![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The Soviet Union was notorious for commiting repressions against people, based on their ethnicity: Chechens, Ingushians, Kalmucks, Crimean Tatars, and some others were forcefully deported en masse from their homelands - with almost half of these ethnic groups' members having been perished in the process. According to Joseph Stalin's close confidant, collaborator, and assistant N. Khrushchev, Stalin had also singled out Ukrainians as victims of such ethnic cleansings. Thus, in his famous XX party speach, Khrushchev said the following:
"Thus, already at the end of 1943, when there occurred a permanent breakthrough at the fronts of the Great Patriotic War benefiting the Soviet Union, a decision was taken and executed concerning the deportation of all the Karachai from the lands on which they lived.
In the same period, at the end of December 1943, the same lot befell the whole population of the Autonomous Kalmyk Republic. In March 1944, all the Chechen and Ingush peoples were deported and the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Republic was liquidated. In April 1944, all Balkars were deported to faraway places from the territory of the Kabardino-Balkar Autonomous Republic and the Republic itself was renamed the Autonomous Kabardian Republic.
The Ukrainians avoided meeting this fate only because there were too many of them and there was no place to which to deport them. Otherwise, he would have deported them also".
Having so targeted the Ukrainians and realizing the technical impossibility of deporting them en masse (even though the deportations continued from the 1920s to 1950s at full pace), the Soviet leadership took a decision to accelerate the process of de-Ukrainization of Ukraine by organizing a mass starvation of Ukrainian population and bringing millions of ethnic Russians and other Russian-speaking groups in their place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vox Veritatae ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
There are numerous publications of the famous Khrushchev's speech - all of them include this passage. Ethic cleansings perpetrated in Soviet Union are also well established facts - references can be easily found. (Unfortunately, I do not have time for this myself).
Khrushchev is describing deportations undertaken in the context of WWII. That has no relevance for deciding what occurred in 1932-3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.43 ( talk) 20:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Of course Khrushchev did not mention the Holodomor among the list of Stalin's crimes, as he, Khrushchev was deeply implicated himself. The Khrushchev's speech is absolutely necessary and directly relevant to the topic, as it is a valuable testimony to the fact that various people of the USSR were indeed targeted just because of their ethnicity and not just because of their class origin, as is often alleged. Thus, even if some ethnic cleansings against other groups happened 9 years later, they still are a valid testimony of ethnicity-based phobias of Soviet leadership.
"The total population shortfall from the expected value between 1926 and 1939 estimated by Vallin amounted to 4.566 million. Of this number, 1.057 million is attributed to birth deficit, 930,000 to forced out-migration, and 2.582 million to excess mortality and voluntary out-migration. With the latter assumed to be negligible this estimate gives the number of deaths as the result of the 1933 famine about 2.2 million."
If they are taking into account the "out-migration" they should take into account the "in-migration" too! Millions of ethnic Russians have replaced the dead and deported, thus making the total population loss look smaller! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vox Veritatae ( talk • contribs) 20:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
You don't mean to say that soviet authorities - and statistics - are suspect ??? Horlo ( talk) 08:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh - Wait Horlo ( talk) 08:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The broad trend in the Soviet economy during these years was for people to move from rural to urban locations as industry was established. The cases of some Russians moving into Urainia are not such as to counteract this as a general demographic trend.
Please read attentively - I am not challenging the figures provided by Vallin. I am saying that he cites population out-migration, which can explain some of the general population decreases, but does not mention the great numbers of people arriving from other parts of the USSR. This influx of people makes the total population decrease to appear smaller. This innacuracy on Vallin's part makes the number of people who died from hunger look much smaller. And I do not get what is your point in mentioning urbanization. Yes, Russians moved mostly to cities (as well as some of those rural Ukrainians, who managed to flee their starving villages for cities - very often that was done illegally, as they had no internal passports and "propiska" (registration)). Maybe, the point of your comment is that the resettlement of Russians into Ukraine was not done to change the ethnic compositions, but just as a "natural process of urbanization"? This is counterintuitive - why starve people locally and at the same time bring them from thousands of kilometers away? But even if there was some economic rationale for this (rare specialists, fluent speakers of the dominant language etc), it does NOT exclude other goals behind this. History is full of examples when one action was driven by several objectives. Otherwise, you can also tell that removal of Jews from Warsaw after the Warsaw Ghetto Rising was "not such as to counteract this as a general demographic trend", when people are leaving impoverished cities for safer life in the countryside. Or that German colonisation attempts in Ukraine during World war two were also "not such as to counteract this as a general demographic trend", when people emigrate from "Old Europe" in search of better life abroad. (After all Germans historically always emigrated to various countries - America, Russia etc, so Hitler's idea to settle them in Ukraine was "in general trend" and, thus, not imperialistic???)
This major section deletion cannot be justified in an edit summary-use talk Bobanni ( talk) 02:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
His figure of 14 million people killed, taken from a media report, is so far beyond all the other figures that it doesn't seem to belong in the article's lead, does it? Faustian ( talk) 05:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I do not feel that that is appropriate for a piece of this gravity. 160.39.37.159 ( talk) 03:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
The suggestion that there is a traditional view and a more recent view could be a perception stemming from soviet denial and censorship. The both views were advanced In the 30s. Bobanni ( talk) 03:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I've reinserted the reference in the lead with more general wording, as there are more reliable references for higher estimates which can be added. As for Service, that Novosti, the Russian state press service, reported the story is obvious and incontrovertible evidence that the Russian government takes such discussions of far higher estimates seriously. No editor here is a censor stating "NO" to reputably sourced information whether we personally like it or not or personally believe it or not.
Unfortunately, editors had even deleted mention of the Encyclopedia Britannica number in the lead (earlier) because they didn't like it, so I am extremely skeptical of editors arguing against any mention of existence of higher numbers in the lead.
PetersV
TALK
13:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
One more comment. Looking through the article's history I noticed that I was not a first person who pointed out that the RIAN article contains no mentioning of Service. The user Alaexis did that before me (see his comments). Therefore, instead of screaming censorship one would have to check the reference he was going to re-insert.
Moreover, it seems to be a campaign to play numbers up: no matter how reliable sources are, they (according to some authors) do deserve to be introduced into the article provided that the number of death toll is high.
Neither politicians nor journalists can obtain the numbers of victims by themselves, they only can use the data obtained by one or the another scholar. Therefore, all disputes of that type can be resolved easily: if you think that the number of 14 million is reasonable but the validity of the source rises someone's concern, do the search, find a scholarly article or a book this number came from and feel free to insert this reference into the article.
By the way, since my university has an access to many journals, I can provide some help (for instance, to tell whether one or another number is really present in the article that is not available online for free). And I promise to do that independently on how large or how small these numbers are.
--
Paul Siebert (
talk)
20:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
To continue a discussion on a campaign to play numbers up or down, I would like to discuss the ref 8 (Stephen G. Wheatcroft). In the article, this reference is being used to support the number of 4 to 5 million within Soviet Ukraine. However, in the work cited Wheatcroft gives different numbers: 3 to 3.5 million within Ukraine and 6 to 7 million in the USSR totally during the period of 1931-1933. By the way, this is consistent with the data from other Wheatcroft's works.
--
Paul Siebert (
talk)
20:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Biophys ( talk) 04:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, please provide a quote from the source which says Holodomor is "part of the Soviet famine" -- windyhead ( talk) 20:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, while your arguments may be right, they also may be wrong. I. e., your arguments are disputable. What is not disputable is that the source has no statement that says that Holodomor was part of a wide famine. Please don't use the source which doesn't talk about Holodomor, does not contain that Holodomor was "part of Soviet wide famine", and has no mention about Holodomor at all, to support that Holodomor was "part of Soviet wide famine". -- windyhead ( talk) 16:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I have read in may library books in the U.K. that say the Bashkortostan had lost about 5-10% its population during a similar famine in their A.S.S.R. at the same time.-- 86.29.253.200 ( talk) 11:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Holodomor's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Black":
Reference named "reflections":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
Soviet agricultural, political, and other practices lead people to die all across their empire all the time - however, that has no place in this article, especially in the lead. This article is about the Holodomor, a time when millions of people were starving to death across Ukraine. That people were dying across the USSR is tragic, must be studied, remembered, noteworthy, and will hopefully not be repeated, but that has no place in the lead.
This article is about the Holodomor, the greatest artificially created terror in history. There is no reason to connect the Holodomor with the fact that people were dying in the early '30s in the ussr. Thanks, Horlo ( talk) 07:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Paul, let's stay calm here, please. According to your logic, the Chornobyl catastrophe should also be mentioned in the lead, as people died as a direct result of soviet incompetence.
The Holodomor (capital H) deals with the deaths of 10 million people in Ukraine. Tens of thousands were probably freezing to death in Kamchatka at the same time. Do you suggest that they be mentioned in the lead? People in Kazakhstan were being hunted by soviet fighters - should they also be included in the lead?
Please, let's focus on what this article is trying to describe, the Holodomor (capital H).
Now, would you be so kind as to explain how my separation of the deliberate starvation of a Ukrainian culture by soviet authorities is in any way related to a "natural terror" of the Holocaust? Please, I would love to hear your explanation. How, pray tell, does the Holodomor mean that the killing of millions of Chinese was "natural"?
Please remember - if you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything. Thanks, Horlo ( talk) 08:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Please verify reference - =Shelton,Dinah Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity page 1059(isbn=0028658507) states 10 million.
This is a reliable source - what is to discuss that is not Orginal Research. Bobanni ( talk) 21:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
direct quote from Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity
|
Bobanni ( talk) 01:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Paul, do you know what Wikilawyering means? Thanks, Horlo ( talk) 08:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Paul please see the "further explanation" below regarding the Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, and please read the article from Encydlopedia Britannica and scroll down to the bottom of the page. There, you will find exactly by whom the article was written. If you don't want to follow up on these facts, please don't remove the EB from the lead. Thanks, Horlo ( talk) 09:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I suppose this is beyond repair, however. Mtsmallwood ( talk) 06:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
Reference 4 and 5 seem to be by the same author. I suggest #5 be removed. Thanks, Horlo ( talk) 08:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Going back to the EB reference, and taking into account that WP rules
state the following:"General encyclopedias, like the Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta, sometimes have authoritative signed articles written by specialists and including references. However, unsigned entries are written in batches by freelancers and must be used with caution..." I am waiting for explanations, why in this concrete case these cautions are not needed.
In other words, the explanation must be provided why this concrete EB article can be considered a reliable source. The EB brand is not sufficient per se.
--
Paul Siebert (
talk)
19:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Here I provide my explanations why the EB article and the Encyclopedia of Genocide article are not reliable sources.
Valid references from Encyclopedia Britannica reinstated. They were deleted based on an wikipedia opinion piece that was erroniously represented as wikipedia policy. Both Encyclopedia Britannica and Encyclopedia of Genocide are valid scholarly resources. Bobanni ( talk) 06:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Paul, once again I suggest that you simply scroll down to the bottom of the article about Ukraine, look at the history section, see the detailed bibliography, and even find the name of the author. So please, don't delete anything without discussing it here. Thanks, Horlo ( talk) 11:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
This entry is for Paul Siebert - please do not delete text sourced from "Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity" it author Professor Shelton is an recognized expert on genocide - see quoted biography.
"Biographical SketchProfessor Shelton joined the Law School faculty in 2004. Before her appointment, she was professor of international law and director of the doctoral program in international human rights law at the University of Notre Dame Law School from 1996-2004. She previously taught at Santa Clara University and was a visiting lecturer at the University of California, Davis, Stanford University, University of California, Berkeley, the University of Paris, and the University of Strasbourg, France.
Professor Shelton is the author or editor of three prize-winning books: Protecting Human Rights in the Americas (winner of the 1982 Inter-American Bar Association Book Prize and co-authored with Thomas Buergenthal); Remedies in International Human Rights Law (awarded the 2000 Certificate of Merit, American Society of International Law); and the three volume Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes against Humanity (awarded a “Best Research” book award by the New York Public Library). She also has authored many articles and books on international law, human rights law, and international environmental law. She is a member of the board of editors of the American Journal of International Law and is a counsellor to the American Society of International Law.
Professor Shelton serves on the boards of many human rights and environmental organizations and was made an “honorary European” to join the European Council on Environmental Law. In 2006, she was awarded the prestigious Elizabeth Haub Prize in Environmental Law. From 1987 to 1989, she was the director of the Office of Staff Attorneys at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. She has served as a legal consultant to the United Nations Environment Programme, UNITAR, World Health Organization, European Union, Council of Europe, and Organization of American States."
