing mud at each other on article and user talk pages is unacceptable. Take note that the three of us are aware of what is happening elsewhere, but more importantly think for a minute about why we are here. Being snarky to each other does little to our chances here. Put aside what's happened in the past. Put aside your differences for a moment. Consider what you all have in common as opposed to what you disagree on. I don't expect you all to make major concessions from the get go, but at least have an open mind.
 * On TLAM and Igny's topic ban and exclusion: I personally see it as a bit of an issue that they cannot participate in the mediation, mainly because when one or both of their topic bans expire we will likely still be within mediation and have to backtrack. Topic bans in my opinion serve as a temporary bandaid as opposed to a long term solution, they really just kick the proverbial can down the road. That is my personal opinion anyways, but that has been explored and the deadline has past, so we will proceed without them.
 * On BesterRus's exclusion: The three of us mediators have looked over the comments of BesterRus over the last few days, the associated AE thread and the concerns that were listed here. It is highly unusual to exclude an editor from a mediation without an official topic ban being in place. This isn't something that we have done lightly, but we did discuss it and have decided that it is the appropriate action for us to take given the circumstances. Injecting oneself into a dispute upon joining Wikipedia is unusual but not prohibited, but the remarks that BesterRus made to certain editors as outlined at both Arbitration Enforcement and this thread at their talk page have lead us to decide that their participation here is not advisable. I note that this only applies to this talk page, issues elsewhere should be dealt with through regular channels. I stress that this is not something we decided lightly, but we have made that call.
 * On what next:' Over the next few days we will look over all the opening statements, from which we will draw up a list of issues and go through them one by one. We will advise of the next step when we've reviewed the opening statements, but it will likely be to gather a list of disputed sources and get decide on which to use and which not to. The method that this will be done I will keep secret for now, but it will not involve drawn out discussions, there's been too many of them in the past and I don't see it productive to repeat that process.


 * Stay tuned. I'll be moving opening statements to the talk page and making a few other changes. One of us will get the mediation up and running in the next day or so. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  08:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Greyhoood mentioned it in their opening statement. Remember to keep the statements below as brief as possible, thanks. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  05:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Procedural note: The topic bans on TLAM and Igny has been modified to allow them to participate here. They are free to join in the discussions here provided they are civilised in doing so (which applies to you all). I'm reading over below discussions and will comment later. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  01:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Discussion has gone quiet. Where is everyone? Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  22:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we need to send out reminders to talk pages, and then get a list of spokespeople up. After that, we should be able to proceed. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  03:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Alrighty everyone. I hope you all had a good Christmas break, but it's time to get this back underway. I apologise for not having done so sooner, I have been rather busy as of late. We are going to address issue two, which is the estimates of victims, I think we will approach this a different way. Instead of discussion or statements first up, I would like spokespersons to, at Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor/Source Dump add links to accessible references that us mediators can examine. This will be with no discussion or commentary, sources only. After two weeks we will come up with ideas on how to proceed and then we can discuss possible solutions. Sounds good?

Notes by Mr. Stradivarius
Greetings everyone. Per Steve's request, I am editing in Japan (UTC+9). —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that an arbitration enforcement thread about The Last Angry Man has been opened by Igny, for remarks on a different page. We should probably keep an eye on this to see how it turns out. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 04:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the deadline for opening statements has now passed, and we have a nice array of statements which my fellow mediators and I will use to draw up a list of issues for us to resolve. Thank you all for taking the time to write them! We will get onto drawing up the list of issues ASAP. I note that Igny and The Last Angry Man are not eligible to participate in the mediation due to topic bans handed out in arbitration enforcement. Also, due to the concerns raised about the participation of BesterRus from the editors here, and noting the comments made by uninvolved admins at the recent Arbitration Enforcement thread, I think we should exclude BesterRus from this mediation. It is highly unusual to exclude users from a mediation, but the opinions of the other editors listed and the fact that BesterRus has not contributed to the Holodomor article before now make me think it is a necessary step in this case. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 06:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me apologise to all the editors involved for the slow progress on this mediation. I have a left open a good long stretch of time today to devote to updating the mediation page here, and I intend finalise a list of spokespersons, summarize the discussion from issue one, and start discussion of issue two. Now that the deadline for deciding spokespersons has passed, we should be able to get this mediation moving a lot more quickly. Watch this space. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 06:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Notes by TransporterMan
I've left another note on the page of Galassi asking that he at least let us know if he is going to participate. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Done. TransporterMan ( TALK ) 15:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

