Talk:Holodomor/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

the EU parliament recognises Soviet starvation of Ukrainians as genocide

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20221209IPR64427/holodomor-parliament-recognises-soviet-starvation-of-ukrainians-as-genocide

Where in the article fits this best ? In the German wikipedia, there is a structure like that :

• 4.4 Bewertung durch andere Staaten und Organisationen
  • 4.4.1 Position der USA
  • 4.4.2 Position des Europäischen Parlaments
  • 4.4.3 Position Russlands
  • 4.4.4 Position des Europarates
  • 4.4.5 Position Israels
  • 4.4.6 Position der Bundesrepublik Deutschland
  • 4.4.7 Position des EU-Parlaments

I propose to structure it here in the same way. Präziser (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Chastushka reference fragment

I have been progressively upgrading all references in the article to employ standard citation templates. I am now encoding those in the Further Reading section but the following entry is puzzling and I propose to delete it unless there are any objections. The reference reads:

Chastushka Journal of American folklore, Volume 89 Houghton, Mifflin, and Co., 1976

Rationale:

1. The reference does not support any statement in the article. The reference was added by user Wipsenade March 18, 2011 to support a statement about a song about Stalin. The contribution was removed the same day by user Fifelfoo who observed the addition was tangential and out of the scope of the article’s subject. The passage was removed but the reference in the further reading section has remained there for over a decade.
2. The reference is vague- it is unclear what article or book is intended. In volume 89 of the referenced Journal of American Folklore, there is one article discussing chastushka, but it did not support the statement about the Stalin song, nor does it mention anything about Holodomor, famine, starvation or Ukraine.
3. It is unclear what if any citable relation Chastushka have to the Holodomor, let alone why Wikipedia would recommend this vague reference as material for further study by those interested in the Holodomor. According to one poster on a historian blog site, there were chastushki that non ukrainians would sing to denigrate the peasants who had not starved to death (eg Хохлы-хохлы што ж не все вы передохли), but using Wikipedia library to access jstor, no reference was found in the Journal of American Folklore that made reference to such songs. If anyone wants to follow up on how popular culture was used to assault Ukrainian culture, there may be some material out there on use of chastushki, but my cursory survey did not turn up enough to justify retention of this reference fragment. J JMesserly (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Countries recognising Holodomor as genocide too vague

It seems to me that some editors are overly keen to enlarge the number of countries in this section. I think that is should be stated what exactly is meant by the inclusion of countries in this category, such as non-binding resolution by the lower house of parliament etc.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 16:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Can you give any examples of potentially borderline or questionable inclusions?J JMesserly (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

It would certainly improve the list to specify how the recognition was made, allowing for different kinds of recognition: e.g., by parliaments, senates, governments or heads of state. —Michael Z. 03:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

"In modern politics" section

Paragraph "The intentional impediment of relief supplies to civilians has been alleged as part of Russia's war strategy in the war against Ukraine in 2022.[179] As of early May 2022, Ukraine's Defense Ministry claims that Russian forces have plundered at least 500,000 tons of grain from farmers since the invasion started. This looting included the seizure of industrial farm equipment, such as tractors, and forcing farmers to surrender 70% of their grain yields." seems rather unrelated to the Holodomor, even in context of modern politics. 31.1.53.122 (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I have removed the paragraph. General Ization ^Talk 20:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

The sources say it is related. I have found another which expands on the theme, so will restore and improve.[1] —Michael Z. 03:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

vlasti.net citation- User-generated content?

The reference to http://vlasti.net/news/34718 appears to me to be user generated content, but because I am not a russian native speaker I am uncertain this is the case and so did not delete it. The article states it is a reprint from https://narodna.pravda.com.ua/rus/politics/4973ec4eb3b6f/, but this appears to be a blog post from user "догонов [dogon]". I can see this might not be WP:USERGENERATED- perhaps it is a copy of something published elsewhere, but if that were the case, I would rather the article cite the original source. J JMesserly (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

You are right, the "narodna.pravda" site says (it is a google translation from Russian):

"about the project.

Ukrayinska Pravda often receives letters from readers with articles. Unfortunately, not all of them fit our format. But they all reflect our life, situations, your interests, affections, love... Therefore, the idea of creating this site appeared - the name itself reflects its essence. Narodnaya Pravda is your view, it is our life through your eyes. The way she is - sometimes tough, aggressive, but more often - kind, like the smiles of our children, soft, like the dawn, bright, like the dazzling tropical sun. All this is all the details and nuances that surround us every day and make up our every day. And probably, politics does not play such a role in it as we in Ukrainskaya Pravda devote to it! On this site, we invite you to build a different virtual reality, different from politics and as close as possible to real life. Sincerely, the editors of the NP"

That means NP is a collection of letters sent to the UP editorial board by its readers. I think, according to our criteria, that is just a blog. I recommend to remove it. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Done. Replaced the ref with template citation needed.J JMesserly (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2022

Within the "Genocide Question", it's written that "Drawing upon evidence from the archives, Conquest would later write that the Holodmor was not purposefully inflicted by Stalin but his inadequate response did worsen the famine" and was referenced to reference 143, but after looking at the reference, reference 143 does not provide any adequate evidence or a source that supports this statement definitely and lacks information of how this conclusion was made, making it a subject of opinion rather than fact. I suggest a further investigation of this reference and its source, and whether further action is required, be it tracking down the appropriate source, removing this statement entirely, or anything else that one deems fit 41.133.88.115 (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I found the corresponding source you were looking for. It is a book called The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931–1933 (Industrialization of Soviet Russia). The contradiction of Conquest comes on page 441 where he challenges his primary thesis in his book The Harvest of Sorrow. It is important to note Conquest's book came out prior to the opening of the official Soviet government archives. The Harvest of Sorrow sees Conquest assert that the famine was a genocide because it was planned. However, in the Years of Hunger which was released with the Soviet information, Conquest does not hold back criticism of Stalin but does conclude he is no longer of the opinion Stalin orchestrated a famine. He now believes the famine was the result of Soviet industrialization. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 02:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

What does “result of Soviet industrialization” mean? I’ve seen that in Soviet famine of 1930–1933, for example, but the accessible sources don’t say that. —Michael Z. 04:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Soviet Industrialization is the broad term as I found differing terms across multiple sources which all refer to the industrialization the USSR undertook specifically during the Stalin era. Now it is important to note that the Soviet Union prior to the mid 1930s would be classified as a severely underdeveloped country when compared to other European powers. It had no industry, modern technology, and infrastructure capable of supporting international commerce. The Five Year Plan and successive industrialization efforts describe how the Soviet government undertook the development of the Soviet Union. This development meant things like building factories, oil refineries, steel mills, affordable housing, sewage & power plants, and critical infrastructure. Just as industrialization in the western world produced negative consequences, so did the Soviet one. There were multiple issues regarding collective farming such as natural factors, kulak sabotage, and the inexperience on the part of the central planners. Building the industry of the Soviet Union cost millions of lives due to famines, workplace accidents, and other factors. 1939 marked one decade of Stalinist rule and while the USSR had a dramatic improvement in industrial capabilities and GDP, it came at the cost of millions of lives. I hope this helped. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 19:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I’m aware of the history.

Industrialization is not collectivization, and industrialization is not “natural factors,” “kulak sabotage,” nor “inexperience on the part of central planners.” The statement “building the industry of the Soviet Union cost millions of lives due to famines” does not represent any cause-and-effect relationship that can exist in the real world. Famine is cause by lack of food, due to some mechanism that prevents food from being accessible. Just throwing the synonym “building industry” at the front of a sentence doesn’t make it any less nonsense than saying “industrialization caused the famine.”

None of that gives us any clue how industrialization could have caused famine.

Can you quote the exact words Conquest uses to convey “industrialization caused the famine”?  —Michael Z. 16:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

It is in that chapter on page 441. The sentence, Robert Conquest states the famine was the result of industrialization does not exist. That was a gross oversimplification on my part and I will revisit that contribution of mine in the article. However, he does state that he is now of the opinion the famine was not a genocide. "Dr. Conquest has stated that it is not his opinion that Stalin purposefully inflicted the 1933 famine." This intention on the part of Stalin is necessary to classify the Holodmor as a genocide under the current legal definition. The only reason I put that in there is because central debate of this section is whether or not this the famine is an act of genocide. Either the Holodmor was intentionally inflicted thus making it a genocide or it was a part of the famines that occurred in the USSR during the Five Year Plan. Conquest with the access to Soviet archival material previously unavailable noted that there was no evidence that Stalin acted deliberately to cause the famine. If the famine was not the result of a genocide than logically it had to be the result of other factors, the largest contributing factor of course being industrialization. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 19:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Which Conquest work is being cited by Davies and Wheatcroft? I don’t have access, but a Google Books excerpt of the 2016 edition shows me [Dr Conquest] holds that Stalin ‘wanted a famine’,142 that ‘the Soviets did not want the famine to be coped with successfully’,143 . . ..[2] This speaks to causes, and doesn’t indicate industrialization.

