This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
clear POV political statement becouse historical and legal matters is out of legal jursdiction of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) [1]. While if return to prepared by them "showoff" at 2006 with 1921-22 famine pictures posed as 1933, the reliability of this source press releases regarding out of it jursdiction matters is irrelevant for WP articles - see WP:ISNOT for more detials Jo0doe ( talk) 20:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
NPOV tag was added because this article only deals with the minority POV that the HOLODOMOR was a consequence of collectivization while ignoring the majority POV that the HOLODOMOR was deliberately engineered. Bobanni ( talk) 21:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Which one majority you are spoken about? Jo0doe ( talk) 08:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Editor Jo0Doe claims:
Encyclopedia Britanica (use as a reference) article states also what Ukraine formed USSR in 1924 instead of 1922 - please find checked for quality source |
This part of the article is NOT used in the Cause of the Holodomor article; however it states Ukraine formed as part of the USSR in 1922 and ratified the constitution in 1924.
This data is accurate however Editor Jo0Doe's assumption that Encyclopedia Britanica is not accurate is not correct.
Again - it's a history article. Please remove OR POV statement from the top of article Thank you. Jo0doe ( talk) 17:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Tauger emphatically does not attribute the famine to drought. He documents the fact that rustic plant disease destroyed the crops so that much fewer grains appeared in the individual stalks. That in turn led to a rumor that a plentiful crop had been stolen by someone which caused the confusion that aggravated the famine. If you're going to post criticisms of Tauger, then at least get them from someone who accurately describes what his work. Mace is not a reliable source as he's known for publishing books with photos stoled from 1921-2 and falsely attributing to different years, including 1934 when there was no famine any longer. Davies & Wheatcroft do mention the occurrence of drought, but Tauger has focused instead on the plat rust which caused the crop of 1932-3 to be so small. Mace, on the other hand, has falsely used the officially published Soviet figures from that time to claim that there was no major grain shortage caused by natural disaster, which is emphatically not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.37 ( talk) 03:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:HolodomorUcrania9.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 07:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC) |
The "Natural reasons" paragraph discusses mostly Soviet politics or its results. Xx236 ( talk) 07:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Considering that tags are not designed to be used as "badges of shame", and that there has been no discussion or acknowledgement of improvement to the number and quality of references being used since 2008 (when the article was tagged for more references), I've removed this redundant tag.
If editors have issues with the calibre of the references ( WP:RS), WP:POV, etc., please use inline tags and bring your content concerns to the talk page. Discussion of content, sources and presentation is the function of article talk page and not subject to the addition or removal of content with no justification other that personal opinion. Such article development requires more that WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT comments in the edit summaries. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 05:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't help noticing that the "Deliberately engineered" section cites The_Black_Book_of_Communism as a source. I think that citing such an obviously biased and controversial book is a bad idea, especially in and article that already has issues with neutral POV and reliable sources. -- slartibartfast 03:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry hedden ( talk • contribs) 03:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Causes of the Holodomor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.zerkalo-nedeli.com/ie/show/624/55147/{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.zn.kiev.ua/ie/show/624/55147/When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Causes of the Holodomor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Tauger's view is WP:FRINGE and thus shouldn't be included on this article. The data given in this article is also for the quota in the whole USSR, not Ukraine, as given by Tauger. Also there is an overreliance on primary sources that are WP:NIS like the Soviet Agricultural Encyclopedia 1st and 2nd editions as the Soviet Union covered up the famine and denied it's existence to foreigners. Davies and Wheatcroft's works are referenced as part of the argument why the famine was due to a lack of draft animals and tractors despite the fact that they concluded that the famine was man-made, being a byproduct of Stalin's forced collectivisation( WP:STICKTOSOURCE). Originalcola ( talk) 18:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
This article is a pretty blatant violation of the NPOV policy. The only potential "causes" listed are 1) the government did it, or 2) the government did it in a different way. It makes virtually no mention of any imaginable factor besides Soviet government policy; nothing about the ongoing Great Depression and global economic pressures on the USSR as a developing semi-industrialized nation facing an extremely hostile western bloc, nothing about the recent Soviet grain procurement crisis of 1928 and the rationale for agricultural collectivization, nothing about the well-documented phenomenon of peasants burning their own crops (it very briefly mentions slaughtering of their livestock but that's not the whole story at all) and virtually nothing about the weather, climate, crop disease, or the history and causes of repeated famines in the Russian Empire. And, very uniquely amongst famine articles on Wikipedia, it brings up the charge of genocide in the very first sentence and then a second time in the intro alone. Whether you agree with the charge of genocide or not, it's worth noting just how unusual that is on this website for an article about this type of thing. The fact that this is a specifically dedicated article for discussing not just the famine in genral, but all the possible causes of the famine, makes these omissions and one-sidedness even more glaring. To illustrate how unique this article is in this respect, it's worth comparing this to any other Wikipedia article on any alleged man-made or human-affected famine to see none others are written even close to this way. To illustrate:
All of those famines have been routinely labelled genocides by historians, and many of them are mentioned in the State-sponsored famines section of the main Famine article, or in the Genocide of indigenous peoples article. I don't say this to imply we should rush out and add genocide charges to all of these articles' intros or bodies, but clearly the trend on this website goes against that approach, with the very specific exception of Stalin and Mao. Some of the aforementioned famines I agree with the designation of famine, some I don't. But I'm including them all regardless to illustrate the clear trend and the blatant mismatch. Somehow, this article ( Causes of the Holodomor), along with the other articles about the 32-33 Soviet famines ( Holodomor, Soviet famine of 1932–1933, Kazakh famine of 1931–1933) seem to be the only articles about famines on all of Wikipedia to use the word "genocide" right away in the intro; it seems to be the only famine on Wikipedia with its own separate dedicated article about allegations of it being genocide ( Holodomor genocide question, which again the editors here decided needed to be mentioned in the first sentence of this "Causes" article), even though there's surely also enough material to make a similar article about the Irish famine genocide question, the 1943 Bengal famine, or the 1876-78 famine in British India. Along with the Great Leap Forward article, the 1930s Soviet famine articles seem to be the only ones to never discuss any environmental or non-governmental policy factors beyond the briefest mention, usually in the same sentence as theories blaming the government are mentioned. (I'm of course excluding the Nazi Hunger Plan article here, where the genocidal intent was spelled out in the perpetrators' documents. In fact one could argue Trevelyan writing the Irish famine was a "judgment from God" to "teach the Irish a lesson" was a much clearer statement of genocidal intent than any conjectures about Soviet genocidal intent, yet again the Irish famine page doesn't mention genocide until the very end, and doesn't have its own separate article on the subject, but I digress.)
This being so, you'd think the Soviet famines should logically be treated as all the others as famines whose causes are debated and where explicit genocidal intent has not been proven or stated, and given that lack of proven stated intent, you'd think the Soviet famine articles should conform to the standards of every other article about every other famine, none of which use the word "genocide" from the get-go (let alone 2 times in the intro with its own dedicated article to the allegations) and none of which fail to discuss environmental or external factors as a central or even possibly exclusive cause. Yet only the famines under Stalin are given such a narrow exclusive interpretation that seems to be totally lacking in any other comparable article, even those famines whose allegations of genocide are clearly mentioned in other articles on those subjects in general. This "Causes of the Holodomor" article seems to be the only article on English Wikipedia specifically devoted to discussing the causes of a famine, so you think it'd deserve even more nuance and exploration. Yet it's totally lacking in any nuance beyond "the government did it, or the government did it". It is one of the only articles about any famine on the entire site which don't have dedicated sections to considering environmental or external factors. Evidently the articles on famines under Stalin (along with the Great Leap Forward under Mao article) seem to be the only ones on this entire website which are lumped in with the Nazis as deserving no discussion of any possible external factor, and the articles on famines under Communists seem to be almost the only ones to repeatedly invoke the charge of genocide -- even though many other famines are called genocide by many scholars, not to mention that articles about other famine-genocides by the Nazis (like the Greek famine) don't even get a single mention of the word "genocide".
To me this is a flagrant inconsistency which clearly evades the requirement of neutrality and balance on this website because sadly, many editors and mods have made up their mind on what position to take here. I see the issue has been brought up several times on this very talk page, only to be dismissed and any source from any other perspective has been removed. I'm not here to add sources of my own since I have no doubt they would immediately be dismissed and removed like others' have. Rather I wanted to point out this bias and omission which becomes very clear when you review articles on similar topics, in the hopes that some other users or moderators here will agree with the obvious and we can agree to make a point of including a bit of balance in this article. Otherwise I would call for some drastic rewrites to many other articles about other famines to immediately include and centralize any and all allegations of genocide in every instance they've been raised, or else this site will continue to show blatant favouritism in its historical judgments and investigations. VolatileChemical ( talk) 16:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Jul 11, 2022, 22:07 - «Partial revert of user:Alexander Davronov: this is superfluous information, since the definition came 15 years later, but the mentioned historians mainly only considered it still later»
ctrl+f for "citation needed" yields 34 results. 34 unsourced claims in an article this important isn't acceptable. Aachenshinto ( talk) 21:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
There is an academic consensus since the 1980s on the causes of the Holodomor. The lead currently starts by citing Wheatcroft, a dissenter from this view, and Getty, who I don’t even think has conducted research on the Holodomor.