@All parties: I am concerned that looseness in the meanings of terms is partly responsible for this dispute and that there might be a higher degree of agreement if all parties were using the same frame of reference. I have created a chart on a subpage here which I hope categorizes all of the possible causes, Soviet involvements, and purposes of harm at issue in this dispute. I would appreciate it if each party would identify, using the index numbers in the chart which position or positions represent their own beliefs as to what can be proven through reliable sources (the sources should not be identified at this stage). For example, this could be a response:
 * (Example 1:) @TransporterMan: I believe that position 4E can be supported by reliable sources.

Another example (a variation on the last one):
 * (Example 2:) @TransporterMan: I believe that position 4E is the right one, but that 4E, 2D, and 1B can all be supported by reliable sources and ought to be included in the lede.

Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

@All parties and mediators: Please take a look at the "What is the dispute?" section at the top of this page. At this point in time, this mediation is limited to the lede of the article, and particularly: Some of the positions, below, seem to presume that the content of the entire article is subject to mediation here. I, at least, feel that would be inadvisable and that the mediation should be limited to those issues initially presented. If the scope of the mediation is to be expanded then all parties and all mediators must agree to the expansion, and even then the issues to be mediated need to be clearly and sharply defined not just "this whole article needs work." Do we limit it to the initial issues or expand it? If so, to what? Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * whether or not the lede should describe the famine as "man-made",
 * whether or not it should be described as a part of the larger Soviet famine occurring at the same time, and
 * whether or not the "relief" parameter of the infobox should be filled in.

Ground rules

 * Please keep all comments focused on the mediation. Proper editing decorum must be maintained, and as such, incivility and personal attacks must not occur, and I reserve the ability to archive, refactor or remove comments of such nature.
 * Try to keep an open mind in the case, and realise that sometimes, you need to give a little to get a little. Mediation is not possible without compromise as well as keeping an open mind.
 * When there are multiple issues that need to be addressed in a dispute (such as this one) only one particular issue or dispute is to be discussed at a time. Discussion that veers off course of the current topic may be archived at my discretion.
 * MedCab is not a formal part of the dispute resolution process, and cannot provide binding sanctions. Nevertheless, I ask that everyone involved agree to abide by the outcome of this case.

Please sign just your username below, as well as Agree or Disagree, with four tildes (~) to indicate your agreement or disagreement with the ground rules and your participation in the case. These shouldn't be taken lightly. If you agree to these it is expected you will abide by them.