It’s irrelevant to this discussion but Conquest’s 1986 conclusions are dated. Many Soviet sources remain inaccessible and what are are still being studied, and a lot of other evidence has accumulated since, including new evidence about genocidal intent (e.g., in Roman Serbyn’s “smoking gun” article). Finally, did Conquest write “under the current legal definition,” too? The Convention on Prevention and Punishment of Genocide cannot be applied retrospectively, so there is no reason to rely solely on the UN law cowritten by genocidaire Stalin himself and discard academic definitions in discussions. The practice of history and especially genocide studies have matured since Conquest.  —Michael Z. 20:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

As far as I see, Conquest made no such reversal. Conquest states in the cited 1999 "Comment on Wheatcroft" journal article link, "that he [Stalin] consciously inflicted it [the famine]" In the article, Conquest shows that his conclusions are not dated, using documents and figures newly accessible to refute what Conquest calls Wheatcroft's acquittal of Stalin and the Soviet leadership. For example, he even uses Wheatcrofts own figures to point out that there was sufficient grain to rescue the population from starvation. As Werth also does in his "'A State against its People: Violence, Repression and Terror in the Soviet Union" Conquest also makes reference to correspondence between local party officials and Molotov requesting that people be allowed sufficient food to survive. Wheatcroft unfortunately misrepresents his rival's position, writing in 2004 as FictiousLibrarian quoted above, that "Dr. Conquest has stated that it is not his opinion that Stalin purposefully inflicted the 1933 famine." (Davies Wheatcroft 2004, p441). As a further strain on credulity, the statement which Wheatcroft refers to is from an unpublished letter whose date and audience he omits. At best, Wheatcroft cannot be taken as a reliable source on what Conquest thinks. J JMesserly (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that, keeping in mind that these two authors had a quite acrimonious exchange (and, it seems they failed to come to an agreement) it would be incorrect to use one of them as a summary of their vis-a-vis view. However, I have several questions about Conquest's views.

• First, although Conquest states that Stalin new that requisition quotas would inevitably lead to starvation of peasantry, does he claim that Stalin's primary goal was to inflict famine on Ukrainians, or he (and his heirs) just didn't care about possible consequences and just wanted to collect a sufficient amount of grain to implement their industrialization plans? In other word, does Conquest say we are dealing with a planned murder or with a criminal neglect?
• Second, keeping in mind that "genocide" is not just "mass killing of some category people", and that the word "genocide" has a dual meaning (a legal term and a synonym for mass killing), does Conquest apply the term "genocide" as a legal term?

Paul Siebert (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2022

The statement

The Soviet regime printed posters declaring: "To eat your own children is a barbarian act."

should be tagged as dubious like the same statement at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1930%E2%80%931933#Cannibalism. The reliability of the source has already been questioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AHolodomor%2FArchive_18#%22To_eat_your_own_children_is_a_barbarian_act%22_--_unreliable_source? Vitkecar (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

It is under discussion at Talk:Soviet famine of 1930–1933#To eat your own children is a barbarian act. Only one editor (them) doubts it and another (me) disagrees. —Michael Z. 21:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Another editor has expressed doubts in the reliability of the source as I mentioned above, so two editors doubt and one is entrenched. From the Template:Dubious page:

"When using this template, it is strongly suggested to simultaneously discuss the dubious statement on the article's talk page".

So the dubious template is used simultaneously with the discussion and not once the discussion is over. If we come to an agreement that the source is unreliable then it should probably be removed and not labeled as dubious. In the meantime it can be labeled as "verify credibility", "Unreliable source", "dubious", whatever you think is most appropriate. Vitkecar (talk) 08:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The other was an anonymous single-poster over four years ago. No doubt my persuasive argument would have changed their opinion. I don’t see them taking your side now.

The tagged citation has been discussed by two editors without reaching consensus. I added two more sources. If you want to change the long-standing article text, please get more opinions to establish a new consensus, or let’s remove the tags. —Michael Z. 18:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Michael, I made a brief research, and I found that the statement that we are discussing was published in one journal article (Cannabilism in Stalin's Russia and Mao's China, by Vardy & Vardy), where the authors just quoted the statement made by another author. They literally say:

"This is quoted by Miklos Tapay in his study, "Az 1932-33--as nagy szovjet ehinseg. Sztalin holokausztja" [The Great Soviet Famine of 1932-33. Stalin's Holocaust], in Kronika-Proceedings, vol. 44, pp. 106-113; quotation from p. 112."

All other sources (I found only a couple of them) either quote Vardy&Vardy, or they quote this Wikipedia article. Importantly, when I tried to find the original source (Tapay), I found just one reference, and that reference was Vaedy&Vardy: [3]. This source is not googlable [4].

In my opinion, this claim is outstanding. It describes Soviet authorities as complete idiots, for the posters of that kind would result in nothing but Streisand effect. In 1930s, Soviet propaganda could lie, it could be cynical, but it was by no means silly and stupid. Therefore, I have a strong doubt that the claim made by Tapay and uncritically reproduced by Vardy is true. It is an outstanding claim, and, per our policy, we need at least one more independent source (that does not cite Tapay or Vardy) to keep it in the article.

Please, provide an independent source of good quality (it can be a peer-reviewed journal with a reasonable impact factor, a book by renown university press or a good monograph), otherwise I'll remove this statement in three months. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

To avoid possible misunderstanding: I by no means deny the fact that cannibalism was widespread, my point is that I strongly doubt in the fact that such posters existed: the main goal of Soviet authorities was to conceal the fact of famine (and cannibalism), but these posters would just confirm it.

I would be less surprised if such posters were printed during the Volga famine. My hypothesis is that the statement made by Vardy is a result of incorrect translation from Hungarian. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

There is actually a discussion on this at Talk:Soviet famine of 1930–1933#To eat your own children is a barbarian act, which I linked above. Some of your concerns have already been addressed there.  —Michael Z. 23:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

This statement was removed from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1930%E2%80%931933#Cannibalism. Shouldn't it then be removed from this page as well? Vitkecar (talk) 08:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. That is a hearsay. One reporter said that he saw one poster, and he says that he was told that "hundreds" of poster were printed. We have no independent evidences for that claim, but we have other, well documented evidenced, for example, liver amputation from dead corpses to make food for sale on local markets. I think, it is in interest of the project as whole to remove this dubious claim. Paul Siebert (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

All history is “hearsay,” as you seem to define it. Especially the history of atrocities in the totalitarian USSR that eliminated witnesses and records of countless other events we’ll never know about.  —Michael Z. 15:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

You have a weird vision of history. To educate yourself, read, for example an excellent article by Michael Ellman, where he, among other things, discusses the danger of relying too much on hearsay. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The excellent article doesn’t seem to mention “hearsay.” Can you give us a hint of what you’re talking about?  —Michael Z. 17:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

And, by the way, do you familiar with such a discipline as Source criticism? Every professional historian must be able to analyze sources before using them. This analysis assumes that virtually every source may be biased, incorrect or false, however, a good historian is able, by critically analysing and comparing multiple sources, to obtain plausible information from them. And no true historian relies on hearsay non-critically. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Right, and we are not professional historians. And some professional historians cited that source, a professional historian. That is why it is a reliable source.  —Michael Z. 17:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, remove. Not found in the WP:BESTSOURCES, nor in the sources they use or call our attention to. It's not saying the poster did or did not exist, just editorial judgment that there is better content to include here with firmer sourcing. fiveby(zero) 03:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Please note that even the dubious tag is not placed on the sentence about eating children but on the one about the number of cases convicted for cannibalism. Vitkecar (talk) 08:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Vitkecar:, there are better sources for that claim, usually brought up in sources right after that memo moving prosecutions to Moscow IIRC, will look for it when i get a chance. fiveby(zero) 15:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Removal of sources

I noticed that the article has a lot of [citation needed], but when I looked in the history, in December 2022 most of the text has sources (e.g. [5]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holodomor&oldid=1043914981). Could it be that the references have maliciously removed to make the topic seem more dubious? Supilusikas (talk) 08:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the history page, at least one is removed December because it is unreliable (a blog). But I didn't verify all. -Zollac (talk) 08:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a diff of all edits since December 1st. As far as I can see only one citation has been replaced with a citation needed tag, which happened here. This edit is discussed above: #vlasti.net citation- User-generated content?. Are there other citations that were replaced with citation needed tags during this time? — Czello 08:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Dubious

Whether the Holodomor was a genocide or ethnicity-blind, was human-made or natural, and was intentional or unintentional are issues of significant modern debate. Certainly natural causes hasn’t been seriously considered since the 1980s. Intentionality of genocide against Ukrainians may still see some debate (does it actually?), but that starvation was knowingly caused by intentional acts certainly does not. The section Holodomor#In modern politics needs a better lead sentence.  —Michael Z. 19:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I would say, first, we do not need "the" here. Second, "was human-made or natural" should be removed: majority view is that it was man-made (although some authors argue that weather conditions probably contributed into it). With regard to the rest, serious scholars (e.g. Graziosi) share a view that there was some genocidal component it it: Holodomor was not planned, however, when it became clear that people are starving and dying, Stalin didn't take necessary measures to prevent further deaths, and, in contrast, he took some additional measures (prevention of migration from the most severely affected regions) that lead to additional deaths.

In other words, it is equally incorrect to say Holodomor was a planned genocide, and to say that it was just a natural disaster or a result of incorrect management. Holodomor by itself was a result of a wrong economic policy, but at some point (in 1933) Stalin's policy lead to a true genocide directed at rural (mostly Ukrainian) population in some (not all) affected regions.

Therefore, I would say Whether Holodomor was a genocide or ethnicity-blind, and to what degree it was intentional are issues of significant modern debate would be a correct and non-controversial wording. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

This sentence essentially repeats what other sections say. I removed it completely. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Dubious source- Wheatcroft's claims about Conquest's views.

I was looking for prior uses of Conquest's 1999 article "Comment on Wheatcroft" and became aware of their acrimonious rivalry. The collateral damage from their repeated clashes impacts how the article characterizes Conquest's views. The statement is made in the current version that, "Drawing upon evidence from the archives, Conquest would later write that the Holodomor was not purposefully inflicted by Stalin but his inadequate response did worsen the famine.", supported by Wheatcroft & Davies 2004. No page is cited. The first part that is odd is that Wheatcroft source does not state that Conquest's views evolved after viewing evidence from the archives. Secondly Conquest 1999 makes it very clear that these two have very opposing points of view, and in particular he directly contradicts what Wheatcroft would prefer that Conquest believes. In the 1999 article refuting Wheatcroft, Conquest specifically states: "Wheatcroft takes it that Stalin did not 'consciously plan' the famine. 'Plan' is a slippery word: what we are saying is that he consciously inflicted it."