Hello,
Outside of Wikipedia, are there any reliable English sources that talk about the "Soviet famine of 1932-33?
I will remove this from the lead. Please DON'T re-insert it unless there are reliable, verifiable sources to say that there was a soviet union-wide famine.
Thanks, Horlo ( talk) 09:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Author(s): Michael Ellman
Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 43, No. 2 (1991), pp. 375-379
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/152114
"In particular, by studying the areas worst affected (Ukraine, North Caucasus, Volga, Kazakhstan) it should be possible to throw more light on the situation"
Author(s): Mark B. Tauger Source: Slavic Review, Vol. 50, No. 1 (Spring, 1991), pp. 70-89 Published by: The American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2500600
Author(s): R. W. Davies, M. B. Tauger, S. G. Wheatcroft Source: Slavic Review, Vol. 54, No. 3 (Autumn, 1995), pp. 642-657 Published by: The American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2501740
Author(s): Dana G. Dalrymple Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 16, No. 4 (Apr., 1965), pp. 471-474 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/149901
Author(s): Steven Rosefielde
Source: Slavic Review, Vol. 43, No. 1 (Spring, 1984), pp. 83-88
Published by: The American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies
Stable URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2498736
"Although many Western scholars believe that 5 million Soviet peasants died as a result of forced colectivisation..."
Author(s): Michael Ellman
Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 54, No. 7 (Nov., 2002), pp. 1151-1172
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/826310
The note is quite interesting:"There is a substantial difference between the demographic reality of Soviet power and the popular image of it. This is mainly because released intellectual victims of repression wrote books, the organs were bureaucratic organisations which produced reports and kept records, and Ukrainians have a large diaspora, whereas Central Asian nomad or Russian peasant victims of disease, starvation or deportation, ... generally interest only a few specialists". In other words, according to this author, the Holodomor issue could be even overemphasized, as compared to other famines.
Stephen G. Wheatcroft (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004;
pp. 555. £85).
"In 1932 the Soviet Union experienced another poor harvest. The drive to
obtain grain ... led to widespread deaths from famine in Ukraine, the North
Caucasus and the Volga regions, following the crisis in Kazakhstan ... The
famine reached its climax in the spring and early summer of 1933. Its
demographic, political and economic consequences haunted the Soviet system
throughout the 1930s—and long after."
Hello, taking into account that NONE of the sources you gave mention anything about a "soviet famine" other than that where Ukrainians were being starved, I will remove them from the lead because they give a skewed picture of the situation. I don't know how to say this any more clearly: THERE WAS NO SOVIET WIDE FAMINE. Where Ukrainians lived, they were starved. Throughout the existence of the soviet union, people died due to government incompetence and negligence. However, that is not what this is about. Thanks, Horlo ( talk) 20:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The result of Stalin’s policies was the Great Famine (Holodomor) of 1932–33—a man-made demographic catastrophe unprecedented in peacetime. Of the estimated six to eight million people who died in the Soviet Union, about four to five million were Ukrainians. The famine was a direct assault on the Ukrainian peasantry, which had stubbornly continued to resist collectivization; indirectly, it was an attack on the Ukrainian village, which traditionally had been a key element of Ukrainian national culture. [ —“Ukraine: The famine of 1932–33”, E.B. Online]
. . . As a result, over the winter of 1932–33, a major famine swept the grain-growing areas. Some 4 to 5 million died in Ukraine, and another 2 to 3 million in the North Caucasus and the Lower Volga area. Both the dekulakization terror of 1930–32 and the terror-famine of 1932–33 were particularly deadly in Ukraine and the Ukrainian-speaking area of the Kuban. They were accompanied by a series of repressive measures against the Ukrainian cultural, political, and social leaderships, the Ukraine’s defender Skrypnik committing suicide in July 1933. . . . There is no doubt that the Stalin leadership knew exactly what was happening and used famine as a means of terror, and revenge, against the peasantry. [ —“Union of Soviet Socialist Republics: The Party versus the peasants”, E.B. Online]
[outdent]
I think intentions can not be precisely described. Stalin didn't leave a detailed memoir of his motivations and didn't talk about them to his colleagues, and one cannot ascribe a monolithic motive to an organization as large and diverse as the Soviet power structure, from its dictator down to every apparatchik. These are matters to discuss in the article, and perhaps mention in the intro.
But the introduction needs to describe the boundaries of the concrete manifestations of this famine, so readers know what the article's topic is. If some notable scholars have stated that the Holodomor only refers to a subset of this famine, then that can be mentioned, with references, in the appropriate article section.
I may not have time to take a crack at rewriting the intro myself. — Michael Z. 2009-02-05 20:37 z
Whoa, whoa, whoa - Paul, let's not bring your attitude towards Israel into this discussion. Also, what Russians call World War II is a great topic for debate on the Russian wikipedia, which is not here. The topic here is the Holodomor. What you seem to not understand about my argument is that the Holodomor was an act against Ukrainians. Now - just wait a second, and let me finish - does this mean that there were no acts against Kazakhs? NO! Does this mean that Stalin wanted to kill ONLY Ukrainians? NO! Doe it mean that food was used as a weapon only against Ukrainians? NO! Does this mean that the Holodomor was the only bad thing that happened at the time in the ussr? NOOOO! It means that the Holodomor was an attempt by Stalin to destroy Ukraine as a nation. PERIOD. Just the same way that mentioning the Chornobyl explosion, the massacre at Baby Yar, the expulsion of the Tatars, Stalin's pact of cooperation with Hitler, or any other crimes committed by the soviet regime would make the article confusing, would the mention of any other simultaneous crimes being committed in the name of "the people" anywhere in the ussr. Hope that helps, Horlo ( talk) 07:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
RE:Paul it cannot be in the lead, because there is no consensus on that account. Period. Sorry to point out that you're wrong about that one! please read WP:LEAD The lead... should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist.-- Termer ( talk) 08:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
(Outdent) Hello, I disagree. This had been discussed, and is being discussed now again - and again, I ask you to show who talks about a "soviet famine"? And please don't re-quote the sources at the top of this section, because they all talk about the Holodomor. Thanks, Horlo ( talk) 10:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, dear
Paul, you presented reputable sources, however these sources do nothing to support your argument. Please refrain from speculating about speculation in my arguments - they are grounded in the fact that there are no sources that connect any of the famines that were happenning at the time.
Perhaps you don't understand the problem, so I will re-state it for you: there was no "soviet famine" Now, what does that mean "there was no soviet famine"? It means that the events that were taking place in the soviet union were not connected. Please show me a source that states that they were in any way connected. This is my point - throughout the existence of the soviet empire, many government actions were aimed at destroying people who disagreed with it; in some cases, attempts were made to destroy entire ethnic groups. One example is the Holodomor - another example is the forced resettlement of the Tatar nation from Crimea to Siberia.
Now, again, Holodomor is the time when millions of Ukrainians were starved to death because of soviet policies. There were countless millions sufferring at the hands of the soviet regime all around the soviet union - but that is not the Holodomor.
Now, if you want to add a statement to the article, the burden of evidence rests on you - if you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, ... Thanks, Horlo ( talk) 11:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Let's stop this now OK! First of all the word Holodomor is still relatively speaking a neologism in English. So unless you Horlo insist that all the sources that speak about the 1932-1933 Soviet Famine in fact are about Holodomor, you simply suggesting that the article should be renamed accordingly. It's not too difficult to check it out that for example the way the subject is best known in English " Famine in Ukraine (1932-1933)" gives you 660 returns at google books vs. Holodomor that gets only about an half of it: 325 returns in google books. So please Horlo, if you wish to rename this article pr. WP:NEO and WP:NAME into something like "Famine in Soviet Ukraine (also known as Holodomor)" etc. , please feel free to keep coming with such arguments you've listed above.-- Termer ( talk) 07:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
There was a sentence in the Etymology section that claimed that Holodomor was a Russian word taken into Ukrainian.
Please do not restore the sentence without a source.
Thanks, Horlo ( talk) 10:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
why Holodomor and not Golodomor as a primary title? Holodomor means death by freezing (from Holod, or Kholod). -
Alsandro ·
T ·
w:ka:
Th ·
T
05:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Alsandro, this is a typical translation problem: in Ukrainian there are two distinct letters, the "г"(in English "h") and "ґ"(in English "g"). This may not exist in all translation alphabets, or in all cyrillic typesets. This should not be confused with "х" ("kh" in English). So there is a difference between "Голодомор" and "Холодомор". Maybe there isn't in Russian, but there is in Ukrainian and English. Thanks, Horlo ( talk) 09:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Please add a reference to a recent scandalous opening of Holodomor exposition: they included photos of Great Depression there :)
http://forums.ec.europa.eu/debateeurope/viewtopic.php?p=133729&sid=7b3ff8b132cbea308dec484fea09aeb6 (English translation) http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?&q=105418&cid=22&p=10.03.2009 (Russian) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.127.48.140 ( talk) 06:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe this statement in the second paragraph of the "Scope and Duration" section should be revised as shown.
According to the Central Committee of the CP(b) of Ukraine Decree as of February 8 1933 all hunger cases should not have been remain untreated, all local authorities were directly obliged to submit reports about number of suffered suffering from hunger, reasons of hunger, number of deaths from hunger and about food aid provided from local sources and centrally provided food aid required.
I didn't write this, so I wanted to make sure the intended meaning was preserved. Barjeconiah ( talk) 05:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
This article cites a purported book by Lemkin via a [Ukrainian popular news website http://unian.net/eng/news/news-277220.html]. But a book by Lemkin titled "History of Genocide" was never written by him. There is not an ISBN number or publisher for that alleged book. Popular news websites should never cited in an academic article. Even if Lemkin had written this book, his opinion would be irrelevant because he was not a specialist in Russian history. Kamop ( talk) 00:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I think that the topics regarding the modern politicisation of Holodomor and different opinions whether the famine was a genocide belong to Holodomor in modern politics and Holodomor genocide question. The main article should be mostly devoted to the facts about the famine itself Alex Bakharev ( talk) 10:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
[6]. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 11:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that any mention of famine outside the UkrSSR have disappeared from the lede again. On that talk page I already provided several reliable sources that demonstrate that the famine affected not only contemporary Urkainian territory. (It is interesting to see how some Ukrainian nationalists are ready to betray their Ukrainian brothers in North Caucasus who also suffered from the 1933 famine. Clearly, that has been done to eliminate any mentioning of the Volga and Kazakhstan famines, that otherwise would have to be mentioned along with North Caucasus).
Usually on WP pages, a lede starts with mentioning of greater event to present the event of interest in a broader context. For instance, the
Western Front article's lede contains reference to World War I. The
Bengal famine of 1943 article's lede contains the references to other famines.
In connection to that, it is absolutely necessary to re-introduce the statement that the 1933 famine affected other areas of the USSR and that Holodomor was a part of more global famine.--
Paul Siebert (
talk)
17:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- everybody here is trying to improve the article. AGF baby, AGF. Namecalling hurts everybody. I'm sure that you would not appreciate being called a "Holodomor denier". So please let's stay focussed. Thanks, Horlo ( talk) 09:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
"The first reports of mass malnutrition and deaths from starvation emerged from 2 urban area of Uman - by the time Vinnytsya and Kiev oblasts dated by beginning of January 1933. " - this reads like something was deleted at the end of it or something. Are the "2 urban area" refer to Vinnytsya and Kiev? radek ( talk) 23:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Re: undos by Bobanni Sept. 8 2009.
First paragraph: in which millions of people were starved to death and in which millions of people were starved to death - unnecessary repetition and inflammatory (were starved rather than starved), this is an encyclopedic entry not a white book of soviet terror.
bumper wheat crop in 1932 - highly debatable piece of info, no matter the source. Multiple opposing views say of extremely poor crops two years in a row.
10 million casualties - mathematically impossible, no matter how censuses were falsified (if at all). Take into consideration the progression: Russian censuses - Soviet pre-WWII - Soviet casualties during WWII (27 million) - late Soviet population enumerations. There had to be a spike of births in Ukraine somewhere between 1913 and 1931, which is nonsense considering WWI and early Soviet years, Civil War, etc.
Deleting the map of official recognition of historic event and the term 'holodomor' - not pretty at all :(
'Therefore the Holodomor is also known as the "terror-famine in Ukraine" - another emotional outburst. It is called that way by those who accept that viewpoint.