Agreement by participants to abide by ground rules

 * Agree GMT +1 The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree  Volunteer Marek   00:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree Grey Hood   Talk  07:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree (Igny (talk) 11:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC))
 * Agree --Galassi (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree --Львівське (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree BesterRus (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree Fifelfoo (talk) 04:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Agenda
The following is a timeline of how we are to progress through mediation. Our progress will be documented through the status bar (at the top) and as we progress, so will it. I'll tick things off the list as we proceed, but once opening statements are complete we will discuss the smallest issue and proceed through resolving the issues at hand one at a time. Steven Zhang <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  00:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * [1%] Garner party agreement to ground rules. ✅
 * [5%] Discuss and document current issues that need to be addressed, discussed, and resolved, over the course of the mediation. ✅
 * [10%] Re-establish the party stances in the dispute, obtaining opening statements to ascertain what each party wishes to get out of the mediation, and the issues they feel need addressing. ✅
 * [15%] Initiate discussion on the first issue, image use. We will discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved. ✅
 * [22%] Initiate discussion on the second issue, victim estimates. We will discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.
 * [28%] Initiate discussion on the third issue, sources. We will discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.
 * [35%] Initiate discussion on the fourth issue, Conquest's position. We will discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.
 * [43%] Initiate discussion on the fifth issue, relief. We will discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.
 * [50%] Initiate discussion on the sixth issue, classification within the Great Soviet Famine. We will discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.
 * [57%] Initiate discussion on the seventh issue, ethnicity. We will discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.
 * [63%] Initiate discussion on the eighth issue, "man-made". We will discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.
 * [70%] Initiate discussion on the ninth issue, Soviet intent. We will discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.
 * [78%] Assess the status of the mediation, as to how the solutions that have been implemented have helped with the status of the article, discuss views with parties as to how the mediation, and status of the articles is progressing.
 * [85%] Re-visit previous issues, discussing alternative solutions, if required.
 * [90%] Discuss the articles with parties, offering advice as to how to better manage disputes in future
 * [95%] Discuss long term options to help keep the article stable, for example agreement to abide by certain rules when editing these articles.
 * [100%] Seek resolution of dispute through party agreement, then close mediation.

List of issues
Hi all. We've gathered a list of issues that need to be addressed and we will work with them one by one. In order of us working through them, they are:


 * 1) Which photographs to use and how to portray them, considering the history of fake Holodomor photographs in existence.
 * 2) How to portray the estimates for the numbers of Holodomor victims made by various historians.
 * 3) What sources we should use, given the large release of archived Soviet material around 20 years ago; How we should treat older sources; and whether and to what extent we should use Russian- or Ukranian-language sources.
 * 4) Whether or not Conquest's position has changed since "The Harvest of Sorrow", and how his position should be represented in the article.
 * 5) What the sources say about whether relief was provided or prohibited by the state, and how to portray this in the article.
 * 6) How Holodomor should be classed in the larger scheme of the Great Soviet Famine: whether it had unique elements, and if so, how they should be portayed.
 * 7) Whether Holodomor was directed specifically against Ukranians, or against grain-producing areas in general.
 * 8) Whether to use the term "man-made" to describe the famine, and if so, whether/how to qualify it.
 * 9) How to portray the Soviets' intent behind Holodomor: was it deliberately organized, was it an unintended result of unfortunate circumstances, or was there more of an opportunistic motive at work? How should the various policies enacted by the Soviets be shown with respect to their intent?.

We will start with issue one, which is "Which photographs to use and how to portray them, considering the history of fake Holodomor photographs in existence.. I'll ask you all, in the discussion section, subsection Issue 1 - Images to use post a statement of no more than 200 words about the images in dispute and suggestions for use. We will go from there. Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  02:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Spokespeople

 * Discussion has been relatively slow as of recent, and I think it may be due to the amount of parties in the dispute. I think in this situation we will take a leaf out of the Mediation Committee's book, and use spokespersons. Basically how this works, two, three or four editors are appointed by the rest of the editors as spokespersons for their collective viewpoints. This spokesperson should be the only one who presents the views of the collective people he/she represents. I'm going to ask each of you to consider nominating a spokesperson, or who you would like to represent your viewpoints, and if you do not wish to do this, to provide an explanation and a commitment to remain active throughout the mediation case. We're still on the first issue and need to crank things up a gear. So, below, list your username, who you wish to appoint as a spokesperson (or if you wish to be this spokesperson). If you opt not to appoint a spokesperson, we need a commitment that you will remain active throughout the case. Thanks.  Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  08:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Spokespeople list