It is rather hazardous to use one rival to characterize what the other's true views are, unless we made the nature of their disputation conflict clear to the reader. The Wheatcroft book does express the view that Conquest softened his views on stalin, supported by evidence on page 441, note 145. However, Wheatcroft's claim is based on his characterization of private correspondence from Conquest for which Wheatcroft declines to provide a source. The unverifiable claim from page 441:

In correspondence Dr Conquest has stated that it is not his opinion that ‘Stalin purposely inflicted the 1933 famine. No. What I argue is that with resulting famine imminent, he could have prevented it, but put “Soviet interest” other than feeding the starving first – thus consciously abetting it’ (September 2003).

Wheatcroft does not record where this "September 2003" correspondence may be independently verified, so really we have only the word of the rival Wheatcroft to go on. The claim may be true, but it is reasonable to consider it dubious given the source and the unverifiable support for the claim.

Wheatcroft offers other evidence, but it is heresay: "Kul’chitskii more straightforwardly has explained that in June 2006 a Ukrainian delegation of experts on the Holocaust and the Golodomor met Robert Conquest in Stanford University and enquired about his views, and were told directly by him that he preferred not to use the term genocide (Kul’chitskii (2007), 176)."

I don't see that getting into minutiae about how these two rivals characterize the other's views is pertinent to the article. I added a description of the conflicting representations to the Holodomor genocide question article, and don't see that it is necessary to duplicate it here. Unless anyone objects, I don't think Wheatcroft's dubious characterization of Conquest's views are within the scope of this article. J JMesserly (talk) 08:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to Conquest's article refuting Wheatcroft? Conquest had asserted in 1986 that the famine was deliberately caused by Stalin in order to destroy Ukraine. Did he still argue that in 1999? TFD (talk) 06:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding. Presumably you saw that it is cited in the article. Via wikipedia library and JSTOR you can for example access the full version of the Comment on Wheatcroft 1999 response from Conquest here. J JMesserly (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

There has been no comment on this for the past 3 weeks. I shall remove the offending statement and replace it with the view Conquest expressed in his 1999 article. Even after considering released soviet archive documents and Wheatcrofts figures Conquest states his view remained the same- that Stalin consciously inflicted the famine. J JMesserly (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@J JMesserly: Actually, a "private communication" is frequently cited in scholarly articles, and is considered a legitimate source of information. Therefore, it would be incorrect to call this statement "non-verifiable". If no objection followed from Conquest, then this private letter really existed. Paul Siebert (talk) 05:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: Of course private communication is used all the time- that is not the nature of the dubiousness. First, the source is a rival with whom Wheatcroft had an extremely acrimonious relationship as evidenced by the Conquest1999 article. Secondly, take a look at Davis and Wheatcroft page 441 statement about the private communication. Wheatcroft makes a surprising claim, declaring his victory over his rival but declines to provide any information where the communication may be viewed for independent verification of what was actually written and the context in which it was made. Now- it is plausible that Conquest did write something that Wheatcroft did interpret as a softening of his position that Stalin consciously inflicted the famine but Wheatcroft did not provide any proof that his rival actually did finally agree with him. Thirdly, Conquest is not alone in accusing Wheatcroft of misrepresenting his work and positions. Wheatcroft has a reputation for this sort of activity, for example Tauger 2007: "Arguing from More Errors: Reply to Stephen Wheatcroft". The hostility between these camps is surprising, but given this acrimony, it is difficult to presume that Wheatcroft is a reliable source regarding faithful representations of what his rivals believe. If there is a reliable source other than Davies and Wheatcroft on these statements about Conquest's supposed "reversal", then I have no objection to retaining the statement in the article. Absent such a source, the claim might have a place in the Holodomor as genocide article as part of an elaboration on the acrimony between the rival groups, the requirements of proof of intent, and questions such as whether willful blindness, knowingly reckless policy and/or withholding of aid absolves anyone from claims of intent to commit genocide. I have no particular sympathies for either the Cold Warrior camp or those who paint a softer picture of Stalin. The nature of the dispute appears to me to be regarding how much we read into Conquest's reluctance to claim Stalin had a plan or purpose for the famine. In the 1999 piece he definitively states Stalin consciously inflicted the famine. Does the article need to parse out how he saw that it is provable that Stalin and his minions consciously inflicted the famine without having to prove they had a plan or explicit purpose to do so? That kind of detail seems to me to be more appropriate for the other article. J JMesserly (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you are probably right. In general, I like your reasonable and balanced approach. However, I think we should be consistent, and keep in mind that Conquest represents the old school of thought (Cold war era school). His major achievement was that he managed to extract some reasonable data from scarce and tangential sources. That is why many of his figures and conclusions, which were quite acceptable during the Cold war era, should be considered outdated now. That means we should not represent this story as if all authors were working during the same time, and they were using the same data.

I think, we should get rid of a false dichotomy ("a scholar X believes Holodomor was genocide, a scholar Y believes it was not"), because many authors do not fit in this primitive scheme. These authors, e.g. Ellman or Graziosi express a more nuanced view that Stalin didn't plan or organize famine in the USSR as a whole, and he didn't expect the famine to occur. However, when famine started in 1932, he decided not to adjust procurement plans especially in rural regions of Ukraine and North Caucasus, and the goal was to crush resistance of "reactionary nationalist peasantry" by means of hunger. That means neither Soviet famine as a whole, nor Holodomor in particular were a planned mass killing/genocide, but in 1933 (and only in some regions) it may be considered as genocide. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I could not agree more with you however we should make the wording more clear. Genocide is a crime that fits a legal definition. Despite this, genocide has taken this connotation in our popular culture as the worst possible act a state can commit and even allegations of genocide will evoke a powerful emotional response. I too hold these views and feelings, however as editors it is important to point readers to the conclusion that regardless how you feel about genocide, it does have a predetermined legal definition.Both under current and previous international laws, mass killings or deaths can only be classified as a genocide if there is an act to "deliberately inflict on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in part or in whole." This intention has never been found by historians and scholars and they have looked. Western academics were granted access to the Soviet state archives during the Gorbachev and later Yeltsin administrations. These archives were kept secret during most of the USSR's existence. No such evidence that proves Stalin orchestrated the 1930-33 Soviet famine was found. This is highly important to note because Stalin's management style was to keep organized records of pretty much everything and Gorbachev may have secretly been hoping the scholars found something implicating Stalin. During his tenure, Gorbachev often criticized Stalin and his policies and attempted to further marginalize the Stalinist bloc within the Communist Party. Damming evidence that Stalin participated in or lead a genocide would have been a political gift to Gorbachev. Despite no such evidence ever being discovered both inside and outside the USSR, the Holodomor is still very, very contentious and some editors clearly have an agenda to push, that being Stalin committed an act of genocide against Ukraine. I have tried to edit out these claims and have been somewhat successful. In conclusion, the Holodomor cannot be classified as a genocide as Stalin never intended for a famine of this scale to impact Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and other areas. That said I do agree with you, other editors, and scholars who assert that that once the famine started, Stalin and his government failed to respond adequately and promptly. Thus making the Holodomor and other related famines not genocide but rather crimes against humanity. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 04:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Wow, that is absolutely, demonstrably wrong on what, at least four counts? That you are using this justification to brag about eliminating other editors’ contributions from of Wikipedia is alarming.  —Michael Z. 15:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

That is wrong on every point. Please stop editing articles based on those assumptions. All you have to do is look at sources in the articles to see that’s wrong.

You’re even misinterpreting the Genocide Convention, as I’ve pointed out before. —Michael Z. 04:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

How about this replacement sentence "Drawing upon evidence from the archives, Conquest retained his view that Stalin consciously inflicted the famine." (citing the previously mentioned Conquest, 1999 essay). I agree there is a larger question about how to concisely express the complexities of the issue being described in this section without giving the reader a false impressions what sense of genocide is meant, or what various sources are stating regarding points of fact versus how they assign the observed behavior to particular conceptual and moral categories. Let's confine ourselves to the particular offending sentence. Currently the reader is left with the impression that Conquest had a change of perspective regarding Stalin's responsibility. The reliable sources we have do not support that. I could see sticking with the terseness of suggested replacement sentence and letting Holodomor genocide question parse the statement in the context of a better examination of degrees of intentionality and responsibility and the various meanings of genocide which may or may not apply but could go along with a significantly expanded section here. I lean to terseness for this article. J JMesserly (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Why does there have to be an article section on “The Wheatcroft–Conquest dispute over Conquest’s opinion”? Wheatcroft is obviously a completely unreliable reporter on this one assertion out of their debate on the actual subject of the Holodomor, or even of its identity as a genocide. Conquest’s 2006 interview makes that clear, yet again. We do not need to cover that in the article.

There’s also correspondence cited somewhere of, I believe an email by Serbyn, where he observes the exact same thing about some member of the Wheatcroft crowd: that they literally acknowledge Stalin “deliberately inflict on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in part or in whole” while insisting he was innocent of anything but poor organization because he didn’t literally plunge a knife into four million people. —Michael Z. 15:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Found it. It was actually a letter by James Mace from Kyiv, responding to Grover Furr defending Douglas Tottle’s hate speech as “scholarship,” and to Mark Tauger’s opinion on genocide on the H-RUSSIA list.[6]

The arguments are exactly the same. Furr and Wheatcroft are of the opinion that because Stalin didn’t decide in 1931 that he was going to exterminate the Ukrainians, draw up a plan, and sign orders to launch a famine, then it can’t be genocide. Conquest and Mace say that Stalin knew about the risk and then of the occurrence of deadly famine, decided who would eat and who would not, and is therefore responsible for millions of unnecessary deaths.