Falsification: There was no 'joint declaration at the United Nations in 2003' that 'has defined the famine as the result of cruel actions and policies of the totalitarian regime that caused the deaths of millions of Ukrainians, Russians, Kazakhs and other nationalities in the USSR. In fact it was a Joint Statement on the 70th anniversary of Holodomor, written by Ukraine, 'supported' by over 60 delegations - less than one third of UN membership. It was issued as an official document of the General Assembly but never had a official status of a UN Declaration.
Etymology: This is just a flight of fantasy by someone who apparently does not speak Ukranian very well. Only one of the word's possible translations (-Mor) is plague (rather pestilence than plague as infectious disease), the main one is mass death, period.
possibly from the expression moryty holodom, ‘to inflict death by hunger’. The Ukrainian verb "moryty" (морити) means "to poison somebody, drive to exhaustion or to torment somebody". ??? Possibly?? What is all this? BSDM dictionary? Hire a professional interpreter before editing.
Sometimes the expression is translated into English as "murder by hunger or starvation. Again, in the eye of the beholder, unofficially it can be translated any way you want it.
Scope and duration: Again as before: It is believed that over 12 million Ukrainians died in this small time period. Believed by whom? Why not 22 million or 32 million? We have a book by an English author on the Tanks of WWII, in a footnote entry dedicated to the explanation of a Russian term kulak the book says of 60 million kulaks eliminated by Stalin. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a livejournal discussion board.
Bfmlc1 ( talk) 20:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
"death by hunger"? according to
Encyclopedia of genocide and crimes against humanity, Volume 3 By Dinah Shelton Holodomor means "extermination by starvation".--
Termer (
talk)
04:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
First of all, unlike you I didn't talk about the etymology in the first place but about the meaning of the word. So I have no idea why did you once again got carried away and posted a grade school lecture on etymology here, on the talk page about Holodomor?-- Termer ( talk) 02:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Bfmlc1 ( talk) 21:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Coming shorlty
Coming shortly
Bfmlc1 ( talk) 22:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
(Outdent) Hello, Bfmlc1 (is that Dutch?) well, if you don't mind being blunt, then neither do I. First, you need to get off the pedestal which makes you think that you are the only person who is correct, and every other editor who has contributed to this article is wrong.
How can you assume to work with somebody after a sentence like "you are so poisonously biased you are not in a position to even mention good faith"? The reason you have not been reported as a disruptive influence is the good faith of all the editors here, including me. Learn the difference between opinion and attitude. Fast.
Now, again, a quick lesson in Wikipedia etiquette - if there is a fact with which you disagree, simply add a "citation needed" tag after it. Don't assume that because there is no reference listed that none exists.
Second, if you have an issue with an article like this one, which has the potential for misinterpretation, make sure that you understand what is being said before adding condescending guidance or tags. Tagging without making a substantial improvement to the article is considered rude. If a vast majority of editors seem to disagree with you on a particular topic, there are other methods of dealing with the issues. I'm sure that you will be able to find them just as quickly as you were able to find the page with tags.
Finally, please at least take the time to read your edits before posting them if you want to be taken seriously. Thanks, Horlo ( talk) 08:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The communist genocide has a big section regarding this famine and the history of genocide claims. I am personally responsible for most of the prose (which is based on this article and other articles in Russian and English Wikipedia.) there, and would like editors of holodomor come and see. Feel free to use my ideas there or correct them as you see fit regardless of what you might think of the POV title of that article. Another question is that I could not find anything on history of usage of the term, other than a claim that it was popularized in 1980-90s by Ukrainian independence movement. ( Igny ( talk) 03:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC))
Why is this thread here? You said you wrote your own entry on ' communist genocide'. Why can't you discuss it there? No offense but it looks like a deliberate trick to dilute discussions on the topic at hand Bfmlc1 ( talk) 06:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Quote: There were no natural causes for starvation and in fact, Ukraine - unlike other Soviet Republics - enjoyed a bumper wheat crop in 1932.[1][2]
Reference 1 (Britannica):
The Ukrainian grain harvest of 1932 had resulted in below-average yields (in part because of the chaos wreaked by the collectivization campaign), but it was more than sufficient to sustain the population. Nevertheless, Soviet authorities set requisition quotas for Ukraine at an impossibly high level. Brigades of special agents were dispatched to Ukraine to assist in procurement, and homes were routinely searched and foodstuffs confiscated.
Reference 2 (Modernization from the other shore..):
While poor weather may have contributed to the problems of the country-side, the famine was in no way a natural disaster.
Where on earth is the 'Bumper crop'? Bfmlc1 ( talk) 16:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Reference 8 (genocide-encyclopedia):
Just how many died from starvation in Ukraine will never be known. Deaths due to malnutrition were not recorded. Deductions made from the official censuses of 1926 and 1939, and the suppressed census of 1937, have given rise to various interpretations and conclusions. Estimates for Ukraine vary from four to ten million. Six million was the figure a Kharkiv official gave an American newspaper editor in 1933—it still seems the most plausible.
Using this reference as a back up for 10 million claim is incorrect, since it quotes 6 million as the 'most plausible' number. Bfmlc1 ( talk) 17:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
-- Львівське ( talk) 03:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
Could somebody please point to specific parts of this article which need to be improved so that the "neutrality" tag can be removed?
Thanks, Horlo ( talk) 07:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
All those questions have been addressed previously on this talk page, please familiarize yourselves with it. There is no good reason to keep running the discussion in circles.--
Termer (
talk)
06:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
PS. IN case
Paul Siebert you'd like to add such opinions like "...a nationalistic POV" and "the similarity between the words The Holocaust and Holodomor seems to be used..." etc to the article, please find secondary published sources that do say so and simply add the opinion to the article accordingly. At the same time please do not use the talk page for publishing your own opinions about the subject. Thanks!--
Termer (
talk)
06:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:TALK should answer all your questions. And any politically charged statements you make at talk pages should better be based on WP:RS, otherwise it might look like you're posting here your own political opinions.-- Termer ( talk) 20:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Please be more specific Igny, based on what sources and how exactly would you like to improve this article? Thanks!-- Termer ( talk) 00:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
how and when the Ukrainian term Holodomor entered English language? Well, in Canada the word genocide and the Holodomor have been tied together in the secondary school English language curriculum for quite some time. FFI please see the 1995 English quarterly, Volumes 27-29 By the Canadian Council of Teachers of English: Title: Discourse, Power, Social Abuse and Vigilance: Learning about the "Holodomor" in English Studies Classrooms.; Abstract: Explores some of the possibilities and problems of teaching secondary school students about genocide through the study of language used to describe the event. Focuses on Eastern Europe during the Stalin era when a catastrophe known as the "Holodomor" occurred. [7].-- Termer ( talk) 04:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
In general, arguments of the Ukrainian POV's proponent are a little bit funny. According to them, Holodomor was the Ukrainian name of the 1932-33 famine in Ukraine, consequently Holodomor was the event completely separate and different from the famines in Volga, North Caucasus and Kazakhstan. Definitely, this "consequently" is a pure example of a logical fallacy. I believe, renaming of the article can help to fix the problem. However, the major problem with the article is that it is almost ignored by non-Ukrainian and non-Eastern European editors, and it would not be easy for the latters to support renaming. I believe, the lack of interest to this article of non-Eastern European editors may serve an indirect proof that the word Holodomor has not become yet an English word: the non-Ukrainian world uses "Soviet famine" instead.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 06:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Did you just suggest that they study Ukrainian language in English class? It is my understanding though that the language that gets studied in English class is English, not Ukrainian.-- Termer ( talk) 15:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Says who and where?-- Termer ( talk) 06:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but a suggestion by you that they study Ukrainian language in English class in Canada cant be taken seriously.-- Termer ( talk) 03:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, to summarize this discussion, the single issue raised so far is the naming of the article. There are well known routines existing for this, and not using these routines and just slapping "POV" template instead is counter-productive. Please go forward with move procedure, or do not disrupt this article. -- windyhead ( talk) 21:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
FYI language that gets studied in English class in English Igny, not Ukrainian. -- Termer ( talk) 03:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Recently I added a reference from this 1937 article from TIME Magazine as a reference, but my edit was been undone.
My question for you: do TIME articles like this above are really doubtful source?-- MaGioZal ( talk) 12:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The introduction starts off with a number of refutable statements. Instead of it introducing the topic, it directly goes on to say the causes, which it presents as facts.
There were no natural causes for starvation and in fact, Ukraine - unlike other Soviet Republics - enjoyed a bumper wheat crop in 1932
According to a number of sources, there indeed was. In A History of Ukraine by Mikhail Hrushevsky, a leading Ukrainian historian he writes
Again a year of drought coincided with chaotic agricultural conditions
Also Professor Nicholas Riasnovsky from Harvard wrote
Severe droughts in 1930 and 1931, especially in the Ukraine, aggravated the plight of farming and created near famine conditions
There was also other causes to the famine. However the article tries to impose upon the reader that Stalin himself was a deliberate cause. Kulak opposition to the collectivization made a huge blow to the agriculture.
Fredric Schuman wrote
Their [kulak] opposition took the initial form of slaughtering their cattle and horses in preference to having them collectivized. The result was a grievous blow to Soviet agriculture, for most of the cattle and horses were owned by the kulaks. Between 1928 and 1933 the number of horses in the USSR declined from almost 30,000,000 to less than 15,000,000; of horned cattle from 70,000,000 (including 31,000,0000 cows) to 38,000,000 (including 20,000,000 cows); of sheep and goats from 147,000,000 to 50,000,000; and of hogs from 20,000,000 to 12,000,000. Soviet rural economy had not recovered from this staggering loss by 1941.
`... Some [kulaks] murdered officials, set the torch to the property of the collectives, and even burned their own crops and seed grain. More refused to sow or reap, perhaps on the assumption that the authorities would make concessions and would in any case feed them.
`The aftermath was the ``Ukraine famine of 1932--33 .... Lurid accounts, mostly fictional, appeared in the Nazi press in Germany and in the Hearst press in the United States, often illustrated with photographs that turned out to have been taken along the Volga in 1921 .... The ``famine was not, in its later stages, a result of food shortage, despite the sharp reduction of seed grain and harvests flowing from special requisitions in the spring of 1932 which were apparently occasioned by fear of war in Japan. Most of the victims were kulaks who had refused to sow their fields or had destroyed their crops.'
There had also been a typhoid epidemic at the time. There having been no antibiotics, it was the cause of many deaths.
Dr. Hans Blumenfeld, internationally respected city planner and recipient of the Order of Canada, worked as an architect in Makayevka, Ukraine during the famine. He wrote:
`There is no doubt that the famine claimed many victims. I have no basis on which to estimate their number .... Probably most deaths in 1933 were due to epidemics of typhus, typhoid fever, and dysentery. Waterborne diseases were frequent in Makeyevka; I narrowly survived an attack of typhus fever.'
Also Isaac Mazepa, leader of the Ukrainian Nationalist movement confirmed Fredrick's observations.
`At first there were disturbances in the kolkhosi [collective farms] or else the Communist officials and their agents were killed, but later a system of passive resistance was favored which aimed at the systematic frustation of the Bolsheviks' plans for the sowing and gathering of the harvest .... The catastrophe of 1932 was the hardest blow that Soviet Ukraine had to face since the famine of 1921--1922. The autumn and spring sowing campaigns both failed. Whole tracts were left unsown, in addition when the crop was being gathered ... in many areas, especially in the south, 20, 40 and even 50 per cent was left in the fields, and was either not collected at all or was ruined in the threshing.'
Id also like to point out that the title itself is biased. It instantly assumes the famine was a genocide.
Faustian ( talk) 22:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Of course its pro-Stalin. Anything that defends Stalin is immediately marked as pro-Stalin and thus a useless source?
How can you listen to any opposition this way?