This is completely a non-neutral point of view, formulated to give the wrong impression to readers. — Michael Z. 05:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
This article: Tauger, in contrast, argues that human factors such as low traction power and an exhausted workforce were worse in 1933 than previous years yet that year there had been a higher harvest, so the cause of the low harvest was mostly due to various natural factors.
This sentence is confusing, and seems to necessarily miss some critical part of the source’s argument. It says that 1933 had a higher harvest than previous years, and then refers to “the low harvest” (in 1933? relative to what?) as if that were the direct cause of famine in 1933. And so what is the effect or relevance of these human factors if the cause was natural factors? The picture is muddy.
Needs to be rewritten for clarity by someone familiar with Tauger’s argument. — Michael Z. 21:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I believe this belongs on the talk page for visibility and review.
The following section was removed from the article here [2]
According to Simon Payaslian, a tentative scholarly consensus classifies the Soviet famine (at least in Ukraine) as a genocide, [1] whereas John Archibald Getty states that the scholarly consensus classifies the Holodomor as a policy blunder that affected many nationalities, rather than some genocidal plan. [2] Scholars say that it remains a significant issue in modern politics and dispute whether Soviet policies would fall under the legal definition of genocide. [3] [4] Several scholars have disputed that the famine was a genocidal act by the Soviet government, including Stephen G. Wheatcroft, [5] R. W. Davies, [6] and Mark Tauger. [7] Getty says that the "overwhelming weight of opinion among scholars working in the new archives [...] is that the terrible famine of the 1930s was the result of Stalinist bungling and rigidity rather than some genocidal plan." [2] Wheatcroft says that the Soviet government's policies during the famine were criminal acts of fraud and manslaughter, though not outright murder or genocide. [8] [a] In regard to the Soviet state's reaction to this crisis, Wheatcroft comments: "The good harvest of 1930 led to the decisions to export substantial amounts of grain in 1931 and 1932. The Soviet leaders also assumed that the wholesale socialisation of livestock farming would lead to the rapid growth of meat and dairy production. These policies failed, and the Soviet leaders attributed the failure not to their own lack of realism but to the machinations of enemies. Peasant resistance was blamed on the kulaks, and the increased use of force on a large scale almost completely replaced attempts at persuasion." [9] Wheatcroft says that Soviet authorities refused to scale down grain procurements despite the low harvest, [5] and that "[Wheatcroft and his colleague's] work has confirmed – if confirmation were needed – that the grain campaign in 1932/33 was unprecedentedly harsh and repressive." [10] Joseph Stalin biographer Stephen Kotkin supports a similar view, stating that while "there is no question of Stalin's responsibility for the famine" and many deaths could have been prevented if not for the "insufficient" and counterproductive Soviet measures, there is no evidence for Stalin's intention to kill the Ukrainians deliberately. [11] There are letters from Grigory Petrovsky and Vlas Chubar to Stalin and Molotov stating that "At least 100 districts require urgent supply assistance" enforcing the fact the Stalin was well aware of what was going on. [12] While Mark Tauger considers the famine to be the result of natural factors stating that "the harsh 1932–1933 procurements only displaced the famine from urban areas" but the low harvest "made a famine inevitable." Ultimately concluding that it is difficult to accept the famine "as the result of the 1932 grain procurements and as a conscious act of genocide" he still concurs with Wheatcroft that "the regime was still responsible for the deprivation and suffering of the Soviet population in the early 1930s", and "if anything, these data show that the effects of [collectivization and forced industrialization] were worse than has been assumed." [13]
References
Similarly, the overwhelming weight of opinion among scholars working in the new archives (including Courtois's co-editor Werth) is that the terrible famine of the 1930s was the result of Stalinist bungling and rigidity rather than some genocidal plan. [...] To them the famine of 1932-1933 was simply a planned Ukrainian genocide, although today most see it as a policy blunder that affected millions belonging to other nationalities.