Conquest is consistent in this view before and after Wheatcroft’s accusation. In 1999 Conquest wrote of Wheatcroft’s argumentation “this is absurd, and reminds me, doubtless unfairly, of those historians who could find no archival evidence that Hitler ordered the Holocaust” doi:10.1080/09668139998426. In 2006, .[7]

Wheatcroft childishly imposes his opinion along with his own bad logic, like you agree with the same facts, therefore you now have changed your opinion to agree with me: gotcha! Cripes.

Anyway, this is just about bickering, amounting to Wheatcroft was wrong when he said Conquest changed is opinion. It may belong in some detailed article about the historiography of the genocide debate, but probably not as it is just gossip. But it certainly has no place in any of the general articles that now exist surrounding the subject of the Holodomor.

Mace’s letter is very good and worth reading in its entirety, but I’ll only quote the pertinent part.[8]

The work of Mark Tauger began with an article in Slavic Review in 1991 which makes the hardly original argument that the 1932 harvest was smaller than anticipated or admitted. This was not even news when it happened, because at the summer 1932 Third All-Ukrainian Party Conference the Communists in Ukraine were making it as clear as they possibly could that the quotas being imposed on them by Moscow could not possibly be met.

I wrote about this in the 1988 Report to Congress, that nobody seems to have actually read. Now we have learned that Stanislav Kosior appealed to Stalin as early as June of that year to lower the quotas.

However, Prof. Tauger goes on from this less than original discovery to argue that since there was a "famine harvest," famine was unavoidable and Stalin had no alternative but starve the peasants in order to feed the cities and sell as much grain as possible abroad to pay for his grandiose plans of industrialization.

Serious journals sometimes publish silly arguments, so please bear with me while I explain why I did not take the argument seriously in 1991 and cannot bring myself to do so today. There is a discipline called economics that was once dubbed the dismal science because it tells you that you can't always have everything you want when you want it.

You have to decide what you can afford now, what you will have to do without, and what you would like to get rid of. The argument then becomes why one choice or another is made and what the person making the choice wants to happen given the range of possibilities at a given point in time.

Did Stalin have to take so much food from the countryside after the harvest of 1932 that millions of people starve to death, blame the failure to find non-existent grain on the local Communists being infiltrated by Petliurists, Makhno supports, various other enemies, and use this to break the Ukrainian SSR as a thing that had earlier been able to do things its own way to at least some extent?

Did he have no alternative but orchestrate a mass hysteria against enemies in general in connection with the Shakhty trial of 1928, force the peasants into collective farms against their will while destroying the most prosperous segment of the peasantry?

Did he have no alternative but to unleash the Great Terror of the Yezhov period or turn against the Jews after World War II? Maybe we could also argue that Hitler had no alternative but to kill the Jews because he needed their property and gold teeth for his war effort to take over the world.

Somehow I find this line of argumentation prima facie specious. Yes, he has done work in the archives, but the argument, even if one accepts his facts, remains lame.

 —Michael Z. 19:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The original discussions on “Holodomor Annotated Bibliography” are still archived,[9] but don’t include the Mace letter, which I’ve only found online at the archived artukraine.com webs linked above.  —Michael Z. 21:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Can somebody please check if this edit [10] replacing and discussed some of the problems surrounding the label genocide with but rejected the label genocide is correct? Manyareasexpert (talk) 08:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I object to the edit. It makes it sounds like Conquest said the Holodomor was not a genocide, but he did not. This misinterpretation has been feeding the false claims that he completely turned around on the question, which keep being inserted into various articles.

I also object to the removal of the authoritative Oxford Bibliographies characterization.

I also object to the statement that the Famine Commission report was based on “anecdotal evidence,” and the removal of the fact it concluded genocide was committed.

These changes should not have been made while this is under discussion and clearly lacking consensus. I will roll back.  —Michael Z. 13:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@FictiousLibrarian, per Wikipedia:Consensus you are supposed to discuss your changes, not to push them with Wikipedia:EW. Please provide a quote for your but rejected the label genocide . Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I removed two instances of 'rejected' as one was a very generous readings of the cited interview and the other was an indirect citation that did not line up with with what the author in question actually wrote in the direct citation—blindlynx 20:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Government recognition of Holodomor

1.) Remove Slovakia to match the map and other related articles on this topic. They recognized extermination, not genocide. 2.) Add UK https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-05-25/debates/6EC6E8AD-56E4-44BF-A0DC-1E077B9ED2E9/UkrainianHolodomor https://kyivindependent.com/uk-parliament-recognizes-holodomor-as-genocide/ Sasomik (talk) 05:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The former still belongs in the section on government recognition, but should be represented accurately (an English-language source would be helpful).  —Michael Z. 14:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Slovakia is listed under Countries recognising Holodomor as a genocide. Ukrainians don't consider holodomor recognized by Slovakia. Here a term annihilation is use, which is closer to extermination (see map, Slovakia isn't on it).

https://euromaidanpress.com/2018/11/24/see-which-countries-recognize-ukraines-holodomor-famine-as-genocide-on-an-interactive-map/

Extermination and genocide are two different crimes. Genocide has a clear intent to kill a nation or an ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.

For the UK official page of the Parliament says at the bottom: "Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House believes that the Holodomor was a genocide against the Ukrainian people." Sasomik (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

please see Talk:Holodomor/Archive_19#Slovakia_did_not_recognize_the_Holodomor_as_genocide—blindlynx 16:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Extermination and genocide aren't the same thing. Slovakia's declaration isn't focused on Ukrainians alone. It is broader and more general. Google translate translates vyvražďovania as extermination or slaughtering. And it is hard to call genocide by any other name as Raphael Lemkin invented this word. Genocide is genocídu in Slovak language.

https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/extermination-1/

https://www.nrsr.sk/web/Dynamic/DocumentPreview.aspx?DocID=269753 Sasomik (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you speak Slovak? —blindlynx 14:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I don’t know Slovak and I can’t speak to any connotations, but it seems to me that “extermination,” given by some online sources,[11] is a reasonable translation of vyvražďovania (wikt:vraždit means “to murder”, and “vy-” is a common Slavic prefix that can imply totality), in light of the text.

Google’s translation of the declaration attached to the “Resolution of the National Council of the Slovak Republic of December 12, 2007 to the Declaration National advice Slovak of the Republic to famine in years 1932–1933 in the former Soviet Union, especially in Ukraine”:

National Council of the Slovak Republic

aware are u, that famine in the former Soviet unions and separately on the Ukraine in years 1932–1933 he was induced Stalin's totalitarian political system on the liquidation Ukrainian peasants, peasants of Russia, Kazakhstan and other regions, acknowledging, that in name historical the truth democratic direction European community a prevention similar by crime what kind in the past committed totalitarian mode, lays down famine in the former Soviet unions and separately on the Ukraine in years 1932–1933 for act extermination committed Stalin's totalitarian regime on the several nations and groups, whose victims were millions of innocent inhabitants, expresses respect memorial victims a big one famine in years 1932–1933 on the Ukraine, in Russia, Kazakhstan, on the North Caucasus and on others territories the former of the Soviet Union.

 —Michael Z. 15:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Google translate is not really good enough for nuances of language. I can only speak to Ukrainian and Polish but it's pretty bad for both, (for example it just gave me this [12]) i don't trust it for other slavic languages. English RS or a Slovak speaker should weight in—blindlynx 16:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely correct, but I thought seeing the text, to know what’s there and what’s not, was better than nothing.  —Michael Z. 16:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

True. To be clear i'm not opposed to this change just wary of doing it without the insight of a Slovak speaker—blindlynx 18:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Read below. They changed the original wording of the declaration from holodomor as genocide to holodomor as extermination so that the declaration would pass the parliament, because otherwise it wouldn't. It's 100% extermination and not genocide. Sasomik (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I speak Slovene. but it is different. We now have 2 pages, where Slovakia is omitted from the recognition as genocide lists. And on all of the maps of these 3 pages (including this one) Slovakia is shown under the category of recognition of holodomor as extermination. Do we value consistency (even on the same page) or not?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor_in_modern_politics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor_genocide_question

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor#/media/File:Holodomor_World_Recognition.svg Sasomik (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Also found this. They translated it as extermination: https://web.archive.org/web/20110807162537/http://www.ukrinform.ua/eng/order/?id=115330&ulq=holodomor Sasomik (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

...and it is explicitly written that the first wording of the decalaration mentioned genocide, but they "softened" it to extermination. I would put Slovakia under the category that recognizes holodomor as an extermination (but not genocide). Sasomik (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

This was the original proposal with genocide wording in it, that wasn't accepted and they changed the wording to extermination and passed the declaration: http://zapalka.sk/article.php?76 Sasomik (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

makes sense—blindlynx 23:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Even on Ukrainian Wiki Slovakia is listed in a different group: https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8F_%D0%93%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83_%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BC Sasomik (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

“Even”?  —Michael Z. 06:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

They should know who recognized holodomor as a genocide and who as an extermination. Sasomik (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

That is fair. Govt. recognition can include and should distinguish all types of recognition, not just acknowledgement as a genocide. Historically, the very acknowledgement of a famine’s existence was a subject of politics, then its artificial causes, its criminal nature, and its genocidal identity.  —Michael Z. 12:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Sasomik (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The problem solved itself. https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/06/20/7407727/ Sasomik (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The section is a mess. It conflates recognition as a crime and recognition as the specific crime of genocide and also confuses recognition by a parliamentary resolution with official recognition either by government or an act of parliament. "International Recognition of the Holodomor as an act of Genocide" (Ucrainica Research), which is used as a source for this article, says, for example, "In accordance with the information from the Ukrainian Ministry for Foreign Affairs, 14 countries have recognized the Holodomor as an act of genocide...and 5 countries have recognized the Holodomor as a criminal act of the Stalinist regime." Yet this article lists 31 "Countries recognising Holodomor as a genocide." TFD (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

No, 32. Slovakia too, as of today.[13][14][15]  —Michael Z. 20:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

It says at the bottom- Copyright 2009 and the list with 14 countries listed + Ukraine is correct for the year 2009: http://www.holodomoreducation.org/news.php/news/4 Sasomik (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Man-Made Famine Tautology?