And the comment on the gulags was a joke. Your going to criticize me of being a anti-capitalist crusader? The right has made a tremendous amount of effort even before the Cold War era to make every possible lie against communism. These lies continue here, even in the supposedly neutral Wikipedia. Any anti-capitalist source is viewed as false purely because of its nature, and any anti-communist source coming from anywhere is agreed with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakooza2 ( talk • contribs) 22:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Bravo, and you marked off my comments because of POV? What is wrong with a pro-Stalin source. Do you expect an anti-Stalinist to write about how Stalin wasn't a massive murder? Going by your logic, it would be impossible to defend any view, because I would immediately say that you used a source which used bias. Presenting things in an unbiased way is a good thing, but its impossible to do so when making an argument. By the same logic, I can also dismiss anything anti-communist because they come from anti-communists. The pro-Stalin source I used has its sources, it has its facts, and it has its explanations and reasons. You cannot say the whole book is useless just because its written in favor of Stalin. That is bias right there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakooza2 ( talk • contribs) 23:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The title on the famine is called Holodomor, the criticism of it are termed "Denial" and the section dedicated to the criticism is further attacks on the leftist viewpoint.
And why the hell do you decide the basis of Wikipedia articles? All I did was introduce the leftist view. Whether you believe it was true or ridiculous or not, it doesn't matter. Its purpose was to be neutrul. Even if we leftists believed Stalin was an alien, we'd have the right to put that view of ours in there as long as we did not present it as a fact through the use of words such as "believe". For example, "Leftists believe Stalin was contacted by an alien and told he ignore the famine or they would kill the world".
The article on the Holodomor is anything but neutral. It makes constant attacks and presents them as facts. And the sections dedicated to criticism are controlled by the opposition itself!
Wikipedia isn't the place to argue whose view is true, it is the place to present a neutral view on topics. You are going directly against this.
Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
The article even has this banner flying on the top
The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (September 2009)
Why? Because its strongly rightist and dismisses any criticisms. Any attempt I made at making it neutral was turned down by you and other rightists.
As of the quote. It doesn't matter what the author of that book believes. He presented an argument, I posted it in a neutral way. It is not for you to decide if its right or not. That is the readers job.
Also, as a communist I find any anti-communist source useless. Does this give me the right to erase from Wikipedia anything that's anti-communist? No. Does it give me the right to edit them to show a neutral position? Yes. Yakooza2 ( talk) 23:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for admitting about yourself that "as a communist I find any anti-communist source useless." Not everbody who describes Stalinist crimes is a "rightist." Being nuetral does not mean that all sources are equal in terms of their reliablity nor notability. The source you quote from is hardly reliable and your use of it is frankly little diffeent from using a neo-Nazi website in a "criticism" section (renamed from denial) on the Holocaust. That aside, we do not even know how much of what your unreliable source claims is quoted out of context from the original (actually, you did not even provide references for all your additions, I found the source myself using google). Faustian ( talk) 23:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
"Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article." - WP:NPOV - moritheil Talk 02:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, please provide a quote from "Million Feared Dead of Hunger in South Russia" confirming "Estimates on the total number of casualties within Soviet Ukraine range mostly from 1 million" it is a source for -- windyhead ( talk) 16:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, please provide a quote from the source confirming "The term first appeared in print on July 18, 1988" [10] -- windyhead ( talk) 10:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
few things that pop out for me right away: who exactly considers the Holodomor "one of the greatest calamities to affect the Ukrainian nation in modern history"?
and
"Millions of inhabitants of Ukraine died of starvation in an unprecedented peacetime catastrophe". Is it just me or does "an unprecedented peacetime catastrophe" sound a bit over the top? No disrespect meant but surely calling it "unprecedented" would at least need an explanation why and how it was "unprecedented". The human history has had its dark moments before and after Holodomor, so is this "unprecedented" really appropriate here? Hope you see what I mean.-- Termer ( talk) 03:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm always intend to be unanimous with whatever the sources say. And currently there is nothing to WP:VERIFY with that the Holodomor was "one of the greatest calamities". So it needs to go.-- Termer ( talk) 02:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I am afraid to add it to the article just yet, but here is an interesting report for discussion. ( Igny ( talk) 03:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC))
Would anyone be interested in adding a section linking this to the killing of Jews during World War II -- as a reprisal for the perception that Jews were to blame for the famine? (as communist agents). I am not arguing for or against this position (I do not know enough to say), but believe this is very germane to understanding the Holodomor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.237.237 ( talk) 19:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
After some extensive search I found what I was interested in.
Text was probably originally composed for Lemkin’s address at the 1953 Ukrainian
Famine commemoration in New York. Later Lemkin added it to the material he was
gathering for his elaborate History of Genocide which was never published. Ed, Roman Serbyn.
It was never published by Lemkin, only a few Lemkin scholars knew about this speech. On the other hand, phrases like "was probably composed", "ignored or downplayed by most of the scholars" are a bit worrying. ( Igny ( talk) 00:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC))
The court of appeals in Kyiv has opened hearings into the "fact of genocide-famine Holodomor" in Ukraine in 1932-33 yesterday (Kiev-time). Only I do not understand who will be sentenced, Stalin In absentia??? Anybody knows some more on this? — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 22:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The Ukrainian Canadian Congress states 7-10 million. - this statement is correctly reported and must not be deleted. It does not state that the death toll estimate is 7-10 million. It only reports what the Ukrainian Canadian Congress found through their inquiry. Please do not mis-quote WP:RS that the all info must come from peer reviewed sources. By deleting this NPOV is introduced into the article. Bobanni ( talk) 02:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Once more the US in good company, united with dictatorships, fascist and ex-fascist govs. Cute. Hey, even GB is missing. (This observation independent of the question whether holodomor happened or not, just noting the pattern of the game.) -- 92.202.213.51 ( talk) 00:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
This seems like the total low end and only accepted by a fringe group of people. Majority of scholars put it at 4.8 as an absolute low, while 7.5 seems to be the higher. The generally accepted range should be in the lead, not the outliers.-- Львівське ( talk) 20:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Yushchenko does not blame Russia for Holodomor. Where to put this in the article? — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 22:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I think this is important and it should be added to the article. I present this source http://www.altermedia.info/civil-rights/holodomor_1185.html . This will undoubtedly make this article non kosher, but it is important! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wis ( talk • contribs) 03:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The official Yanukovich's statement hardly reflects his own private opinion, so this statement seems to be sufficient to state that Ukraine does not recognize Holodomor as genocide any more.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 19:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I actually do not see much sense in compiling lists of countries "recognizing Holodomor as genocide". While dictatorships have uniform views on all history questions, democracies are run by politicians having different views (or even not having any particular views at all). USA e.g. couple of times adopted laws commemorating victims of the famine that used word Genocide. Its UN representative on the other hand voted against using this term at some point, etc. It is not showing changes in the official position of the USA (that does not exist) but just show that different American politicians have different opinions on the problem (as well as e.g. whether treatment of Australian aboriginals or American Indians constituted a genocide, whether Irish famine was a genocide, and million similar questions). IMHO much more usable will be to refer to laws, cour decisions, statements by officials, etc. that could be seen as support or otherwise that Holodomor was a genocide. Saying this, Ukraine position is based on Ukrainian Laws, Appellate Court decisions, etc. They are still valid whatever Yanukovich had said in an obscure speech. Thus, if we are to present lists of "Holodomor is Genocide" countries then Ukraine is still in although a footnote is probably deserved. Alex Bakharev ( talk) 01:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, recent edits put "over 10 million of people starved to death" and so on into article, but that's not what the source says. The source given says "cumulative loss" which is not the same. -- windyhead ( talk) 09:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Moved: was at [[Talk:User_talk:Windyhead]]
Please explain what you mean by "the source says 'cumulative'". My source does say cumulative losses, but cumulative losses means not only Ukrainians, but other nationalities as well. Which is why I never claim that 10 million Ukrainians died - instead I say people.
And this still doesn't actually explain the removal of the two other additions of mine. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Oxenbrigg (
talk •
contribs)
17:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Could anyone add a section as to what brought an end to the famine, what actions were taken, how did Ukraine recover from the famine? What played the role in the famine, if one looks at the regional heads, then quite a number lost their position in 1933. Obviously a missing section in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.170.84.179 ( talk) 09:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
While working on Famine in India, I thought of and created a new infobox template that can potentially be used in every famine article on Wikipedia. For a list of articles where it can be used, see the categories famines in India, famines and other relevant categories. The usage documentation still needs some improvement and the template might undergo minor teaks further. I am looking for feedback from an expert on famines so I can add/improve parameters in the template. Please feel free to comment/suggest improvements. Zuggernaut ( talk) 01:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I started a section that ought to be expanded about how this was accomplished - not underlying causes but how the grain was taken/how food was taken from the starving peasants/how the Holodomor was implemented. Faustian ( talk) 05:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
is another example of a very odd transliteration. "Holodomor" Ukrainian: Холодомор means death of cold; death of hunger is Ukrainian: Голодомор (Холод = cold, Голод = hunger, googletranslate will confirm that :). Everyone in their right mind would transliterate Голодомор as Golodomor. Any support to change the title? Materialscientist ( talk) 07:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The name seems POV and a more neutral name is "Ukrainian famine". TFD ( talk) 05:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Do not move - Holodomor describes this event specifically and is used by the European Parliament, Ukrainian Government, etc. specifically to describe this event. "Ukrainian famine" could refer to lots of events; even the "Great Ukrainian famine" would be a form of denial, i.e. a POV in the title. Smallbones ( talk) 12:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Reject. See Lvivske comment above.-- Galassi ( talk) 12:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, my final thought on this is to keep the article at Holodomor. Bear in mind I have only read about 15 of the main sources (in Google scholar) for each of these terms. It appears that the term is 100% political term adopted by historians to help cement the association to the Holocaust. The better scholarly work appears to refer strongly to "Ukrainian famine" and notes "Holodomor", generally, only as a term adopted by Ukrainian Historians. On the other hand it is a widely adopted term, and no longer quite has the POV twist it originally inferred. So... whilst there is no really strong reason not to rename it, I don't think a strong reason exists to rename it. Although I would note that the above rationale against the move is mostly junk and not based in either policy or sources. -- Errant [tmorton166] ( chat!) 13:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
It is impossible to describe the scholarly consensus on the famine under the title Holodomor, as it is a propaganda term. If this article is to discuss the famine, then the title needs to be changed. If however we are to have an article under the present title, then the first sentence must make it explicitly clear that the term is not universally accepted and is only relevant in the context of modern Ukrainian historiography. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 13:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The claim at the top of this thread that This is like suggesting we move "Holocaust" to "Big Jewish pogrom" fails quite miserably. Holodomor is a Ukrainian term, used in a particular nationalist narrative. "Holocaust", on the other hand is an English term. The argument would only make a tiny bit of sense if Wikipedia's Holocaust article were at
Shoah, which (unlike Holodomor) is not a nationalist term, but (like Holodomor) is a foreign-language term. However, as you'll notice, the Shoah article is just a re-direct to
The Holocaust, so if anything, that would be an argument for moving the Holodomor article to an English-language title, and keeping Holodomor as a re-direct. As an aside, that comment must be a record for proving
Godwin's law - first comment in the thread, and it took only 28 minutes.
Now, if we were to restrict ourselves to relevant arguments, the only relevant guideline here is
WP:ENGLISH, and all arguments should be made in relation to it. What is the most common term used in reliable English-language sources? It's possible that it's also Holodomor, but we need some evidence one way or the other.
Jayjg
(talk)
18:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose move. It seems so obvious that I'm not even sure how to justify this oppose. But anyway, in terms of English language sources, how hard is it to type in "Holodomor" into google books (by itself 3K+ hits [13]) along with a some English word to screen out non-English sources: [14], [15], etc. While the word Holodomor may be of Ukrainian origin by now it has entered the English lexicon and most certainly English language academic discourse.
Also, while I understand (and essentially agree with) Jayjg's point one big difference in the Holodomor/Famine vs. Shoah/Holocaust analogy is that in the latter case, both terms "Shoah" and "Holocaust" accurately convey the nature of the thing being discussed. Not so with Holodomor and Famine where the second term obfuscates rather than informs. radek ( talk) 19:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
<--First, no. That is not what I "believed". I have no idea how you get that from my comments (the word "Holodomor" does not appear in your link. The word "Ukraine" appears twice in someone else's comments). Second, what is the relevance of that to this discussion? We are NOT discussing whether the Holodomor was or wasn't a genocide (which is indeed under discussion among scholars), what we are discussing is whether the term Holodomor is used by English language sources (which it is, overwhelmingly). This is a red herring. To steal a bad joke from a bad movie a red red herring. So what does your comment have to do with anything? You're not only bringing up irrelevancies but are also putting words in my mouth/head. radek ( talk) 05:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
britannica
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Losses
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Vallin2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Fawkes
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Vallin2005
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Vallinbook
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Tragediya
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The Soviet Union was notorious for commiting repressions against people, based on their ethnicity: Chechens, Ingushians, Kalmucks, Crimean Tatars, and some others were forcefully deported en masse from their homelands - with almost half of these ethnic groups' members having been perished in the process. According to Joseph Stalin's close confidant, collaborator, and assistant N. Khrushchev, Stalin had also singled out Ukrainians as victims of such ethnic cleansings. Thus, in his famous XX party speach, Khrushchev said the following:
"Thus, already at the end of 1943, when there occurred a permanent breakthrough at the fronts of the Great Patriotic War benefiting the Soviet Union, a decision was taken and executed concerning the deportation of all the Karachai from the lands on which they lived.