Davies & Wheatcroft 2009
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Davies & Wheatcroft 2004
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 21:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC) IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 21:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
clear POV political statement becouse historical and legal matters is out of legal jursdiction of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) [1]. While if return to prepared by them "showoff" at 2006 with 1921-22 famine pictures posed as 1933, the reliability of this source press releases regarding out of it jursdiction matters is irrelevant for WP articles - see WP:ISNOT for more detials Jo0doe ( talk) 20:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
NPOV tag was added because this article only deals with the minority POV that the HOLODOMOR was a consequence of collectivization while ignoring the majority POV that the HOLODOMOR was deliberately engineered. Bobanni ( talk) 21:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Which one majority you are spoken about? Jo0doe ( talk) 08:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Editor Jo0Doe claims:
Encyclopedia Britanica (use as a reference) article states also what Ukraine formed USSR in 1924 instead of 1922 - please find checked for quality source |
This part of the article is NOT used in the Cause of the Holodomor article; however it states Ukraine formed as part of the USSR in 1922 and ratified the constitution in 1924.
This data is accurate however Editor Jo0Doe's assumption that Encyclopedia Britanica is not accurate is not correct.
Again - it's a history article. Please remove OR POV statement from the top of article Thank you. Jo0doe ( talk) 17:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Tauger emphatically does not attribute the famine to drought. He documents the fact that rustic plant disease destroyed the crops so that much fewer grains appeared in the individual stalks. That in turn led to a rumor that a plentiful crop had been stolen by someone which caused the confusion that aggravated the famine. If you're going to post criticisms of Tauger, then at least get them from someone who accurately describes what his work. Mace is not a reliable source as he's known for publishing books with photos stoled from 1921-2 and falsely attributing to different years, including 1934 when there was no famine any longer. Davies & Wheatcroft do mention the occurrence of drought, but Tauger has focused instead on the plat rust which caused the crop of 1932-3 to be so small. Mace, on the other hand, has falsely used the officially published Soviet figures from that time to claim that there was no major grain shortage caused by natural disaster, which is emphatically not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.37 ( talk) 03:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:HolodomorUcrania9.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 07:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC) |
The "Natural reasons" paragraph discusses mostly Soviet politics or its results. Xx236 ( talk) 07:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Considering that tags are not designed to be used as "badges of shame", and that there has been no discussion or acknowledgement of improvement to the number and quality of references being used since 2008 (when the article was tagged for more references), I've removed this redundant tag.
If editors have issues with the calibre of the references ( WP:RS), WP:POV, etc., please use inline tags and bring your content concerns to the talk page. Discussion of content, sources and presentation is the function of article talk page and not subject to the addition or removal of content with no justification other that personal opinion. Such article development requires more that WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT comments in the edit summaries. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 05:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't help noticing that the "Deliberately engineered" section cites The_Black_Book_of_Communism as a source. I think that citing such an obviously biased and controversial book is a bad idea, especially in and article that already has issues with neutral POV and reliable sources. -- slartibartfast 03:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry hedden ( talk • contribs) 03:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Causes of the Holodomor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.zerkalo-nedeli.com/ie/show/624/55147/{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.zn.kiev.ua/ie/show/624/55147/When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Causes of the Holodomor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Tauger's view is WP:FRINGE and thus shouldn't be included on this article. The data given in this article is also for the quota in the whole USSR, not Ukraine, as given by Tauger. Also there is an overreliance on primary sources that are WP:NIS like the Soviet Agricultural Encyclopedia 1st and 2nd editions as the Soviet Union covered up the famine and denied it's existence to foreigners. Davies and Wheatcroft's works are referenced as part of the argument why the famine was due to a lack of draft animals and tractors despite the fact that they concluded that the famine was man-made, being a byproduct of Stalin's forced collectivisation( WP:STICKTOSOURCE). Originalcola ( talk) 18:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
This article is a pretty blatant violation of the NPOV policy. The only potential "causes" listed are 1) the government did it, or 2) the government did it in a different way. It makes virtually no mention of any imaginable factor besides Soviet government policy; nothing about the ongoing Great Depression and global economic pressures on the USSR as a developing semi-industrialized nation facing an extremely hostile western bloc, nothing about the recent Soviet grain procurement crisis of 1928 and the rationale for agricultural collectivization, nothing about the well-documented phenomenon of peasants burning their own crops (it very briefly mentions slaughtering of their livestock but that's not the whole story at all) and virtually nothing about the weather, climate, crop disease, or the history and causes of repeated famines in the Russian Empire. And, very uniquely amongst famine articles on Wikipedia, it brings up the charge of genocide in the very first sentence and then a second time in the intro alone. Whether you agree with the charge of genocide or not, it's worth noting just how unusual that is on this website for an article about this type of thing. The fact that this is a specifically dedicated article for discussing not just the famine in genral, but all the possible causes of the famine, makes these omissions and one-sidedness even more glaring. To illustrate how unique this article is in this respect, it's worth comparing this to any other Wikipedia article on any alleged man-made or human-affected famine to see none others are written even close to this way. To illustrate:
All of those famines have been routinely labelled genocides by historians, and many of them are mentioned in the State-sponsored famines section of the main Famine article, or in the Genocide of indigenous peoples article. I don't say this to imply we should rush out and add genocide charges to all of these articles' intros or bodies, but clearly the trend on this website goes against that approach, with the very specific exception of Stalin and Mao. Some of the aforementioned famines I agree with the designation of famine, some I don't. But I'm including them all regardless to illustrate the clear trend and the blatant mismatch. Somehow, this article ( Causes of the Holodomor), along with the other articles about the 32-33 Soviet famines ( Holodomor, Soviet famine of 1932–1933, Kazakh famine of 1931–1933) seem to be the only articles about famines on all of Wikipedia to use the word "genocide" right away in the intro; it seems to be the only famine on Wikipedia with its own separate dedicated article about allegations of it being genocide ( Holodomor genocide question, which again the editors here decided needed to be mentioned in the first sentence of this "Causes" article), even though there's surely also enough material to make a similar article about the Irish famine genocide question, the 1943 Bengal famine, or the 1876-78 famine in British India. Along with the Great Leap Forward article, the 1930s Soviet famine articles seem to be the only ones to never discuss any environmental or non-governmental policy factors beyond the briefest mention, usually in the same sentence as theories blaming the government are mentioned. (I'm of course excluding the Nazi Hunger Plan article here, where the genocidal intent was spelled out in the perpetrators' documents. In fact one could argue Trevelyan writing the Irish famine was a "judgment from God" to "teach the Irish a lesson" was a much clearer statement of genocidal intent than any conjectures about Soviet genocidal intent, yet again the Irish famine page doesn't mention genocide until the very end, and doesn't have its own separate article on the subject, but I digress.)
This being so, you'd think the Soviet famines should logically be treated as all the others as famines whose causes are debated and where explicit genocidal intent has not been proven or stated, and given that lack of proven stated intent, you'd think the Soviet famine articles should conform to the standards of every other article about every other famine, none of which use the word "genocide" from the get-go (let alone 2 times in the intro with its own dedicated article to the allegations) and none of which fail to discuss environmental or external factors as a central or even possibly exclusive cause. Yet only the famines under Stalin are given such a narrow exclusive interpretation that seems to be totally lacking in any other comparable article, even those famines whose allegations of genocide are clearly mentioned in other articles on those subjects in general. This "Causes of the Holodomor" article seems to be the only article on English Wikipedia specifically devoted to discussing the causes of a famine, so you think it'd deserve even more nuance and exploration. Yet it's totally lacking in any nuance beyond "the government did it, or the government did it". It is one of the only articles about any famine on the entire site which don't have dedicated sections to considering environmental or external factors. Evidently the articles on famines under Stalin (along with the Great Leap Forward under Mao article) seem to be the only ones on this entire website which are lumped in with the Nazis as deserving no discussion of any possible external factor, and the articles on famines under Communists seem to be almost the only ones to repeatedly invoke the charge of genocide -- even though many other famines are called genocide by many scholars, not to mention that articles about other famine-genocides by the Nazis (like the Greek famine) don't even get a single mention of the word "genocide".
To me this is a flagrant inconsistency which clearly evades the requirement of neutrality and balance on this website because sadly, many editors and mods have made up their mind on what position to take here. I see the issue has been brought up several times on this very talk page, only to be dismissed and any source from any other perspective has been removed. I'm not here to add sources of my own since I have no doubt they would immediately be dismissed and removed like others' have. Rather I wanted to point out this bias and omission which becomes very clear when you review articles on similar topics, in the hopes that some other users or moderators here will agree with the obvious and we can agree to make a point of including a bit of balance in this article. Otherwise I would call for some drastic rewrites to many other articles about other famines to immediately include and centralize any and all allegations of genocide in every instance they've been raised, or else this site will continue to show blatant favouritism in its historical judgments and investigations. VolatileChemical ( talk) 16:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Jul 11, 2022, 22:07 - «Partial revert of user:Alexander Davronov: this is superfluous information, since the definition came 15 years later, but the mentioned historians mainly only considered it still later»
ctrl+f for "citation needed" yields 34 results. 34 unsourced claims in an article this important isn't acceptable. Aachenshinto ( talk) 21:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
There is an academic consensus since the 1980s on the causes of the Holodomor. The lead currently starts by citing Wheatcroft, a dissenter from this view, and Getty, who I don’t even think has conducted research on the Holodomor.