 * User:Volunteer Marek is an obvious candidate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 10:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to comment myself, but if I can't, I appoint TLAM to be my representative. The reason: he seems more interested in this mediation than others. He is also the only one who apparently does not have Eastern European cultural background. Biophys (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There are no teams and captains here. Or at least, I am not a member of any team.Biophys (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Per Biophys. @Paul Siebert, in debate, each team chooses its own captain; while surely a sign of respect, nominating a captain for another team is poor form. Unless, of course, I've misunderstood and you consent to Volunteer Marek speaking for you in your absence&mdash;perhaps while you and other editors are embroiled at the AE you opened in a related topic area after this mediation was already underway, redirecting and disrupting focus by editors here. It might be appropriate to suspend this mediation until the aforementioned AE request is closed so editors can give matters here the appropriate attention they deserve.P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No reason to suspend, any blocks given out to PS will be one week at most, if longer perhaps he can post on his talk page and we can copy his comments to here? I think the issues with the image usage is resolved and perhaps we might move on? The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that would work. Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  20:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Peters, I do not think we can speak about two strictly outlined distinct camps here, so any attempt to speak in terms of opposing parties are hardly productive. I nominated a person who, in my opinion, is able to express the opinion of a significant portion of participants, and will do that in polite and non-combative manner. I do not see why cannot I do that. With regard to myself, I believe I will be able to express my own opinion directly, although, since I expect that during next few months I probably will not be able to continuously monitor this discussion, I authorise Greyhood to speak on behalf of me during the periods of my inactivity.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Naturally, I in turn authorise Paul Siebert to speak on behalf of me in case I'm inactive for some period. I also do think, that there are no strictly distinct camps, and there are certain common points between the supposedly opponent editors, or at least we will be able to find such points in many cases. Grey Hood   Talk  20:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to speak for myself but in case of absence I feel that Lothar or Marek could pinch hit.--Львівське (говорити) 23:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally I would prefer to speak for myself or be silent. While I think that there are some contours of "opposing sides" here (so Vecrumba is not too far off), I expect that on some particular issues there might be "within side" disagreement as well "across sides" agreement. Basically, I don't know yet whom I will agree or disagree with on what. I do think that if need be I can reasonably explain the position of other parties and even defend these positions in cases where I happen to personally take a different views. However, I also think that in cases of temporary absence, such as due to some AE nonsense, the option of allowing the person to post to their talk page and copying the statements here would be far more preferable.  Volunteer Marek  22:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

In terms of the speed of progress here, I think the first issue has been reasonably well addressed and mostly resolved and I suggest we move on to the next one.  Volunteer Marek  22:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