In the same period, at the end of December 1943, the same lot befell the whole population of the Autonomous Kalmyk Republic. In March 1944, all the Chechen and Ingush peoples were deported and the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Republic was liquidated. In April 1944, all Balkars were deported to faraway places from the territory of the Kabardino-Balkar Autonomous Republic and the Republic itself was renamed the Autonomous Kabardian Republic.
The Ukrainians avoided meeting this fate only because there were too many of them and there was no place to which to deport them. Otherwise, he would have deported them also".
Having so targeted the Ukrainians and realizing the technical impossibility of deporting them en masse (even though the deportations continued from the 1920s to 1950s at full pace), the Soviet leadership took a decision to accelerate the process of de-Ukrainization of Ukraine by organizing a mass starvation of Ukrainian population and bringing millions of ethnic Russians and other Russian-speaking groups in their place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vox Veritatae ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
There are numerous publications of the famous Khrushchev's speech - all of them include this passage. Ethic cleansings perpetrated in Soviet Union are also well established facts - references can be easily found. (Unfortunately, I do not have time for this myself).
Khrushchev is describing deportations undertaken in the context of WWII. That has no relevance for deciding what occurred in 1932-3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.43 ( talk) 20:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Of course Khrushchev did not mention the Holodomor among the list of Stalin's crimes, as he, Khrushchev was deeply implicated himself. The Khrushchev's speech is absolutely necessary and directly relevant to the topic, as it is a valuable testimony to the fact that various people of the USSR were indeed targeted just because of their ethnicity and not just because of their class origin, as is often alleged. Thus, even if some ethnic cleansings against other groups happened 9 years later, they still are a valid testimony of ethnicity-based phobias of Soviet leadership.
"The total population shortfall from the expected value between 1926 and 1939 estimated by Vallin amounted to 4.566 million. Of this number, 1.057 million is attributed to birth deficit, 930,000 to forced out-migration, and 2.582 million to excess mortality and voluntary out-migration. With the latter assumed to be negligible this estimate gives the number of deaths as the result of the 1933 famine about 2.2 million."
If they are taking into account the "out-migration" they should take into account the "in-migration" too! Millions of ethnic Russians have replaced the dead and deported, thus making the total population loss look smaller! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vox Veritatae ( talk • contribs) 20:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
You don't mean to say that soviet authorities - and statistics - are suspect ??? Horlo ( talk) 08:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh - Wait Horlo ( talk) 08:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The broad trend in the Soviet economy during these years was for people to move from rural to urban locations as industry was established. The cases of some Russians moving into Urainia are not such as to counteract this as a general demographic trend.
Please read attentively - I am not challenging the figures provided by Vallin. I am saying that he cites population out-migration, which can explain some of the general population decreases, but does not mention the great numbers of people arriving from other parts of the USSR. This influx of people makes the total population decrease to appear smaller. This innacuracy on Vallin's part makes the number of people who died from hunger look much smaller. And I do not get what is your point in mentioning urbanization. Yes, Russians moved mostly to cities (as well as some of those rural Ukrainians, who managed to flee their starving villages for cities - very often that was done illegally, as they had no internal passports and "propiska" (registration)). Maybe, the point of your comment is that the resettlement of Russians into Ukraine was not done to change the ethnic compositions, but just as a "natural process of urbanization"? This is counterintuitive - why starve people locally and at the same time bring them from thousands of kilometers away? But even if there was some economic rationale for this (rare specialists, fluent speakers of the dominant language etc), it does NOT exclude other goals behind this. History is full of examples when one action was driven by several objectives. Otherwise, you can also tell that removal of Jews from Warsaw after the Warsaw Ghetto Rising was "not such as to counteract this as a general demographic trend", when people are leaving impoverished cities for safer life in the countryside. Or that German colonisation attempts in Ukraine during World war two were also "not such as to counteract this as a general demographic trend", when people emigrate from "Old Europe" in search of better life abroad. (After all Germans historically always emigrated to various countries - America, Russia etc, so Hitler's idea to settle them in Ukraine was "in general trend" and, thus, not imperialistic???)
This major section deletion cannot be justified in an edit summary-use talk Bobanni ( talk) 02:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
His figure of 14 million people killed, taken from a media report, is so far beyond all the other figures that it doesn't seem to belong in the article's lead, does it? Faustian ( talk) 05:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I do not feel that that is appropriate for a piece of this gravity. 160.39.37.159 ( talk) 03:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
The suggestion that there is a traditional view and a more recent view could be a perception stemming from soviet denial and censorship. The both views were advanced In the 30s. Bobanni ( talk) 03:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I've reinserted the reference in the lead with more general wording, as there are more reliable references for higher estimates which can be added. As for Service, that Novosti, the Russian state press service, reported the story is obvious and incontrovertible evidence that the Russian government takes such discussions of far higher estimates seriously. No editor here is a censor stating "NO" to reputably sourced information whether we personally like it or not or personally believe it or not.
Unfortunately, editors had even deleted mention of the Encyclopedia Britannica number in the lead (earlier) because they didn't like it, so I am extremely skeptical of editors arguing against any mention of existence of higher numbers in the lead.
PetersV
TALK
13:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
One more comment. Looking through the article's history I noticed that I was not a first person who pointed out that the RIAN article contains no mentioning of Service. The user Alaexis did that before me (see his comments). Therefore, instead of screaming censorship one would have to check the reference he was going to re-insert.
Moreover, it seems to be a campaign to play numbers up: no matter how reliable sources are, they (according to some authors) do deserve to be introduced into the article provided that the number of death toll is high.
Neither politicians nor journalists can obtain the numbers of victims by themselves, they only can use the data obtained by one or the another scholar. Therefore, all disputes of that type can be resolved easily: if you think that the number of 14 million is reasonable but the validity of the source rises someone's concern, do the search, find a scholarly article or a book this number came from and feel free to insert this reference into the article.
By the way, since my university has an access to many journals, I can provide some help (for instance, to tell whether one or another number is really present in the article that is not available online for free). And I promise to do that independently on how large or how small these numbers are.
--
Paul Siebert (
talk)
20:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
To continue a discussion on a campaign to play numbers up or down, I would like to discuss the ref 8 (Stephen G. Wheatcroft). In the article, this reference is being used to support the number of 4 to 5 million within Soviet Ukraine. However, in the work cited Wheatcroft gives different numbers: 3 to 3.5 million within Ukraine and 6 to 7 million in the USSR totally during the period of 1931-1933. By the way, this is consistent with the data from other Wheatcroft's works.
--
Paul Siebert (
talk)
20:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Biophys ( talk) 04:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, please provide a quote from the source which says Holodomor is "part of the Soviet famine" -- windyhead ( talk) 20:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, while your arguments may be right, they also may be wrong. I. e., your arguments are disputable. What is not disputable is that the source has no statement that says that Holodomor was part of a wide famine. Please don't use the source which doesn't talk about Holodomor, does not contain that Holodomor was "part of Soviet wide famine", and has no mention about Holodomor at all, to support that Holodomor was "part of Soviet wide famine". -- windyhead ( talk) 16:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I have read in may library books in the U.K. that say the Bashkortostan had lost about 5-10% its population during a similar famine in their A.S.S.R. at the same time.-- 86.29.253.200 ( talk) 11:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Holodomor's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Black":
Reference named "reflections":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
Soviet agricultural, political, and other practices lead people to die all across their empire all the time - however, that has no place in this article, especially in the lead. This article is about the Holodomor, a time when millions of people were starving to death across Ukraine. That people were dying across the USSR is tragic, must be studied, remembered, noteworthy, and will hopefully not be repeated, but that has no place in the lead.
This article is about the Holodomor, the greatest artificially created terror in history. There is no reason to connect the Holodomor with the fact that people were dying in the early '30s in the ussr. Thanks, Horlo ( talk) 07:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Paul, let's stay calm here, please. According to your logic, the Chornobyl catastrophe should also be mentioned in the lead, as people died as a direct result of soviet incompetence.
The Holodomor (capital H) deals with the deaths of 10 million people in Ukraine. Tens of thousands were probably freezing to death in Kamchatka at the same time. Do you suggest that they be mentioned in the lead? People in Kazakhstan were being hunted by soviet fighters - should they also be included in the lead?
Please, let's focus on what this article is trying to describe, the Holodomor (capital H).
Now, would you be so kind as to explain how my separation of the deliberate starvation of a Ukrainian culture by soviet authorities is in any way related to a "natural terror" of the Holocaust? Please, I would love to hear your explanation. How, pray tell, does the Holodomor mean that the killing of millions of Chinese was "natural"?
Please remember - if you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything. Thanks, Horlo ( talk) 08:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Please verify reference - =Shelton,Dinah Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity page 1059(isbn=0028658507) states 10 million.
This is a reliable source - what is to discuss that is not Orginal Research. Bobanni ( talk) 21:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
direct quote from Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity
|
Bobanni ( talk) 01:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Paul, do you know what Wikilawyering means? Thanks, Horlo ( talk) 08:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Paul please see the "further explanation" below regarding the Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, and please read the article from Encydlopedia Britannica and scroll down to the bottom of the page. There, you will find exactly by whom the article was written. If you don't want to follow up on these facts, please don't remove the EB from the lead. Thanks, Horlo ( talk) 09:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I suppose this is beyond repair, however. Mtsmallwood ( talk) 06:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
Reference 4 and 5 seem to be by the same author. I suggest #5 be removed. Thanks, Horlo ( talk) 08:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Going back to the EB reference, and taking into account that WP rules
state the following:"General encyclopedias, like the Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta, sometimes have authoritative signed articles written by specialists and including references. However, unsigned entries are written in batches by freelancers and must be used with caution..." I am waiting for explanations, why in this concrete case these cautions are not needed.
In other words, the explanation must be provided why this concrete EB article can be considered a reliable source. The EB brand is not sufficient per se.
--
Paul Siebert (
talk)
19:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Here I provide my explanations why the EB article and the Encyclopedia of Genocide article are not reliable sources.
Valid references from Encyclopedia Britannica reinstated. They were deleted based on an wikipedia opinion piece that was erroniously represented as wikipedia policy. Both Encyclopedia Britannica and Encyclopedia of Genocide are valid scholarly resources. Bobanni ( talk) 06:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Paul, once again I suggest that you simply scroll down to the bottom of the article about Ukraine, look at the history section, see the detailed bibliography, and even find the name of the author. So please, don't delete anything without discussing it here. Thanks, Horlo ( talk) 11:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
This entry is for Paul Siebert - please do not delete text sourced from "Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity" it author Professor Shelton is an recognized expert on genocide - see quoted biography.
"Biographical SketchProfessor Shelton joined the Law School faculty in 2004. Before her appointment, she was professor of international law and director of the doctoral program in international human rights law at the University of Notre Dame Law School from 1996-2004. She previously taught at Santa Clara University and was a visiting lecturer at the University of California, Davis, Stanford University, University of California, Berkeley, the University of Paris, and the University of Strasbourg, France.
Professor Shelton is the author or editor of three prize-winning books: Protecting Human Rights in the Americas (winner of the 1982 Inter-American Bar Association Book Prize and co-authored with Thomas Buergenthal); Remedies in International Human Rights Law (awarded the 2000 Certificate of Merit, American Society of International Law); and the three volume Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes against Humanity (awarded a “Best Research” book award by the New York Public Library). She also has authored many articles and books on international law, human rights law, and international environmental law. She is a member of the board of editors of the American Journal of International Law and is a counsellor to the American Society of International Law.
Professor Shelton serves on the boards of many human rights and environmental organizations and was made an “honorary European” to join the European Council on Environmental Law. In 2006, she was awarded the prestigious Elizabeth Haub Prize in Environmental Law. From 1987 to 1989, she was the director of the Office of Staff Attorneys at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. She has served as a legal consultant to the United Nations Environment Programme, UNITAR, World Health Organization, European Union, Council of Europe, and Organization of American States."