The article says "While scholars universally agree that the cause of the famine was man-made, whether the Holodomor constitutes a genocide remains in dispute."

Some suggested changes, change "universally agree" to "are in consensus" there are some outlier scholars such as Mark. B. Tauger that hold fringe views about the famine being due entirely, or primarly, by natural causes.

Additionally, the current scholarly consensus of Famine research is that all famines are man-made due to there being enough resources to feed all humans in the world in any given year, therefore famine is caused by human decisions. So saying the famine was man-made comes across as either tautology or framing outside of the neutral POV policy.

I think with these small changes it much strengthens the article. AevumNova (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done it's better langauge—blindlynx 15:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the "man-made famine" question: I would add a "citation wanted" to the statement "the current scholarly consensus of Famine research is that all famines are man-made". But even assuming it's true for famines today, let's not forget that the Holodomor happened 90 years ago. And throughout human history and prehistory there were famines, many of them due to droughts or other natural conditions. Even then, presumable many of these famines could have been prevented or at least alleviated if society had been organized differently, but therefore calling all of them "man-made" seems ridiculous and I don't think anyone has seriously done it. So the more relevant distinction seems to be whether a famine was chiefly due to natural conditions or due to human-made factors such as wars. The Holodomor, no doubt, falls into the latter category (even though there was no war). So the statement is neither a tautology nor biased. Gawaon (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Chaudhari 1984, p. 135. Same article as is cited for it on the page theories of famine. Tauger is an outlier but the consensus post 1951 is that all famines are man-made.

Note that what is meant by man-made in these circles doesn't mean deliberately planned but rather comes about due to the choices of humans. AevumNova (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Which still seems like a very tautological claim. The idea that all famines are man-made because food exists in other places fails to account for other issues in providing food to those areas affected by said famine. Framing it as "choices of humans" is so reductive as to be absurd. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

In this case it does means Stalin knew there was deadly famine and signed orders that ensured millions of Ukrainians died in it unnecessarily. Just repeating “all famines are man-made” without the actual context is misleading, making this sound like it’s definitely not a genocide, when that view is a minority.  —Michael Z. 20:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

When the Holodomor is described by sources as a man-made famine, it is absolutely not meant to say that it is the same as all famines. Implying that this is the case is absolutely wrong.  —Michael Z. 20:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

? Our own beliefs have no place in this article it's about scholarly consensus in which that is not. AevumNova (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I am referring to our ability and willingness to interpret plain English as it is used in scholarly sources.  —Michael Z. 13:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

We aren't supposed to be interpreting. That goes into the realm of doing our own research. We are supposed to be conveying. AevumNova (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m talking about interpreting the words. The assertion that the many sources describing the Holodomor as a “man-made famine” to indicate that it is not different from any other famine is an egregiously bad interpretation. It’s either the inability to understand English in context or manipulation. I’ll not agree to change the article based on this. I’ll try to resist wasting my time discussing it further. If you want to keep pressing this, you should move on to WP:dispute resolution.  —Michael Z. 15:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Ignoring wp:leadcite, there are four (4) citations for this claim in the lead including Tauger. I suspect all of the papers discussed here will make some mention of this too—blindlynx 20:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm frankly not sure whether there is even a serious disagreement here? I suppose we can all agree that this famine was even more man-made than others. Therefore, the statement makes a lot of sense and can stand. Gawaon (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

the lang we use is 'the cause of the famine was man-made' so i guess thats sorta what we do?—blindlynx 20:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The disagreement lied with the use of terms.

The academic consensus is that the famine of Ukraine and other regions in the USSR occured due to poor collectivization efforts with a higher expected crop yield then both the technology delivered and rainfalls permitted.

The famine was caused due to a lack of agricultural and climate knowledge among the head of the USSR whose centrally planned economy this led to death in the rural populations of the USSR especially the Ukraine as it was primarily rural compared to the other USSR nations.

This is corroborated by the documents from the USSR itself.

However it IS the majority scholarly view that the USSR attempted cultural genocide, or cultural extermination depending on the scholar's definition, of the Ukraine via Russifaction among other actions.

That being said the majority scholarly view does not match the majority political view in this instance. The scholar consensus is that the Ukrainians were viewed as a potential reactionary force by USSR leadership you forced Russifaction upon their populace, meanwhile poorly executed central planning led to the USSR overestimating crop gains in a year where there was a poor harvest. This led to widespread rural starvation and the Ukraine was mostly rural.

However the majority political consensus currently is that the Ukraine was the target of an intentional genocide on the basis of their ethnicity via specifically targeting them with famine.

This section of the article focuses on the historical scholarship of the Holodomor not on the political stances of it.

It is very important that we look at the scholarship on it and avoid leading language that breaks the neutral POV doctrine.

If the article's purpose is to show the academic debate on whether or not the Holodomor was a genocide then starting the article saying it is would be incredibly misleading. AevumNova (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

My apologies I responded to the wrong talk page.

In this page i think it's actually pretty good. I was just speaking about the man-made famine being strange.

The Irish Potatoe Famine for example does not have its page start by calling it a man-made famine even though that is the historical consensus. AevumNova (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Ireland doesn't have a border/war with Russia.--Aristophile (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I do not see how that is relevant. It has a border and has had a war with England. And England where the ones that are considered responsible for the famine.

This seems to be a bias concerning that countries anglophones are likely to be from or more sympathetic to are not treated with the same word choices and presentation regarding famines and genocides as countries anglophones are less likely to be from or sympathetic to.

If we wish to include man-made here then we should be doing the same for other famines. AevumNova (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

other stuff exists you're more than welcome to try get wp:consensus on those pages for the inclusion of 'man-made'. There is unfortunately a lot of denial of this event and that warrants inclusion of clear language about it's causes—blindlynx 22:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the Holodomor has more international recognition then the English role in the Potatoe Famine, the various Indian famines under British rule, or the famines of the First Nations peoples under colonial rule.

However it is true that the modern day Ukraine is being, in my opinion, unjustly invaded by Russia in horrific fashion, and that the English speaking word is currently backing the Ukraine against this invasion.

However it is true that the modern day Ukraine is being, in my opinion, unjustly invaded by Russia in horrific fashion, and that the English speaking word is currently backing the Ukraine against this invasion. However, that shouldn't change how we should be treating the language we use about historical events lest we be falling victim to letting our bosses shine through. AevumNova (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

My apologies my device corrected "biases" to "bosses" AevumNova (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

We have to follow reliable sources on here and unfortunately there is simply more academic research of certain events—blindlynx 22:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the other pages in question I worry it is not the lack of academic writings available but rather different interpretations of neutral POV due to the basis of the editor. AevumNova (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

you should raise this on those talk pages—blindlynx 00:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm against using the term "Man-Made" to describe this famine. The Great Famine (Ireland) doesn't use this term despite being worsened by a number of actions by the British Empire. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned by your edit history I will not lie. But I would just be arguing for consistency. I would rather both articles be labelled with man-made given it's the current scholarly consensus that famines are man-made and in this case are due to specific powers prioritizing central powers over satellite countries. AevumNova (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Search reliable sources for “man-made famine” and let us know what prominent results are returned.[16][17]  —Michael Z. 22:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

This is a non-argument. As mentioned prior an aglo-phone bias is present in these cases. AevumNova (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

This article is in English and we can’t really use terminology from French or Tagalog literature on the subject.

But do reliable sources support your assertion, or is an idea of your own?  —Michael Z. 23:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

This article uses Ukrainian sources and English sources that reference Russian sources.

Is there some wikipedia policy I am not aware of regarding this? AevumNova (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I know of no policy about “anglophone bias.” Did you invent this? We discriminate to the degree that English-language sources are preferred, per WP:NONENG.  —Michael Z. 03:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

There is WP:BIAS, but I don’t think it’s exactly what you are referring to.  —Michael Z. 03:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I do not know how to answer that. I am not sure what you are thinking I am saying that makes your response make sense? AevumNova (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, so you're here to WP:RGW about "anglophone bias." That explains a few things. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

No? May I remind you that in talk pages we are required to assume good faith. AevumNova (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Croatia's Recognition of Holodomor as Genocide

Croatia Recognized Soviet-Era Ukrainian Famine as Genocide, June 28, 2023. Can someone include this in the article? Source is here https://balkaninsight.com/2023/06/28/croatian-mps-recognise-soviet-era-ukrainian-famine-as-genocide/ 24.87.14.45 (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Lemkin

I didn't want go to ahead and be bold as the text was on the page, in various forms, for some time. There's a few sentences that I think go well beyond what the source text says.

'According to Lemkin, Holodomor "is a classic example of the Soviet genocide"'. This is a bit dishonest, as the source [18] never actually mentions Holodomor. The full sentence is "What I want to speak about is perhaps the classic example of Soviet genocide, its longest and broadest experiment in Russification — the destruction of the Ukrainian nation" and yes he goes on to list multiple crimes from Imperial and Soviet Russia, including the famine. But to attribute that quote with Holodomor in the front is rather dishonest.

The second sentence that I take issue with is 'Raphael Lemkin ... have called the Holodomor a genocide and the intentional result of Stalinist policies'. Again I'll point out that the source text never mentions Stalin or Holodomor. Granted, the term "Holodomor" didn't likely exist when Lemkin gave his speech, but the Wikipedia article deserves more nuance than attributing words to him that he didn't state.