So me and Paul authorized each other, and the ever-retired Biophys authorized TLAM. I think the need for the other participants to authorize specific spokespeople to speak on their part in this mediation is quite clear by now. We have 12 participants on the list, and if we wait for each one to voice his opinion on every issue, the process will take ages, literally. Volunteer Marek is an obvious candidate indeed, so I'd propose the less active participants of the discussion to authorize him or someone else as a spokesperson. If a spokesperson makes statements contradicting the position of the editors who authorized him, they always can come and express their position on their own. I believe we need no more than 4-5 (spokes)persons to lead the discussion and to be waited for, otherwise this will turn into quagmire. Grey Hood  Talk  22:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * VM gets my backing. Biophys would have been a possibility as well, but.... yeah. I can't shake the sinking feeling that we will see more such losses in the future. Igny seems to have dropped off the face of teh internetz, Biophys has withdrawn as well for the time being, and TLAM is once again embroiled in arbitration proceedings. The modification of the topic-ban for Igny and TLAM seems to have sadly been of little use.... Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, so Lothar authorized VM, and me and Paull authorized each other. I'd propose not only to sent all other involved participants a remind notice, as Steven Zhang proposes, but specifically request them by those notices to choose spokespeople (who will present those other participants' position in their absence), or leave the discussion otherwise. Some reasonable deadline for choosing spokespeople would be nice, I'd propose the 1 December. Grey Hood  Talk  13:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If I get busy (and that has suddenly become quite likely), I am comfortable with Volunteer Marek's editorial position on the matter at any point where a decision is required if I am unavailable. In the meantime, I'm going to update my WP email to another account which I check more frequently than I have a chance with my personal Email should my input be of particular benefit. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Greyhood, that seems like a reasonable timeframe. But the idea of spokespeople is to reduce the amount of participants, so party X appointing Y as their spokesperson and party Y appointing party X as their spokesperson really accomplishes little. I'll send out notifications today and we will go from there. Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  21:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In case of the active enough participants, like me and Paul, who are going to watch the discussion closely and post frequently enough for the most time, the mutual authorization it is just a provision for the future in case some of us will be absent for a long period (vacation etc.). I hope in such a case one person we'll notify the other. Grey Hood   Talk  01:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't think of it in that context. I more saw it as "I'll talk for Paul's pov and he will talk for mine", which, on reflection, was pretty dumb. Your explanation makes much more sense. Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  01:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The only reason I am currently on Wikipedia is for this mediation. I will speak for myself and have been following it closely. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We need to move further. Me and Paul authorized each other, Lothar and Vecrumba authorized VM, TLAM looks like he is going to participate active enough. So my suggestion is to leave only these 6 people on the mediation (spokespeople highlighted):
 * User:Greyhood
 * User:Lothar von Richthofen
 * User:Paul Siebert
 * User:The Last Angry Man
 * User:Vecrumba
 * User:Volunteer Marek
 * I believe everyone should have a spokesperson in case of absence, but TLAM and Volunteer Marek haven't authorized anyone. I believe that TLAM's spokesperson should be Volunteer Marek, and vice versa, TLAM should be a spokesperson for Volunteer Marek.
 * My other suggestion is to agree on all the uncontested parts of conclusions for #1 (pp. #1, #3, #4, #5, #6), leave the decision on the lead image to Commons, and move further. Grey Hood   Talk  12:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks like we will have to proceed this way, as discussion is becoming too slow. All other parties apart from those listed in this section are excluded from the mediation, until such time they are able to fully participate, and must approach us and request to participate. As for the discussion on commons, I think that leaving it there may be a bit of a mistake, as English Wikipedia != Commons. Will mull over that for a while. I agree that for now we should move on to the second issue, which is "How to portray the estimates for the numbers of Holodomor victims made by various historians." Thus, I'm collapsing the section on issue 1 for the time being, and we will move on to section 2. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 04:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately there have been somewhat related discussions at other controversies. Hopefully we can get things back on track here at steady, albeit slow, pace. I do agree we need to move on to more substantive article content. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 07:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * By spokesperson:


 * User:Paul Siebert authorized by User:Greyhood
 * User:Greyhood authorized by User:Paul Siebert
 * User:Volunteer Marek authorized by User:Lvivske, User:Lothar von Richthofen, and User:Vecrumba (PЄTЄRS J V)
 * User:Lothar von Richthofen authorized by User:Lvivske


 * By user:


 * User:Paul Siebert authorized User:Greyhood
 * User:Greyhood authorized User:Paul Siebert
 * User:Lvivske authorized User:Volunteer Marek and User:Lothar von Richthofen
 * User:Vecrumba authorized User:Volunteer Marek
 * User:Lothar von Richthofen authorized User:Volunteer Marek
 * User:Volunteer Marek has committed to be available for the mediation, and has not authorized a spokesperson
 * User:The Last Angry Man has committed to be available for the mediation, and has not authorized a spokesperson (updated 07:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)}
 * User:Igny has not authorized a spokesperson
 * User:Galassi has not authorized a spokesperson
 * User:Ljudyna has not authorized a spokesperson

Please feel free to update this list if there are any changes. 07:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Administrative notes
On 26 September, I fully protected the article indefinitely, until such time as the editors can come to a consensus that will stop the edit warring on the lead. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Opening statements