Hello,
Outside of Wikipedia, are there any reliable English sources that talk about the "Soviet famine of 1932-33?
I will remove this from the lead. Please DON'T re-insert it unless there are reliable, verifiable sources to say that there was a soviet union-wide famine.
Thanks, Horlo ( talk) 09:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Author(s): Michael Ellman
Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 43, No. 2 (1991), pp. 375-379
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/152114
"In particular, by studying the areas worst affected (Ukraine, North Caucasus, Volga, Kazakhstan) it should be possible to throw more light on the situation"
Author(s): Mark B. Tauger Source: Slavic Review, Vol. 50, No. 1 (Spring, 1991), pp. 70-89 Published by: The American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2500600
Author(s): R. W. Davies, M. B. Tauger, S. G. Wheatcroft Source: Slavic Review, Vol. 54, No. 3 (Autumn, 1995), pp. 642-657 Published by: The American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2501740
Author(s): Dana G. Dalrymple Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 16, No. 4 (Apr., 1965), pp. 471-474 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/149901
Author(s): Steven Rosefielde
Source: Slavic Review, Vol. 43, No. 1 (Spring, 1984), pp. 83-88
Published by: The American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies
Stable URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2498736
"Although many Western scholars believe that 5 million Soviet peasants died as a result of forced colectivisation..."
Author(s): Michael Ellman
Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 54, No. 7 (Nov., 2002), pp. 1151-1172
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/826310
The note is quite interesting:"There is a substantial difference between the demographic reality of Soviet power and the popular image of it. This is mainly because released intellectual victims of repression wrote books, the organs were bureaucratic organisations which produced reports and kept records, and Ukrainians have a large diaspora, whereas Central Asian nomad or Russian peasant victims of disease, starvation or deportation, ... generally interest only a few specialists". In other words, according to this author, the Holodomor issue could be even overemphasized, as compared to other famines.
Stephen G. Wheatcroft (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004;
pp. 555. £85).
"In 1932 the Soviet Union experienced another poor harvest. The drive to
obtain grain ... led to widespread deaths from famine in Ukraine, the North
Caucasus and the Volga regions, following the crisis in Kazakhstan ... The
famine reached its climax in the spring and early summer of 1933. Its
demographic, political and economic consequences haunted the Soviet system
throughout the 1930s—and long after."
Hello, taking into account that NONE of the sources you gave mention anything about a "soviet famine" other than that where Ukrainians were being starved, I will remove them from the lead because they give a skewed picture of the situation. I don't know how to say this any more clearly: THERE WAS NO SOVIET WIDE FAMINE. Where Ukrainians lived, they were starved. Throughout the existence of the soviet union, people died due to government incompetence and negligence. However, that is not what this is about. Thanks, Horlo ( talk) 20:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The result of Stalin’s policies was the Great Famine (Holodomor) of 1932–33—a man-made demographic catastrophe unprecedented in peacetime. Of the estimated six to eight million people who died in the Soviet Union, about four to five million were Ukrainians. The famine was a direct assault on the Ukrainian peasantry, which had stubbornly continued to resist collectivization; indirectly, it was an attack on the Ukrainian village, which traditionally had been a key element of Ukrainian national culture. [ —“Ukraine: The famine of 1932–33”, E.B. Online]
. . . As a result, over the winter of 1932–33, a major famine swept the grain-growing areas. Some 4 to 5 million died in Ukraine, and another 2 to 3 million in the North Caucasus and the Lower Volga area. Both the dekulakization terror of 1930–32 and the terror-famine of 1932–33 were particularly deadly in Ukraine and the Ukrainian-speaking area of the Kuban. They were accompanied by a series of repressive measures against the Ukrainian cultural, political, and social leaderships, the Ukraine’s defender Skrypnik committing suicide in July 1933. . . . There is no doubt that the Stalin leadership knew exactly what was happening and used famine as a means of terror, and revenge, against the peasantry. [ —“Union of Soviet Socialist Republics: The Party versus the peasants”, E.B. Online]
[outdent]
I think intentions can not be precisely described. Stalin didn't leave a detailed memoir of his motivations and didn't talk about them to his colleagues, and one cannot ascribe a monolithic motive to an organization as large and diverse as the Soviet power structure, from its dictator down to every apparatchik. These are matters to discuss in the article, and perhaps mention in the intro.
But the introduction needs to describe the boundaries of the concrete manifestations of this famine, so readers know what the article's topic is. If some notable scholars have stated that the Holodomor only refers to a subset of this famine, then that can be mentioned, with references, in the appropriate article section.
I may not have time to take a crack at rewriting the intro myself. — Michael Z. 2009-02-05 20:37 z
Whoa, whoa, whoa - Paul, let's not bring your attitude towards Israel into this discussion. Also, what Russians call World War II is a great topic for debate on the Russian wikipedia, which is not here. The topic here is the Holodomor. What you seem to not understand about my argument is that the Holodomor was an act against Ukrainians. Now - just wait a second, and let me finish - does this mean that there were no acts against Kazakhs? NO! Does this mean that Stalin wanted to kill ONLY Ukrainians? NO! Doe it mean that food was used as a weapon only against Ukrainians? NO! Does this mean that the Holodomor was the only bad thing that happened at the time in the ussr? NOOOO! It means that the Holodomor was an attempt by Stalin to destroy Ukraine as a nation. PERIOD. Just the same way that mentioning the Chornobyl explosion, the massacre at Baby Yar, the expulsion of the Tatars, Stalin's pact of cooperation with Hitler, or any other crimes committed by the soviet regime would make the article confusing, would the mention of any other simultaneous crimes being committed in the name of "the people" anywhere in the ussr. Hope that helps, Horlo ( talk) 07:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
RE:Paul it cannot be in the lead, because there is no consensus on that account. Period. Sorry to point out that you're wrong about that one! please read WP:LEAD The lead... should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist.-- Termer ( talk) 08:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
(Outdent) Hello, I disagree. This had been discussed, and is being discussed now again - and again, I ask you to show who talks about a "soviet famine"? And please don't re-quote the sources at the top of this section, because they all talk about the Holodomor. Thanks, Horlo ( talk) 10:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, dear
Paul, you presented reputable sources, however these sources do nothing to support your argument. Please refrain from speculating about speculation in my arguments - they are grounded in the fact that there are no sources that connect any of the famines that were happenning at the time.
Perhaps you don't understand the problem, so I will re-state it for you: there was no "soviet famine" Now, what does that mean "there was no soviet famine"? It means that the events that were taking place in the soviet union were not connected. Please show me a source that states that they were in any way connected. This is my point - throughout the existence of the soviet empire, many government actions were aimed at destroying people who disagreed with it; in some cases, attempts were made to destroy entire ethnic groups. One example is the Holodomor - another example is the forced resettlement of the Tatar nation from Crimea to Siberia.
Now, again, Holodomor is the time when millions of Ukrainians were starved to death because of soviet policies. There were countless millions sufferring at the hands of the soviet regime all around the soviet union - but that is not the Holodomor.
Now, if you want to add a statement to the article, the burden of evidence rests on you - if you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, ... Thanks, Horlo ( talk) 11:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Let's stop this now OK! First of all the word Holodomor is still relatively speaking a neologism in English. So unless you Horlo insist that all the sources that speak about the 1932-1933 Soviet Famine in fact are about Holodomor, you simply suggesting that the article should be renamed accordingly. It's not too difficult to check it out that for example the way the subject is best known in English " Famine in Ukraine (1932-1933)" gives you 660 returns at google books vs. Holodomor that gets only about an half of it: 325 returns in google books. So please Horlo, if you wish to rename this article pr. WP:NEO and WP:NAME into something like "Famine in Soviet Ukraine (also known as Holodomor)" etc. , please feel free to keep coming with such arguments you've listed above.-- Termer ( talk) 07:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
There was a sentence in the Etymology section that claimed that Holodomor was a Russian word taken into Ukrainian.
Please do not restore the sentence without a source.
Thanks, Horlo ( talk) 10:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
why Holodomor and not Golodomor as a primary title? Holodomor means death by freezing (from Holod, or Kholod). -
Alsandro ·
T ·
w:ka:
Th ·
T
05:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Alsandro, this is a typical translation problem: in Ukrainian there are two distinct letters, the "г"(in English "h") and "ґ"(in English "g"). This may not exist in all translation alphabets, or in all cyrillic typesets. This should not be confused with "х" ("kh" in English). So there is a difference between "Голодомор" and "Холодомор". Maybe there isn't in Russian, but there is in Ukrainian and English. Thanks, Horlo ( talk) 09:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Please add a reference to a recent scandalous opening of Holodomor exposition: they included photos of Great Depression there :)
http://forums.ec.europa.eu/debateeurope/viewtopic.php?p=133729&sid=7b3ff8b132cbea308dec484fea09aeb6 (English translation) http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?&q=105418&cid=22&p=10.03.2009 (Russian) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.127.48.140 ( talk) 06:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe this statement in the second paragraph of the "Scope and Duration" section should be revised as shown.
According to the Central Committee of the CP(b) of Ukraine Decree as of February 8 1933 all hunger cases should not have been remain untreated, all local authorities were directly obliged to submit reports about number of suffered suffering from hunger, reasons of hunger, number of deaths from hunger and about food aid provided from local sources and centrally provided food aid required.
I didn't write this, so I wanted to make sure the intended meaning was preserved. Barjeconiah ( talk) 05:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
This article cites a purported book by Lemkin via a [Ukrainian popular news website http://unian.net/eng/news/news-277220.html]. But a book by Lemkin titled "History of Genocide" was never written by him. There is not an ISBN number or publisher for that alleged book. Popular news websites should never cited in an academic article. Even if Lemkin had written this book, his opinion would be irrelevant because he was not a specialist in Russian history. Kamop ( talk) 00:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I think that the topics regarding the modern politicisation of Holodomor and different opinions whether the famine was a genocide belong to Holodomor in modern politics and Holodomor genocide question. The main article should be mostly devoted to the facts about the famine itself Alex Bakharev ( talk) 10:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
[6]. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 11:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that any mention of famine outside the UkrSSR have disappeared from the lede again. On that talk page I already provided several reliable sources that demonstrate that the famine affected not only contemporary Urkainian territory. (It is interesting to see how some Ukrainian nationalists are ready to betray their Ukrainian brothers in North Caucasus who also suffered from the 1933 famine. Clearly, that has been done to eliminate any mentioning of the Volga and Kazakhstan famines, that otherwise would have to be mentioned along with North Caucasus).
Usually on WP pages, a lede starts with mentioning of greater event to present the event of interest in a broader context. For instance, the
Western Front article's lede contains reference to World War I. The
Bengal famine of 1943 article's lede contains the references to other famines.
In connection to that, it is absolutely necessary to re-introduce the statement that the 1933 famine affected other areas of the USSR and that Holodomor was a part of more global famine.--
Paul Siebert (
talk)
17:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- everybody here is trying to improve the article. AGF baby, AGF. Namecalling hurts everybody. I'm sure that you would not appreciate being called a "Holodomor denier". So please let's stay focussed. Thanks, Horlo ( talk) 09:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
"The first reports of mass malnutrition and deaths from starvation emerged from 2 urban area of Uman - by the time Vinnytsya and Kiev oblasts dated by beginning of January 1933. " - this reads like something was deleted at the end of it or something. Are the "2 urban area" refer to Vinnytsya and Kiev? radek ( talk) 23:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Re: undos by Bobanni Sept. 8 2009.
First paragraph: in which millions of people were starved to death and in which millions of people were starved to death - unnecessary repetition and inflammatory (were starved rather than starved), this is an encyclopedic entry not a white book of soviet terror.
bumper wheat crop in 1932 - highly debatable piece of info, no matter the source. Multiple opposing views say of extremely poor crops two years in a row.
10 million casualties - mathematically impossible, no matter how censuses were falsified (if at all). Take into consideration the progression: Russian censuses - Soviet pre-WWII - Soviet casualties during WWII (27 million) - late Soviet population enumerations. There had to be a spike of births in Ukraine somewhere between 1913 and 1931, which is nonsense considering WWI and early Soviet years, Civil War, etc.
Deleting the map of official recognition of historic event and the term 'holodomor' - not pretty at all :(
'Therefore the Holodomor is also known as the "terror-famine in Ukraine" - another emotional outburst. It is called that way by those who accept that viewpoint.