My proposal is to replace the first sentence with "Lemkin spoke about 'a classic example of the Soviet genocide' which included famine and murder". The second sentence could be "Raphael Lemkin has called the situation of famine and murder in Ukraine a 'genocide'". I think this is much fairer to the source text.Stix1776 (talk) 06:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

A name for a historical event rarely coincide with it. It is pretty axiomatic what Lemkin is talking about. It is the same with Holocaust.--Aristophile (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit, I just found an academic source that states "Lemkin did not classify the famine in Ukraine as a genocide. Rather, he saw the famine as the most brutal stage of a genocide." [19] I think this strengthens my case.Stix1776 (talk) 06:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems more accurate to the citations. He considered all of what the USSR did in Ukraine a genocide, and the famine was just one aspect of it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

If we change this it has to be clear he saw it as a part of a wider genocide—blindlynx 13:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely, given the concurrent executions of artists and intellectuals.--Aristophile (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll repeat my assertion, Lemkin never *stated* the words "Holodomor", "Stalin", or "Holocaust" in the listed source, and this article should not be asserting that he did state it. If someone disagrees, can they please provide a quote from a source. I'm tempted to put a "dubious" tag on the paragraph, but I'd like to give other editors time to respond.Stix1776 (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I made some edits to this section to try to address your concerns.[20]  —Michael Z. 03:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

It doesn’t really matter that Lemkin didn’t use the name Holocaust in 1953: we all know what he was referring to when he wrote “Ukraine is highly susceptible to racial murder by select parts and so the Communist tactics there have not followed the pattern taken by the German attacks against the Jews.”

And even though he doesn’t mention Stalin by name, we do know that it is “Stalinist policy” he talked about when he wrote about the “leaders of the Kremlin” and its “present masters,” and “it has had its matches within the Soviet Union in the annihilation of the Ingerian nation, the Don and Kuban Cossacks, the Crimean Tatar Republics, the Baltic Nations of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia. Each is a case in the long-term policy of liquidation of non-Russian peoples by the removal of select parts.” But to be fair, he did outline genocidal Russification going back at least to Catherine the Great, the “long-term policy of liquidation of non-Russian peoples,” but more specifically focussed on genocidal attacks against Ukraine from 1920 to 1946 (under Stalin).  —Michael Z. 03:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

It’s not a leap to mention Stalin. Andriewsky 2015 writes “‘The genocide was not that Stalin’s regime killed so many people,’ as one Lemkin scholar explained, ‘but that these individuals were killed with the purpose of destroying the Ukrainian way of life,’” citing Irvin-Erickson 2013, “Genocide, the ‘Family of Mind’ and the Romantic Signature of Raphael Lemkin.”  —Michael Z. 04:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

It also doesn’t matter that he didn’t use the name Holodomor, although we can address that for context, as Andriewsky 2015 did “The Holodomor (he, of course, did not use this word) was merely one episode of this extended process.”  —Michael Z. 04:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits, Michael. I'll budge that "German attacks against the Jews" could be quite easily interpreted as the Holocaust. But it's a huge leap to put in the word "Stalin" or "Holodomor" in with Lemkin. For the former, Lemkin certainly knew who Stalin was by 1953. It doesn't seem to be a huge issue to put in a bit of nuance in the article, and my first suggestion above don't really take anything away.

- Raphael Lemkin has called the situation of famine and murder in Ukraine a genocide.

instead of

-Raphael Lemkin...called the Holodomor a genocide and the intentional result of Stalinist policies.

ThanksStix1776 (talk) 05:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a distinction without a difference. The Holodomor was part of the situation of famine and murder in Ukraine. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I object to the unduly passive wording “situation of famine and murder,” as if it were something that just happened on its own. The Soviet government committed murder, including by imposing famine. We know that Stalin signed orders for mass murder. I don’t know whether Lemkin knew that Stalin did this. But Lemkin called what we know Stalin did genocide.  —Michael Z. 11:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

On second thought, I can see how “called them the intentional result of Stalinist policies” kind of sounds like a direct quotation, although it is not. Will try to improve.  —Michael Z. 12:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm perfectly OK with the active tense, like "Lemkin called the Soviet/Russian induced famine and murder a genocide". I'm being a bit lazy with words at the moment, maybe someone can write that more eloquently. Thanks. Stix1776 (talk) 12:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Can I insist that Lemkin did not say that the "Holodomor was... the intentional result of Soviet policies under Stalin". Can someone please cite the source stating that Lemkin said this or remove Lemkin's comment that he mentioned Stalin.Stix1776 (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Unreasonably long footnotes in the lead

Footnotes c, d and e are absurdly long. This level of extra detail just doesn't belong in the lead section, which is supposed to be just a broad overview of the subject. The footnotes should be taken out and their content moved to elsewhere in the article. Richard75 (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The issue is wp:leadcite gets ignored and stuff is removed from the lead constantly for being 'uncited' on this page—blindlynx 14:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the long quotations can be replaced with just a citation and “see section X below”?  —Michael Z. 15:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

that's a good idea—blindlynx 18:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Exaggerated "dispute" on the classification of genocide

Replace the first sentence of the second paragraph entirely.

Original text:

"While scholars are in consensus that the cause of the famine was man-made, whether the Holodomor constitutes a genocide remains in dispute."¹⁵

Reason:

To state that the "dispute remains" on the classification of a genocide is misleading. There is no remaining dispute at this time.

Explanation:

It is very likely the author of the source--Ronald Grigor Suny--said this in his book, taken out of context can make it misleading. The direct quote of the source said "Most scholars rejected this claim" ^A , implying the classification of a genocide was rejected in the past. It's important to note that the current consensus by most scholars and historians that the Holodomor was a genocide, even by the same author Suny himself. ^B Raphael Lemkin, the creator of the term 'genocide', classified it as a genocide as well. ^C

New text:

A consensus among scholars recognize the effects of the Holodomor were a result of a man-made famine. However, despite substantial evidence supporting its classification as a genocide, there persists a notable presence of denial and misinformation that challenges its recognition as one.^A Raphael Lemkin, the scholar who coined the term "genocide," classified the Holodomor as such during his lifetime.^C This classification is supported by current experts, historians, and has even gained recognition from foreign governments.^B,D

The main argument to denial in classifying the Holodomor as a genocide aligns with the stance of the Russian government, which categorizes it simply as a famine. In 2017, a spokesperson from the Russian Foreign Ministry explicitly stated that the term "genocide" was politically charged.^E This argument echoes the perspective of many Holodomor deniers, however; this misinformation and outright denial of the Holodomor stems from the fact the Soviet Union took extensive measures to conceal evidence of the genocide from the public. Notably, they infamously denied international aid from the Red Cross, asserting that no famine was taking place. ^F

A. Suny, Ronald Grigor (2017). Red Flag Unfurled: History, Historians, and the Russian Revolution. Verso Books. pp. 94–95. ISBN 978-1784785642.

B. Suny, Ronald Grigor (2011).The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the USSR, and the Successor States. Oxford University Press. pp. 245-246. ISBN 0195340558.

C. "Role Of Lemkin - Holodomor Research And Education Consortium". Holodomor Research And Education Consortium, 2023, https://web.archive.org/web/20190530164956/https://education.holodomor.ca/teaching-materials/role-of-lemkin/. Accessed 9 July 2023.

He mentioned the Soviet Genocide in Ukraine (what is now known as the Holodomor) in his book History of Genocide (unpublished).

D. Glushko, Denys. House Of Representatives Of The Netherlands Recognizes The Holodomor As Genocide. Gwara Media, 2023, https://gwaramedia.com/en/house-of-representatives-of-the-netherlands-recognizes-the-holodomor-as-genocide/. Accessed 9 July 2023.

E. "Russia Still Denies The Holodomor Was ‘Genocide’". Acton Institute, 2023, https://www.acton.org/publications/transatlantic/2017/11/27/russia-still-denies-holodomor-was-genocide. Accessed 9 July 2023.

F. "Holodomor - Denial And Silences - HREC Education". HREC Education, 2023, https://education.holodomor.ca/teaching-materials/holodomor-denial-silences/. Accessed 9 July 2023.

22quackAA (talk) 07:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

 On hold pending editor review. For any editors; I have made these changes to a page in my userspace located here for peer review. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 22:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I think this may be too strong of a statement: However, despite substantial evidence supporting its classification as a genocide, there persists a notable presence of denial and misinformation that challenges its recognition as one. The article Holodomor genocide question and its talkpage lead me to believe that scholarly debate does still exist on the question. It's a lively group over there, I'd think they'd be happy to give more feedback. Xan747 (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, I see now that you're right and perhaps it may be too strong of a statement. I did check the "Holodomor genocide question" talkpage and it is indeed very lively. From what I've read, scholarly debate isn't the exact term I would use (at least for there), but I see how it is at least possible. 22quackAA (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@22quackAA, you mention that Raphael Lemkin described the famine as a "genocide" but his wiki page says he died in 1959, decades before the Soviet archives were opened. You need to take into consideration the changes in the historiography. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Lemkin has been influential on the historiography. See, for example, Andriewsky 2015.[21]  —Michael Z. 20:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, your observation holds merit, but as Michael Z. pointed out, Lemkin's profound influence on historiographical discourse cannot be underestimated. While I don't have the physical sources in front of me at the moment, it's very likely Lemkin's authoritative stance derives from the aggregate of primary source engagement and scholarly exploration. It appears incongruous to contend that the accessibility to these archives would contravene the categorization of the Holodomor as a genocide. For reference, here are photos from 1933 smuggled by an Australian Technician. 22quackAA (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

PS: closing this as answered but  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Xan747 (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The view of the Ukrainian famine as a genocide, as that term is defined, remains in the minority. While no reliable sources dispute the famine occurred, there is a minority view given recognition in reliable sources that it was not deliberate. IOW the blame Stalin's agricultural policies.

The position of the Ukrainian government is that Stalin planned to eliminate the Ukrainian nation in the same sense that Hitler planned to eliminate the Jews. This view is rejected by most scholars, as are their victim estimates. TFD (talk) 05:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

That’s not accurate.

Firstly, we are concerned with the majority view in reliable sources. Even the minority of academic dissenters, or whatever, does agree that the deadly famine was a result of Soviet government decisions and actions. There is no debate on that.