This is completely a non-neutral point of view, formulated to give the wrong impression to readers. — Michael Z. 05:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
This article: Tauger, in contrast, argues that human factors such as low traction power and an exhausted workforce were worse in 1933 than previous years yet that year there had been a higher harvest, so the cause of the low harvest was mostly due to various natural factors.
This sentence is confusing, and seems to necessarily miss some critical part of the source’s argument. It says that 1933 had a higher harvest than previous years, and then refers to “the low harvest” (in 1933? relative to what?) as if that were the direct cause of famine in 1933. And so what is the effect or relevance of these human factors if the cause was natural factors? The picture is muddy.
Needs to be rewritten for clarity by someone familiar with Tauger’s argument. — Michael Z. 21:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I believe this belongs on the talk page for visibility and review.
The following section was removed from the article here [2]
According to Simon Payaslian, a tentative scholarly consensus classifies the Soviet famine (at least in Ukraine) as a genocide, [1] whereas John Archibald Getty states that the scholarly consensus classifies the Holodomor as a policy blunder that affected many nationalities, rather than some genocidal plan. [2] Scholars say that it remains a significant issue in modern politics and dispute whether Soviet policies would fall under the legal definition of genocide. [3] [4] Several scholars have disputed that the famine was a genocidal act by the Soviet government, including Stephen G. Wheatcroft, [5] R. W. Davies, [6] and Mark Tauger. [7] Getty says that the "overwhelming weight of opinion among scholars working in the new archives [...] is that the terrible famine of the 1930s was the result of Stalinist bungling and rigidity rather than some genocidal plan." [2] Wheatcroft says that the Soviet government's policies during the famine were criminal acts of fraud and manslaughter, though not outright murder or genocide. [8] [a] In regard to the Soviet state's reaction to this crisis, Wheatcroft comments: "The good harvest of 1930 led to the decisions to export substantial amounts of grain in 1931 and 1932. The Soviet leaders also assumed that the wholesale socialisation of livestock farming would lead to the rapid growth of meat and dairy production. These policies failed, and the Soviet leaders attributed the failure not to their own lack of realism but to the machinations of enemies. Peasant resistance was blamed on the kulaks, and the increased use of force on a large scale almost completely replaced attempts at persuasion." [9] Wheatcroft says that Soviet authorities refused to scale down grain procurements despite the low harvest, [5] and that "[Wheatcroft and his colleague's] work has confirmed – if confirmation were needed – that the grain campaign in 1932/33 was unprecedentedly harsh and repressive." [10] Joseph Stalin biographer Stephen Kotkin supports a similar view, stating that while "there is no question of Stalin's responsibility for the famine" and many deaths could have been prevented if not for the "insufficient" and counterproductive Soviet measures, there is no evidence for Stalin's intention to kill the Ukrainians deliberately. [11] There are letters from Grigory Petrovsky and Vlas Chubar to Stalin and Molotov stating that "At least 100 districts require urgent supply assistance" enforcing the fact the Stalin was well aware of what was going on. [12] While Mark Tauger considers the famine to be the result of natural factors stating that "the harsh 1932–1933 procurements only displaced the famine from urban areas" but the low harvest "made a famine inevitable." Ultimately concluding that it is difficult to accept the famine "as the result of the 1932 grain procurements and as a conscious act of genocide" he still concurs with Wheatcroft that "the regime was still responsible for the deprivation and suffering of the Soviet population in the early 1930s", and "if anything, these data show that the effects of [collectivization and forced industrialization] were worse than has been assumed." [13]
References
Similarly, the overwhelming weight of opinion among scholars working in the new archives (including Courtois's co-editor Werth) is that the terrible famine of the 1930s was the result of Stalinist bungling and rigidity rather than some genocidal plan. [...] To them the famine of 1932-1933 was simply a planned Ukrainian genocide, although today most see it as a policy blunder that affected millions belonging to other nationalities.
Davies & Wheatcroft 2009
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Davies & Wheatcroft 2004
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 21:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC) IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 21:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).