Falsification: There was no 'joint declaration at the United Nations in 2003' that 'has defined the famine as the result of cruel actions and policies of the totalitarian regime that caused the deaths of millions of Ukrainians, Russians, Kazakhs and other nationalities in the USSR. In fact it was a Joint Statement on the 70th anniversary of Holodomor, written by Ukraine, 'supported' by over 60 delegations - less than one third of UN membership. It was issued as an official document of the General Assembly but never had a official status of a UN Declaration.
Etymology: This is just a flight of fantasy by someone who apparently does not speak Ukranian very well. Only one of the word's possible translations (-Mor) is plague (rather pestilence than plague as infectious disease), the main one is mass death, period.
possibly from the expression moryty holodom, ‘to inflict death by hunger’. The Ukrainian verb "moryty" (морити) means "to poison somebody, drive to exhaustion or to torment somebody". ??? Possibly?? What is all this? BSDM dictionary? Hire a professional interpreter before editing.
Sometimes the expression is translated into English as "murder by hunger or starvation. Again, in the eye of the beholder, unofficially it can be translated any way you want it.
Scope and duration: Again as before: It is believed that over 12 million Ukrainians died in this small time period. Believed by whom? Why not 22 million or 32 million? We have a book by an English author on the Tanks of WWII, in a footnote entry dedicated to the explanation of a Russian term kulak the book says of 60 million kulaks eliminated by Stalin. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a livejournal discussion board.
Bfmlc1 ( talk) 20:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
"death by hunger"? according to
Encyclopedia of genocide and crimes against humanity, Volume 3 By Dinah Shelton Holodomor means "extermination by starvation".--
Termer (
talk)
04:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
First of all, unlike you I didn't talk about the etymology in the first place but about the meaning of the word. So I have no idea why did you once again got carried away and posted a grade school lecture on etymology here, on the talk page about Holodomor?-- Termer ( talk) 02:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Bfmlc1 ( talk) 21:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Coming shorlty
Coming shortly
Bfmlc1 ( talk) 22:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
(Outdent) Hello, Bfmlc1 (is that Dutch?) well, if you don't mind being blunt, then neither do I. First, you need to get off the pedestal which makes you think that you are the only person who is correct, and every other editor who has contributed to this article is wrong.
How can you assume to work with somebody after a sentence like "you are so poisonously biased you are not in a position to even mention good faith"? The reason you have not been reported as a disruptive influence is the good faith of all the editors here, including me. Learn the difference between opinion and attitude. Fast.
Now, again, a quick lesson in Wikipedia etiquette - if there is a fact with which you disagree, simply add a "citation needed" tag after it. Don't assume that because there is no reference listed that none exists.
Second, if you have an issue with an article like this one, which has the potential for misinterpretation, make sure that you understand what is being said before adding condescending guidance or tags. Tagging without making a substantial improvement to the article is considered rude. If a vast majority of editors seem to disagree with you on a particular topic, there are other methods of dealing with the issues. I'm sure that you will be able to find them just as quickly as you were able to find the page with tags.
Finally, please at least take the time to read your edits before posting them if you want to be taken seriously. Thanks, Horlo ( talk) 08:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The communist genocide has a big section regarding this famine and the history of genocide claims. I am personally responsible for most of the prose (which is based on this article and other articles in Russian and English Wikipedia.) there, and would like editors of holodomor come and see. Feel free to use my ideas there or correct them as you see fit regardless of what you might think of the POV title of that article. Another question is that I could not find anything on history of usage of the term, other than a claim that it was popularized in 1980-90s by Ukrainian independence movement. ( Igny ( talk) 03:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC))
Why is this thread here? You said you wrote your own entry on ' communist genocide'. Why can't you discuss it there? No offense but it looks like a deliberate trick to dilute discussions on the topic at hand Bfmlc1 ( talk) 06:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Quote: There were no natural causes for starvation and in fact, Ukraine - unlike other Soviet Republics - enjoyed a bumper wheat crop in 1932.[1][2]
Reference 1 (Britannica):
The Ukrainian grain harvest of 1932 had resulted in below-average yields (in part because of the chaos wreaked by the collectivization campaign), but it was more than sufficient to sustain the population. Nevertheless, Soviet authorities set requisition quotas for Ukraine at an impossibly high level. Brigades of special agents were dispatched to Ukraine to assist in procurement, and homes were routinely searched and foodstuffs confiscated.
Reference 2 (Modernization from the other shore..):
While poor weather may have contributed to the problems of the country-side, the famine was in no way a natural disaster.
Where on earth is the 'Bumper crop'? Bfmlc1 ( talk) 16:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Reference 8 (genocide-encyclopedia):
Just how many died from starvation in Ukraine will never be known. Deaths due to malnutrition were not recorded. Deductions made from the official censuses of 1926 and 1939, and the suppressed census of 1937, have given rise to various interpretations and conclusions. Estimates for Ukraine vary from four to ten million. Six million was the figure a Kharkiv official gave an American newspaper editor in 1933—it still seems the most plausible.
Using this reference as a back up for 10 million claim is incorrect, since it quotes 6 million as the 'most plausible' number. Bfmlc1 ( talk) 17:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
-- Львівське ( talk) 03:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
Could somebody please point to specific parts of this article which need to be improved so that the "neutrality" tag can be removed?
Thanks, Horlo ( talk) 07:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
All those questions have been addressed previously on this talk page, please familiarize yourselves with it. There is no good reason to keep running the discussion in circles.--
Termer (
talk)
06:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
PS. IN case
Paul Siebert you'd like to add such opinions like "...a nationalistic POV" and "the similarity between the words The Holocaust and Holodomor seems to be used..." etc to the article, please find secondary published sources that do say so and simply add the opinion to the article accordingly. At the same time please do not use the talk page for publishing your own opinions about the subject. Thanks!--
Termer (
talk)
06:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:TALK should answer all your questions. And any politically charged statements you make at talk pages should better be based on WP:RS, otherwise it might look like you're posting here your own political opinions.-- Termer ( talk) 20:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Please be more specific Igny, based on what sources and how exactly would you like to improve this article? Thanks!-- Termer ( talk) 00:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
how and when the Ukrainian term Holodomor entered English language? Well, in Canada the word genocide and the Holodomor have been tied together in the secondary school English language curriculum for quite some time. FFI please see the 1995 English quarterly, Volumes 27-29 By the Canadian Council of Teachers of English: Title: Discourse, Power, Social Abuse and Vigilance: Learning about the "Holodomor" in English Studies Classrooms.; Abstract: Explores some of the possibilities and problems of teaching secondary school students about genocide through the study of language used to describe the event. Focuses on Eastern Europe during the Stalin era when a catastrophe known as the "Holodomor" occurred. [7].-- Termer ( talk) 04:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
In general, arguments of the Ukrainian POV's proponent are a little bit funny. According to them, Holodomor was the Ukrainian name of the 1932-33 famine in Ukraine, consequently Holodomor was the event completely separate and different from the famines in Volga, North Caucasus and Kazakhstan. Definitely, this "consequently" is a pure example of a logical fallacy. I believe, renaming of the article can help to fix the problem. However, the major problem with the article is that it is almost ignored by non-Ukrainian and non-Eastern European editors, and it would not be easy for the latters to support renaming. I believe, the lack of interest to this article of non-Eastern European editors may serve an indirect proof that the word Holodomor has not become yet an English word: the non-Ukrainian world uses "Soviet famine" instead.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 06:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Did you just suggest that they study Ukrainian language in English class? It is my understanding though that the language that gets studied in English class is English, not Ukrainian.-- Termer ( talk) 15:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Says who and where?-- Termer ( talk) 06:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but a suggestion by you that they study Ukrainian language in English class in Canada cant be taken seriously.-- Termer ( talk) 03:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, to summarize this discussion, the single issue raised so far is the naming of the article. There are well known routines existing for this, and not using these routines and just slapping "POV" template instead is counter-productive. Please go forward with move procedure, or do not disrupt this article. -- windyhead ( talk) 21:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
FYI language that gets studied in English class in English Igny, not Ukrainian. -- Termer ( talk) 03:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Recently I added a reference from this 1937 article from TIME Magazine as a reference, but my edit was been undone.
My question for you: do TIME articles like this above are really doubtful source?-- MaGioZal ( talk) 12:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The introduction starts off with a number of refutable statements. Instead of it introducing the topic, it directly goes on to say the causes, which it presents as facts.
There were no natural causes for starvation and in fact, Ukraine - unlike other Soviet Republics - enjoyed a bumper wheat crop in 1932
According to a number of sources, there indeed was. In A History of Ukraine by Mikhail Hrushevsky, a leading Ukrainian historian he writes
Again a year of drought coincided with chaotic agricultural conditions
Also Professor Nicholas Riasnovsky from Harvard wrote
Severe droughts in 1930 and 1931, especially in the Ukraine, aggravated the plight of farming and created near famine conditions
There was also other causes to the famine. However the article tries to impose upon the reader that Stalin himself was a deliberate cause. Kulak opposition to the collectivization made a huge blow to the agriculture.
Fredric Schuman wrote
Their [kulak] opposition took the initial form of slaughtering their cattle and horses in preference to having them collectivized. The result was a grievous blow to Soviet agriculture, for most of the cattle and horses were owned by the kulaks. Between 1928 and 1933 the number of horses in the USSR declined from almost 30,000,000 to less than 15,000,000; of horned cattle from 70,000,000 (including 31,000,0000 cows) to 38,000,000 (including 20,000,000 cows); of sheep and goats from 147,000,000 to 50,000,000; and of hogs from 20,000,000 to 12,000,000. Soviet rural economy had not recovered from this staggering loss by 1941.
`... Some [kulaks] murdered officials, set the torch to the property of the collectives, and even burned their own crops and seed grain. More refused to sow or reap, perhaps on the assumption that the authorities would make concessions and would in any case feed them.
`The aftermath was the ``Ukraine famine of 1932--33 .... Lurid accounts, mostly fictional, appeared in the Nazi press in Germany and in the Hearst press in the United States, often illustrated with photographs that turned out to have been taken along the Volga in 1921 .... The ``famine was not, in its later stages, a result of food shortage, despite the sharp reduction of seed grain and harvests flowing from special requisitions in the spring of 1932 which were apparently occasioned by fear of war in Japan. Most of the victims were kulaks who had refused to sow their fields or had destroyed their crops.'
There had also been a typhoid epidemic at the time. There having been no antibiotics, it was the cause of many deaths.
Dr. Hans Blumenfeld, internationally respected city planner and recipient of the Order of Canada, worked as an architect in Makayevka, Ukraine during the famine. He wrote:
`There is no doubt that the famine claimed many victims. I have no basis on which to estimate their number .... Probably most deaths in 1933 were due to epidemics of typhus, typhoid fever, and dysentery. Waterborne diseases were frequent in Makeyevka; I narrowly survived an attack of typhus fever.'
Also Isaac Mazepa, leader of the Ukrainian Nationalist movement confirmed Fredrick's observations.
`At first there were disturbances in the kolkhosi [collective farms] or else the Communist officials and their agents were killed, but later a system of passive resistance was favored which aimed at the systematic frustation of the Bolsheviks' plans for the sowing and gathering of the harvest .... The catastrophe of 1932 was the hardest blow that Soviet Ukraine had to face since the famine of 1921--1922. The autumn and spring sowing campaigns both failed. Whole tracts were left unsown, in addition when the crop was being gathered ... in many areas, especially in the south, 20, 40 and even 50 per cent was left in the fields, and was either not collected at all or was ruined in the threshing.'
Id also like to point out that the title itself is biased. It instantly assumes the famine was a genocide.
Faustian ( talk) 22:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Of course its pro-Stalin. Anything that defends Stalin is immediately marked as pro-Stalin and thus a useless source?
How can you listen to any opposition this way?