I don’t think that is the position of the Ukrainian government. Where did you get that idea?  —Michael Z. 18:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Lost Births

I found this language "600,000 in lost births" in the lead confusing and I removed it for the time being. Does it mean or stillbirths in the population or the children who would have existed if not for their parents deaths? Because if its the latter then we should scrap it all together. I have found numerous historians using this as a means of inflating deaths for political reasons. I say this because few if any historical events judge death toll in this way. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 16:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the new wording now found is much clearer. However, somehow it seems to have lost its sources – it would be good to re-add them. Gawaon (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I concur. I have been combing through the page's past to find sources that were scrapped. If no one else fully replaces them, I will do so in the next few days. I await to see what others have to say. In my opinion, I like the lead without the 600,000. I must clarify that I did not delete the sentence but rather moved it. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 17:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

agreed that it needs clarification as to what this means and it shouldn't be in the lead regardless of what it is—blindlynx 22:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I’m no expert, but I think this is standard demographical statistics.

Famine losses are operationally defined as the difference between actual estimated deaths (or births) during 1932-1934, and the number of hypothetical deaths (or births) had there been no famine. The difference in deaths is called direct losses or excess deaths; the difference in births is called indirect losses or lost births.[22]

 —Michael Z. 00:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

From the language in your excerpt I strongly believe it leans towards the latter with the hypothetical demographic shift. Let's keep it out of the article for the time being.

FictiousLibrarian (talk). 17:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

What "consensus" are you talking about? I don't see anybody except you arguing for deleting that information altogether. As for me, I objected to the illogical "dead in lost births", but think the current wording is fine and should stay. Gawaon (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I don’t understand what this refers to or means at all: “it leans towards the latter with the hypothetical demographic shift.” Let’s keep the statistics in the article.  —Michael Z. 02:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

If you are going to keep the statistics in the article then please clarify what you mean. If you are referring to the deaths of children than please say so, if you are referring to a statistic that extrapolates people that would have existed had it not been for their parents' death in the famine then please remove it. Also on a side note, where are all the sources I left in the lead? I saw someone compiled them which I am highly grateful for I must add, I am not the most tech literate person but I cannot find them. I am anticipating some user or IP reader will comment and ask where are all the sources and want to act preemptively. Because as of right now only the pro-genocide camp has sources in the lead.

FictiousLibrarian (talk). 14:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

i put them back they got taken out on the basis of wp:leadcite but we def have consensus they're useful in the lead—blindlynx 16:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you.

FictiousLibrarian (talk). 18:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll add a short note explaining the term "lost births". I agree that's good to have and had in fact already planned to do so. Gawaon (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Done. Gawaon (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you.

FictiousLibrarian (talk). 18:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Contextual ambiguity in Introduction

The way the introduction as currently worded does not make it clear that the Holodomor is the Ukrainian name for the Ukrainian part of the broader Soviet famine. 76.71.91.123 (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Hmm? That's stated right in the second sentence. Gawaon (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Implausible decree name

In the section "During the famine", the text:

"Joseph Stalin signed the January 1933 secret decree named "Preventing the Mass Exodus of Peasants who are Starving", restricting travel by peasants after requests for bread began in the Kuban and Ukraine"

should be changed to:

"Joseph Stalin signed a January 1933 secret decree restricting travel by peasants after requests for bread began in the Kuban and Ukraine"

The alleged name of the decree does not appear in the source cited and is an highly implausible name. 2607:FB91:22C1:641C:1816:586E:6D99:E3C0 (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Sounds plausible. I've changed the sentence to a form close to your suggestion. Thanks! Gawaon (talk) 10:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2023

Xenonchik22 (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding a visualisation to demonstrate the losses by region. Source https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/nationalities-papers/article/regional-19321933-famine-losses-a-comparative-analysis-of-ukraine-and-russia/F5C798BC03F12BB0D08CB24DE3D13F00

Visualisation: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Victims_of_the_Famine.tif

 Note: The linked image appears to be a screenshot of a figure in a research article. Does this fall under WP:COPYVIO? -- Pinchme123 (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I presume this refers to figure 3, the map of losses by region. Indeed, the article is marked as copyrighted and there’s no separate notice for the map.

But I believe the figures in figure 2 are facts not subject to copyright, and we could create our own map from them. Maybe post at WP:Requested pictures.  —Michael Z. 15:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Or certainly it wouldn’t be much trouble to create a chart, but that would give less information.

Also significant is the study’s finding: “extremely high losses are mostly found in the regions where repression policies were much more severe than those introduced elsewhere and for which nationality may be a key factor.”  —Michael Z. 15:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The suggested image has now been tagged as missing evidence of permission and Xenonchik22 has been notified via their Wikimedia account. I'm marking this request as responded-to. Xenonchik22, If the permissions issue is resolved, please feel free to reactivate this request to have it evaluated again. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Korenizatsia and Soviet policy on Ukrainization

The article makes no counterpoint to the claims of Russification and the theory of the elimination (or intentional dillution) of Ukrainian culture with with any mention of the well-documented, far-reaching programme of promotion of the Ukrainian language (directives for non-speakers to learn it, massive expansion of Ukrainian-language primary schoools) and culture (Ukrainian language poetry, opera, theatre), ethnic Ukrainians into the Soviet and Party institutions, the Ukrainization of the print media and visual environment (signage, public announcements, forms) that was carried out as a key policy of the Party in the mid to late 1920s and continued through until the mid 1930s (across the timespan of the famine period). This is a well-known aspect of union-wide Soviet policy of "korenizatsiia", it's a process that is well-documented particularly in the case of Ukraine and "Ukrainization", and it seems like a biased decision to exclude any mention of this. I think this requires correction, and in fact the French Wiki page on the Holodomor does a good job of explaining the background to Soviet policy on nationalities and Ukrainian language and culture to provide more context. Abdulrahimb (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

“In Ukraine 1937 began in 1933” —Lev Kopelev.

Promotion of Ukrainian language plateaued after 1927, and violent Russification started in earnest by 1932. Soviets banned Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church 1930. Stalin appointed Kaganovich his virtual governor of Ukraine 1932. Holodomor genocide 1932–33. Mykola Skrypnyk shot himself 1933. Executed Renaissance started 1933. Ukrainian orthography forcibly Russified from 1933.  —Michael Z. 03:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

“‘Fusion’ position”

I am puzzled by this.[23] I have not seen this overview as there being 3 positions in sources other than Nicolas Werth 2008, “The Great Ukrainian Famine of 1932-33.”

My understanding is that the mainstream position, since the 1980s, is that there was a low but not disastrous harvest in 1932, and the Soviets took advantage of it in 1933 using managed deliveries, confiscation, restrictions on movement, blacklisting of villages and regions, refusal to accept aid, and selective and late delivery of relief to impose the genocide on Ukrainians.

Isn’t this what Werth is describing? If so, shouldn’t it be presented first, in the lead, and then positions towards the fringes of debate come later?

I’m not aware of any serious scholarship proposing that the Soviets planned in advance and engineered the entire famine from scratch, at least not in recent decades. Using the phrase “deliberately engineered” to sum up the mainstream position doesn’t represent it fairly, and sets up a straw man for skeptics and deniers to latch onto.

And presenting the other fringe of academic discussion as the “consequence of rapid Soviet industrialisation and collectivization of agriculture” is also so vague as to be meaningless. There is no hint as to how these things could lead to millions starving to death, and the body of the article is not really much help.

I believe these academic positions are being described as extreme versions of the debate, and they are being featured more prominently than the actual mainstream consensus on the Holodomor. This is not a balanced and NPOV presentation of the subject.  —Michael Z. 18:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It used to be in the lead before FictiousLibrarian moved it down. However, I can't judge whether the name "fusion position" is usual and makes sense – might be better to just present it as the mainstream view, like you say. Gawaon (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

That's why I moved it. It is either in the pro or anti genocide camp. It starts to get convoluted very fast. I don't see any discussion in the talk page about a consensus about adding that sentence ergo why I moved it. Also Mzajac, academic debates much like the real world are heavily influenced by the academic's political background and opinions. Which is why we need to take them into consideration. Also I'm confused about your comments about how industrialization could cause deaths in the population? FictiousLibrarian (talk). 23:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I have restored the sentence to the lead, rewriting it a little and now calling it "middle position", which I think is clearer. I'd say it's important enough to go into the lead, as it's probably far more widespread among serious historians than the more one-sided versions. Gawaon (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The “fusion position” is not in either the genocide or not genocide camp: as Werth explains in the following paragraphs, that depends on whether a scholar agrees that the famine targeted the Ukrainian national group or the Soviet peasantry (and he also mentions some of the evidence that shows it was the former). I believe it is in this group that the more useful, and less inflammatory debate about genocide or not, and analysis about the nature of genocide has taken place.

I’m not intimately familiar with all of the works mentioned, but it sounds like the “fusion position” that Werth credits to Graziosi 2005 is not very different from the conclusions about the Holodomor outlined in Mace 1988, “Investigation of the Ukrainian Famine 1932-1933: Report to Congress” (which is quoted in Andriewsky 2015: 26–27).[24]

academic debates much like the real world are heavily influenced by the academic's political background and opinions. Which is why we need to take them into consideration.