 * Moved to the talk page. Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  08:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Issue 1 - Image Use

 * Discussion moved to talk page. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 04:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Concluding discussion also moved to talk. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 11:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Issue 2 - victim estimates
The time has finally come - we are moving on to issue two. My apologies about the (ahem) minor delay. So, without any further ado, I would like each of you to provide a statement on issue two, which is: Please let us know your opinion on this issue, and what you think we should address in the mediation; also, please keep your statement within 200 words. I will leave a reasonable amount of time for participants to leave statements, no longer than [until] 00:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC), after which we will proceed with the issue two discussion. I'll be looking forward to reading what you all have to say. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 07:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How to portray the estimates for the numbers of Holodomor victims made by various historians.
 * Update - as the posting of statements has been relatively slow thus far, I will update the deadline very slightly. We will be accepting statements until 00:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC), or until all the spokespersons have commented. As of this writing, Volunteer Marek is the only remaining spokesperson left to comment before this second criterion is fulfilled. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 07:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone for the statements you've provided so far. This is just to say that we are waiting on Volunteer Marek, who hasn't been editing this week. It is Christmas, as well, so we should probably consider this mediation on hold until festivities are over. Merry Christmas everyone! — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 06:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm back and I'll try to make a statement soon.  Volunteer Marek   14:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Paul Siebert
Whereas I support all what Fifelfoo wrote, my post is more concrete. We need to come to an agreement about the sources we will use. Firstly, I suggest to make a stress on the sources published after the "archival revolution" (1991), when most formerly classified Soviet archival documents became available. The earlier works provided both exaggerated (Rummel, early Conquest) of understated (Anderson and Silver) figures, and should be discussed in the section devoted to the history of our knowledge about Holodomor/Soviet famine (a section I suggest to write later). Secondly, the modern sources can be separated onto two types: (i) the articles/books authored by scholars who did their own archival research of the demographic consequences of collectivisation/famine, and (ii) the books that rely upon the data obtained by others. I propose to use type (i) sources. The exhaustive (or almost exhaustive) list of Western scholars who do their own studies of demography of the Soviet famine (1932-33) have been provided by Rosefielde in his article "Stalinism in Post-Communist Perspective: New Evidence on Killings, Forced Labour and Economic Growth in the 1930s" Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 48, No. 6 (Sep., 1996), pp. 959-987. They are:
 * 1) Getty, Rittersporn, Zemskov
 * 2) Wheatcroft
 * 3) Conquest
 * 4) Ellman
 * 5) Nove

Those authors (along with Rosefielde himself) have done their own studies, based on archival data and the original works of Russian and Ukrainian scholars. Others just use the figures provided by these six authors (or uncritically cite outdated works published before prerstroika), so they should be considered as tertiary sources per our policy. --Paul Siebert (talk) 06:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Volunteer Marek
I am going to add to this later, after I refresh my memory regarding some of the specific sources, but for now let me just say that I think this particular issue is one where everyone agrees on the general way to proceed (use scholarly sources, with the more recent ones getting primary attention and older ones relegated to a "Historiography" section) but the devil's going to be in the details. While we do have a policy of "no original research" sometimes - in controversial subjects not uncommonly - even the simple reading of a particular source can be somewhat subjective. I think Paul's going the right way about it by listing the SPECIFIC sources we need to discuss so further comments should probably reference these explicitly (which is what TLAM has already done to some extent).  Volunteer Marek  14:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Greyhood
Hm, I'm not sure if I have crossed the deadline or not, but I'm posting anyway, and anyway the main point has been already addressed by Paul: we should use the sources from the last 20 years or so (after the archival revolution), written by the scientists who made their own research of the archival data (comprehensive overviews and comparisons of such modern sources also might be useful). As for the outdated estimates, there is a good example of the article Gulag, which discusses the older estimates at Gulag, while focusing on the more credible newer estimates in the rest of the article.