And the comment on the gulags was a joke. Your going to criticize me of being a anti-capitalist crusader? The right has made a tremendous amount of effort even before the Cold War era to make every possible lie against communism. These lies continue here, even in the supposedly neutral Wikipedia. Any anti-capitalist source is viewed as false purely because of its nature, and any anti-communist source coming from anywhere is agreed with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakooza2 ( talk • contribs) 22:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Bravo, and you marked off my comments because of POV? What is wrong with a pro-Stalin source. Do you expect an anti-Stalinist to write about how Stalin wasn't a massive murder? Going by your logic, it would be impossible to defend any view, because I would immediately say that you used a source which used bias. Presenting things in an unbiased way is a good thing, but its impossible to do so when making an argument. By the same logic, I can also dismiss anything anti-communist because they come from anti-communists. The pro-Stalin source I used has its sources, it has its facts, and it has its explanations and reasons. You cannot say the whole book is useless just because its written in favor of Stalin. That is bias right there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakooza2 ( talk • contribs) 23:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The title on the famine is called Holodomor, the criticism of it are termed "Denial" and the section dedicated to the criticism is further attacks on the leftist viewpoint.
And why the hell do you decide the basis of Wikipedia articles? All I did was introduce the leftist view. Whether you believe it was true or ridiculous or not, it doesn't matter. Its purpose was to be neutrul. Even if we leftists believed Stalin was an alien, we'd have the right to put that view of ours in there as long as we did not present it as a fact through the use of words such as "believe". For example, "Leftists believe Stalin was contacted by an alien and told he ignore the famine or they would kill the world".
The article on the Holodomor is anything but neutral. It makes constant attacks and presents them as facts. And the sections dedicated to criticism are controlled by the opposition itself!
Wikipedia isn't the place to argue whose view is true, it is the place to present a neutral view on topics. You are going directly against this.
Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
The article even has this banner flying on the top
The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (September 2009)
Why? Because its strongly rightist and dismisses any criticisms. Any attempt I made at making it neutral was turned down by you and other rightists.
As of the quote. It doesn't matter what the author of that book believes. He presented an argument, I posted it in a neutral way. It is not for you to decide if its right or not. That is the readers job.
Also, as a communist I find any anti-communist source useless. Does this give me the right to erase from Wikipedia anything that's anti-communist? No. Does it give me the right to edit them to show a neutral position? Yes. Yakooza2 ( talk) 23:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for admitting about yourself that "as a communist I find any anti-communist source useless." Not everbody who describes Stalinist crimes is a "rightist." Being nuetral does not mean that all sources are equal in terms of their reliablity nor notability. The source you quote from is hardly reliable and your use of it is frankly little diffeent from using a neo-Nazi website in a "criticism" section (renamed from denial) on the Holocaust. That aside, we do not even know how much of what your unreliable source claims is quoted out of context from the original (actually, you did not even provide references for all your additions, I found the source myself using google). Faustian ( talk) 23:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
"Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article." - WP:NPOV - moritheil Talk 02:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, please provide a quote from "Million Feared Dead of Hunger in South Russia" confirming "Estimates on the total number of casualties within Soviet Ukraine range mostly from 1 million" it is a source for -- windyhead ( talk) 16:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, please provide a quote from the source confirming "The term first appeared in print on July 18, 1988" [10] -- windyhead ( talk) 10:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
few things that pop out for me right away: who exactly considers the Holodomor "one of the greatest calamities to affect the Ukrainian nation in modern history"?
and
"Millions of inhabitants of Ukraine died of starvation in an unprecedented peacetime catastrophe". Is it just me or does "an unprecedented peacetime catastrophe" sound a bit over the top? No disrespect meant but surely calling it "unprecedented" would at least need an explanation why and how it was "unprecedented". The human history has had its dark moments before and after Holodomor, so is this "unprecedented" really appropriate here? Hope you see what I mean.-- Termer ( talk) 03:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm always intend to be unanimous with whatever the sources say. And currently there is nothing to WP:VERIFY with that the Holodomor was "one of the greatest calamities". So it needs to go.-- Termer ( talk) 02:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I am afraid to add it to the article just yet, but here is an interesting report for discussion. ( Igny ( talk) 03:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC))
Would anyone be interested in adding a section linking this to the killing of Jews during World War II -- as a reprisal for the perception that Jews were to blame for the famine? (as communist agents). I am not arguing for or against this position (I do not know enough to say), but believe this is very germane to understanding the Holodomor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.237.237 ( talk) 19:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
After some extensive search I found what I was interested in.
Text was probably originally composed for Lemkin’s address at the 1953 Ukrainian
Famine commemoration in New York. Later Lemkin added it to the material he was
gathering for his elaborate History of Genocide which was never published. Ed, Roman Serbyn.
It was never published by Lemkin, only a few Lemkin scholars knew about this speech. On the other hand, phrases like "was probably composed", "ignored or downplayed by most of the scholars" are a bit worrying. ( Igny ( talk) 00:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC))
The court of appeals in Kyiv has opened hearings into the "fact of genocide-famine Holodomor" in Ukraine in 1932-33 yesterday (Kiev-time). Only I do not understand who will be sentenced, Stalin In absentia??? Anybody knows some more on this? — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 22:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The Ukrainian Canadian Congress states 7-10 million. - this statement is correctly reported and must not be deleted. It does not state that the death toll estimate is 7-10 million. It only reports what the Ukrainian Canadian Congress found through their inquiry. Please do not mis-quote WP:RS that the all info must come from peer reviewed sources. By deleting this NPOV is introduced into the article. Bobanni ( talk) 02:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Once more the US in good company, united with dictatorships, fascist and ex-fascist govs. Cute. Hey, even GB is missing. (This observation independent of the question whether holodomor happened or not, just noting the pattern of the game.) -- 92.202.213.51 ( talk) 00:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
This seems like the total low end and only accepted by a fringe group of people. Majority of scholars put it at 4.8 as an absolute low, while 7.5 seems to be the higher. The generally accepted range should be in the lead, not the outliers.-- Львівське ( talk) 20:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Yushchenko does not blame Russia for Holodomor. Where to put this in the article? — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 22:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I think this is important and it should be added to the article. I present this source http://www.altermedia.info/civil-rights/holodomor_1185.html . This will undoubtedly make this article non kosher, but it is important! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wis ( talk • contribs) 03:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The official Yanukovich's statement hardly reflects his own private opinion, so this statement seems to be sufficient to state that Ukraine does not recognize Holodomor as genocide any more.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 19:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I actually do not see much sense in compiling lists of countries "recognizing Holodomor as genocide". While dictatorships have uniform views on all history questions, democracies are run by politicians having different views (or even not having any particular views at all). USA e.g. couple of times adopted laws commemorating victims of the famine that used word Genocide. Its UN representative on the other hand voted against using this term at some point, etc. It is not showing changes in the official position of the USA (that does not exist) but just show that different American politicians have different opinions on the problem (as well as e.g. whether treatment of Australian aboriginals or American Indians constituted a genocide, whether Irish famine was a genocide, and million similar questions). IMHO much more usable will be to refer to laws, cour decisions, statements by officials, etc. that could be seen as support or otherwise that Holodomor was a genocide. Saying this, Ukraine position is based on Ukrainian Laws, Appellate Court decisions, etc. They are still valid whatever Yanukovich had said in an obscure speech. Thus, if we are to present lists of "Holodomor is Genocide" countries then Ukraine is still in although a footnote is probably deserved. Alex Bakharev ( talk) 01:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, recent edits put "over 10 million of people starved to death" and so on into article, but that's not what the source says. The source given says "cumulative loss" which is not the same. -- windyhead ( talk) 09:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Moved: was at [[Talk:User_talk:Windyhead]]
Please explain what you mean by "the source says 'cumulative'". My source does say cumulative losses, but cumulative losses means not only Ukrainians, but other nationalities as well. Which is why I never claim that 10 million Ukrainians died - instead I say people.
And this still doesn't actually explain the removal of the two other additions of mine. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Oxenbrigg (
talk •
contribs)
17:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Could anyone add a section as to what brought an end to the famine, what actions were taken, how did Ukraine recover from the famine? What played the role in the famine, if one looks at the regional heads, then quite a number lost their position in 1933. Obviously a missing section in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.170.84.179 ( talk) 09:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
While working on Famine in India, I thought of and created a new infobox template that can potentially be used in every famine article on Wikipedia. For a list of articles where it can be used, see the categories famines in India, famines and other relevant categories. The usage documentation still needs some improvement and the template might undergo minor teaks further. I am looking for feedback from an expert on famines so I can add/improve parameters in the template. Please feel free to comment/suggest improvements. Zuggernaut ( talk) 01:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I started a section that ought to be expanded about how this was accomplished - not underlying causes but how the grain was taken/how food was taken from the starving peasants/how the Holodomor was implemented. Faustian ( talk) 05:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
is another example of a very odd transliteration. "Holodomor" Ukrainian: Холодомор means death of cold; death of hunger is Ukrainian: Голодомор (Холод = cold, Голод = hunger, googletranslate will confirm that :). Everyone in their right mind would transliterate Голодомор as Golodomor. Any support to change the title? Materialscientist ( talk) 07:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The name seems POV and a more neutral name is "Ukrainian famine". TFD ( talk) 05:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Do not move - Holodomor describes this event specifically and is used by the European Parliament, Ukrainian Government, etc. specifically to describe this event. "Ukrainian famine" could refer to lots of events; even the "Great Ukrainian famine" would be a form of denial, i.e. a POV in the title. Smallbones ( talk) 12:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Reject. See Lvivske comment above.-- Galassi ( talk) 12:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, my final thought on this is to keep the article at Holodomor. Bear in mind I have only read about 15 of the main sources (in Google scholar) for each of these terms. It appears that the term is 100% political term adopted by historians to help cement the association to the Holocaust. The better scholarly work appears to refer strongly to "Ukrainian famine" and notes "Holodomor", generally, only as a term adopted by Ukrainian Historians. On the other hand it is a widely adopted term, and no longer quite has the POV twist it originally inferred. So... whilst there is no really strong reason not to rename it, I don't think a strong reason exists to rename it. Although I would note that the above rationale against the move is mostly junk and not based in either policy or sources. -- Errant [tmorton166] ( chat!) 13:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
It is impossible to describe the scholarly consensus on the famine under the title Holodomor, as it is a propaganda term. If this article is to discuss the famine, then the title needs to be changed. If however we are to have an article under the present title, then the first sentence must make it explicitly clear that the term is not universally accepted and is only relevant in the context of modern Ukrainian historiography. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 13:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The claim at the top of this thread that This is like suggesting we move "Holocaust" to "Big Jewish pogrom" fails quite miserably. Holodomor is a Ukrainian term, used in a particular nationalist narrative. "Holocaust", on the other hand is an English term. The argument would only make a tiny bit of sense if Wikipedia's Holocaust article were at
Shoah, which (unlike Holodomor) is not a nationalist term, but (like Holodomor) is a foreign-language term. However, as you'll notice, the Shoah article is just a re-direct to
The Holocaust, so if anything, that would be an argument for moving the Holodomor article to an English-language title, and keeping Holodomor as a re-direct. As an aside, that comment must be a record for proving
Godwin's law - first comment in the thread, and it took only 28 minutes.
Now, if we were to restrict ourselves to relevant arguments, the only relevant guideline here is
WP:ENGLISH, and all arguments should be made in relation to it. What is the most common term used in reliable English-language sources? It's possible that it's also Holodomor, but we need some evidence one way or the other.
Jayjg
(talk)
18:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose move. It seems so obvious that I'm not even sure how to justify this oppose. But anyway, in terms of English language sources, how hard is it to type in "Holodomor" into google books (by itself 3K+ hits [13]) along with a some English word to screen out non-English sources: [14], [15], etc. While the word Holodomor may be of Ukrainian origin by now it has entered the English lexicon and most certainly English language academic discourse.
Also, while I understand (and essentially agree with) Jayjg's point one big difference in the Holodomor/Famine vs. Shoah/Holocaust analogy is that in the latter case, both terms "Shoah" and "Holocaust" accurately convey the nature of the thing being discussed. Not so with Holodomor and Famine where the second term obfuscates rather than informs. radek ( talk) 19:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
<--First, no. That is not what I "believed". I have no idea how you get that from my comments (the word "Holodomor" does not appear in your link. The word "Ukraine" appears twice in someone else's comments). Second, what is the relevance of that to this discussion? We are NOT discussing whether the Holodomor was or wasn't a genocide (which is indeed under discussion among scholars), what we are discussing is whether the term Holodomor is used by English language sources (which it is, overwhelmingly). This is a red herring. To steal a bad joke from a bad movie a red red herring. So what does your comment have to do with anything? You're not only bringing up irrelevancies but are also putting words in my mouth/head. radek ( talk) 05:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
britannica
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Losses
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Vallin2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Fawkes
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Vallin2005
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Vallinbook
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Tragediya
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).