Why, which academics’ specific “political background and opinions” do you want to “take into consideration” and how? Please don’t resort to original research or prejudice. Werth 2005 is a useful paper because I now believe it outlines the two academic fringes, and says a few words identifying their proponents, and then refers to the mainstream opinion as the “fusion position.” It is a secondary source that evaluates academics’ exemplary positions so we don’t have to.  —Michael Z. 03:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Lead sources

I am confused if we are on the issue of sources in the lead. I was hoping someone could re-add the sources I put for the claim that the famine deaths are the result of unintentional policy and industrialization. If the consensus is to not bog down the lead than please ignore. If not then I or someone else can re-add them. Thank you. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 17:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Don’t know what you are referring to. Can you refer specifically to diff links?  —Michael Z. 18:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes the earlier versions of the page that had three citations (I believe this version was in February of this year but I am not sure) next to the sentence about how the famine was a byproduct of the Five Year Plan. I want to re-add them at least one only because the genocide sentence has the link to the Encyclopedia Britannica. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 17:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The general case is that citations in the lead can be omitted if a statement is repeated (usually with more details) and referenced in the body, as it usually should be (MOS:LEADCITE). Gawaon (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@FictiousLibrarian, many of your edits are differ from the source. Can you please discuss your edits first and provide confirmation from sources before you make changes. Thanks! Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Manyareasexpert I add sources however as you can see from the revisions, various editors remove them, especially if my statements are in the lead. Which is why I went here to get clarification from other editors to the policy on adding sources in the lead. I'll use this as an example, please follow the link. It takes you to a page revision in January of this year. All of the sources have been removed from the sentence that argues the famine was the result of disasters from collectivization in the lead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holodomor&oldid=1131880071 FictiousLibrarian (talk). 17:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@FictiousLibrarian, I refer specifically to your latest edits [25] [26] where you add "lack of relief" which is not what the source says. You also did add text different from the source many times before Talk:Holodomor/Archive 20#c-Manyareasexpert-20230426084300-J_JMesserly-20221226082800 [27] [28] [29] [30] . Please stop. Manyareasexpert (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Cannibal: The History of the People-Eaters

This is not an academic source, authors are not historians. Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

It's in the general References/Bibliography section, but not used as an actual reference inside our article. I could see an argument for moving it to See Also instead, though. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

It's in Cannibalism section reference #45 "Quoted in Korn, Radice & Hawes 2001" Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not an academic book, but a RELIABLE source, written by serious journalists and researchers based (in this case) on first-hand interviews. I've readded a much more carefully worded version of the claim you deleted – in this form, at least, it should be OK. Gawaon (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The wording is indeed more careful, thank you. But the article is full of academic sources and sure some of them should mention this. If they are not then this account by journalists is doubtful. Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Note how Ogiienko, for example, is even more careful The Holodomor and the Origins of the Soviet Man - Vitalii Ogiienko - Google Books Manyareasexpert (talk) 10:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Google Books doesn't allow that me to see that page, so I can't comment on its contents. But as it seems to be self-published, it wouldn't be admissible as a reliable source anyway. Books by journalists, on the other hand, are accepted in general and I don't think you have reason to label that Channel 4 book as "unreliable". Orlando Figes – no doubt a reliable source – writes in his A People's Tragedy about the widespread sale of human flesh during the Russian famine of 1921–1922, hence it's very plausible that similar things happened during the Holodomor too, which after all was hardly less severe. Nevertheless I admit that the disputed factoid may be just a rumour, and the interviewed man might well have had wrong impressions about what actually went on. Hence I'll remove it. Let's see if there are more substantial records to be found. Gawaon (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Ogiienko just mentions "sale of dishes prepared from human flesh at markets, which many testimonies discuss" in relation to some Holodomor crime. The publisher is Ibidem. Just the first thing popped up in my search, I wasn't researching hard. Try to put the quote in the search and maybe the page will appear. Manyareasexpert (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I found confirmation that "A black market arose in human flesh" in Snyder's Bloodlands. Will add a quote/summary from there. Gawaon (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, that's reliable.
A young communist in the Kharkiv region reported to his superiors that he could make a meat quota - what "quota" meant there? Is there an explanation? Were they gathering supplies for quota on markets? After they just were taking the grain by force? Manyareasexpert (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Snyder doesn't explain the "meat quota" further, but the reference he gives is to Robert Conquest, The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), p. 227. Feel free to look it up there if you have the time. I might do it myself one of these days, but maybe not quickly. Gawaon (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Conquest there is on a different topic.
Some activists, even ones with bad personal records, tried to get fair treatment for the peasantry.16 Occasionally a decent-minded Party activist, especially one who had lost any illusions about the Party’s intentions, could do something to help a village - working within the narrow margin of not stirring up his superiors nor, even harder, giving the more virulent of his subordinates a handle against him. Occasionally one of the latter would grossly exceed the level of violence (or corruption) condoned by the authorities, and might be removed. A little more often, the illegal diversion of some food back to the peasants might go undiscovered until the harvest which, if it proved good, would induce the Provincial authorities to pass over the fault.
Some activists were provoked into more overt defiance. One young Communist sent to the village of Murafa, Kharkov Province, reported by telephone that he could make the meat deliveries, but only with human corpses. He then escaped from the area.17 ... Manyareasexpert (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, that sounds like a deliberate provocation, so not too much should be made out of it. I'll remove the sentence from the article. Gawaon (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of Kazakh Famine under See also

I think a link to the Kazakh famines during the same time period would be helpful in the See also section. 2800:150:15B:1829:F07D:DBBD:5D8E:F08B (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

It was already mentioned once in the article, but only in the context of Ukrainians falling victim to it, and it's easy to overlook. So that request sounds reasonable and I've added the link. Gawaon (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

"While scholars are in consensus that the cause of the famine was man-made"

Per WP:RS/AC, "a statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view". I'm not seeing this sourced anywhere. Can somehow source this or can it be changed? Thanks.Stix1776 (talk) 07:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

It's explained in the paragraph following the sentence you quote, and in more detail in Causes of the Holodomor. Some historians believe that it was "deliberately engineered", while others think it was an (unintended) "consequence of rapid Soviet industrialisation", and a third position is that both intentional and unintended factors came together. However, no serious historian seems to suggest that the famine was entirely or primary due to natural reasons (such as a severe drought) – hence the "consensus". Gawaon (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

So no source says it's "consensus", per WP:RS/AC? It seems that Wheatcroft and Tauger disagree that it's man-made, which explicitly speaks against "academic consensus".Stix1776 (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Hold up consensus isn't unanimity. Tauger is the only one who thinks it was natrual. Wheatcroft (and davis) are the ones who dispute his methodology. Not to mention they say explicitly that policy was the cause of the famine [31]—blindlynx 17:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I've added a citation from Andriewsky 2015 historiography. The relevant section is:

Historians of Ukraine are no longer debating whether the Famine was the result of natural causes (and even then not exclusively by them). The academic debate appears to come down to the issue of intentions, to whether the special measures undertaken in Ukraine in the winter of 1932-­‐33 that intensified starvation were aimed at Ukrainians as such. —blindlynx 17:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Plus the article states: "Wheatcroft notes that the Soviet extension of sown area may have exacerbated the problem, which Tauger also acknowledges." – So even Tauger seems to agree that the famine was partially man-made. Gawaon (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I've added another source. That said tauger is the only scholar who argues that its causes were natural and it is wp:undue to privilege one scholar out of all of the people working on this—blindlynx 21:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Blindlynx, would you mind putting a page number and quote with that source, because I'm unable to find what you're saying. The article I'm reading starts with "1".

In regards to Andriewsky, he literally states "Historians of Ukraine" as the beginning of the sentence. The article is about how historians of Ukraine treat the issue of the Holodomor. If you want to write "historians of Ukraine" in the lead, I'm fine for it. But nothing states academic consensus as stated in the lead. We're going to ignoring WP:RS/AC?Stix1776 (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

571 of the published page 5 of the pre-pub the first paragraph of the 'TERROR BY HUNGER' section. How on earth is historians of Ukraine being in agreement about an event in Ukraine's history not academic consensus? Especially given that the academic debate is not about this but the intentionallity of the famine and everyone researching this sees it as a result of government policy to some extent—blindlynx 15:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Tauger disagrees with other scholars about the size of the harvest. It seems that when he questions the term "man made" he is disagreeing with the position that the famine was intentional.[32] TFD (talk) 12:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, but if so that would only show that he misunderstands the meaning of "man-made". An unintentionally man-made famine would still be man-made. Gawaon (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

He's mostly arguing that the human causes of the Holod don't set it apart from other most famines as most have similar levels of human causes—blindlynx 16:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The number of human loses is not what defines if that was a genocide or not (can find some references for this claim).The intend as well as the points described in the Genocide Conventionn of 1948 do. Krispe13 (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Whether he understands the term correctly or not, he agrees that it was man made within the definition provided in this article. So that seems to mean there is a consensus, just disagreement over intention and whether ethnic Ukrainians were specifically targeted. TFD (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Exactly—blindlynx 17:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Blindlynx, I added the quote to the source. Is this the correct quote? If not, can you please update it.Stix1776 (talk) 04:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!—blindlynx 15:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Added a short note in the beginning to highlight that the question is not only with regards to whether it was genocide or not, but also (assuming that it was the genocide) then what was the target group. Please review. Krispe13 (talk) 08:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Guys, I think the causes on the side of the article are not causes

Yeah, that's about it. They're not causes, but international reactions. AccomplishedTale7 (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. The causes listed in the infobox are:

• Industrialization policy during the First Five Year Plan
• Whether it was intentional is debated by scholars

What point are you disputing? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to say i changed that after seeing this —blindlynx 21:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, well, that'll do it! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Weak international reaction (considering first reports about starvation in May-June 1932 ) + soviet denials of hunger are a part of the reason for the high death toll. So it does belong there, but maybe there is a suggestion on how to improve the structure as currently it is more focused on "the starvation was known", but does little to cover soviet denials (take e.g. Walter Duranty, inviting foreign photographers and preparing set up villages for the French delegation etc.). Maybe a separate page to show how the press and internal materials from the archives were supporting or denying the claims in different countries? Krispe13 (talk) 08:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• suggestion of the separate page is based on the fact that stating that there was a genocide in 30s or even preserving memories of it was persecuted in USSR up till 80s, so the claim-denial timeline might eventually grow.

Krispe13 (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)