Another point, which Paul hasn't mention but which I'm sure he does share, is that we must be very careful when using any estimates and we should always closely look on what they estimate: deaths directly from hunger, all deaths in the period of hunger from any cause, demographic losses including unborn potential children etc. Naturally, when using any figures in the article we should focus on the deaths directly from hunger and otherwise always stress what the figures actually stand for.

And one more point is that it makes sense to give some comparisons of the number of deaths in 1932-33 in Ukraine with the number for the entire USSR at the same period, as well as to provide comparison to other Soviet/Russian as well as foreign famines of the 19-20 centuries. Grey Hood  Talk  21:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by The Last Angry Man
We use what the sources say, the article currently has both high and low end estimates in it, I do not see this as an issue in truth. But Conquests numbers are I believe the most reputable of all studies done on this issue. For those who say Conquest has changed his mind on estimates killed he has not, read Reflections on a ravaged century. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Fifelfoo
Scholarly articles and books in scholarly presses that are historiographical or field reviews should be used to weight and order the presentation of views in terms of field acceptance. Within this, estimates that are attributed in the scholarly literature ought to be presented. Notable FRINGE theories, including official claims by involved State apparatus should be presented late in the article, or appropriate section, with attribution and clarification of context derived preferentially from field reviews, or where field reviews are unavailable, from other scholarly works. In particular, the analytical and typological schema of the scholars should be preserved and explained, this may not necessarily be found in the same location as the figure, but may be contained in the introduction or first few chapters (that serve an equivalent purpose in history to the "methodology" section of more instrumentalist social science). Fifelfoo (talk) 08:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let's get this thing going. While the above statements are fine, it would probably be more helpful if the participants articulated what they think is the actual bone of contention. Everyone agrees that only reliable sources should be used. Everyone wants accuracy. But there's disagreement here. Ok. What exactly is it? Volunteer Marek 02:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Add sources to the redlinked page in my comments section first. Let's go from there. :) Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 22:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone, it looks like people might have missed the notes up in Steve's mediator notes about how we're proceeding, so I'm copying them here: "Instead of discussion or statements first up, I would like spokespersons to, at Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor/Source Dump add links to accessible references that us mediators can examine. This will be with no discussion or commentary, sources only. After two weeks we will come up with ideas on how to proceed and then we can discuss possible solutions." If you could start copying sources over it would be much appreciated. As always, if you have any questions, feel free to ask. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 12:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I provided the links as you requested.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added to more sources. Grey Hood   Talk  18:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Closing comments

 * I have just been discussing this case with the other mediators, and we have decided to close it. I know that this is a somewhat radical step to take, so let me explain my rationale. Although there was significant edit warring before the article was protected, this case has seen less and less participation as time has passed. I was initially hopeful that using spokespersons would enable the discussion to move at a higher pace, but after more than six weeks of having agreed on who the spokespersons should be, we have not progressed very far in the discussion at all. In the meantime, the Holodomor article has remained protected, and constructive edits to it have been prevented. The effects of protection are evident from the various comments and edit requests on the talk page - and they are only the ones that were willing to take the time to type out their requests. We cannot know for sure how many constructive edits were simply not carried out because of the protection.


 * For me, the benefits of finding a consensus through mediation have ceased to outweigh the disadvantages of having the article protected. In addition, from the tone of previous conversations between the various mediation participants, it looks like discussions could progress even if there is no formal mediator to guide them. As long as participants commit to seek consensus and avoid edit wars, I see no reason that this dispute cannot be resolved through normal editing procedures. If discussions break down again, dispute resolution will still be here. Thank you all very much for your participation. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 01:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I second the comments of Mr. Stradivarius. Discussion has been very slow, and I'm not sure whether it is due to a lack of interest or parties being busy elsewhere, but at this pace mediation would take years. Give discussion on the talk page another go, remember the guidelines we've taught you all. If things get stuck again, we will still be here, ready to help. Regards, Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 01:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)