Talk:Holodomor genocide question/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Payaslian

Is there a reason why Payaslian's quote is given so much more weight than other historians on this matter? It gives this article the impression that there *is* a scholarly consensus because one historian said there was when, as far as I can tell based on the large numbers of historians who disagree in whole or in part with the claim, there isn't. 124.168.217.117 (talk) 06:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The wording is better now compared to a few days ago, but the very fact that there are plenty of historians who disagree is indicative of Payaslian's claim being false. It speaks rather of a bias on Payaslian's part. KetchupSalt (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Because Oxford Bibliographies is not just one scholar’s opinion, but a recent (February 2019, reviewed January 2021) and specific authoritative source, curated by an editor-in-chief and an editorial board composed of 15 to 20 scholars of the subject.  —Michael Z. 20:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Linking to Oxford Bibliographies’ Editorial Board for International Relations.  —Michael Z. 23:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Simon Payaslian in Lead POV

Payaslian's opinion has been incorporated in the Lead to allege a supposed consensus which the article content makes it clear does not exist. What makes Payaslian worthy of being in the lead and not any other scholar? He has not even published anything related to Ukraine so should probably not even be in the article at all, let alone the lead. Clear POV violation in my view. I won't edit the article but added tag to open discussion. Qayqran (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Aristophile (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you claiming Oxford Bibliographies isn't a wp:rs?—blindlynx 16:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's saying that. I think the point that is being made is that one sentence saying there's a historical consensus and the next sentence saying it's a controversial question amongst historians makes no sense. Those two statements are counter to each other. 203.192.82.177 (talk) 03:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

consensus isn't unanimity—blindlynx 15:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Well “scholars debate” is cited 1999, and according to Andriewsky 2015[1] it was a debate for the two decades preceding. And it seems to be an acceptable position according to Oxford Bibliographies 2019/2021. These don’t counter each other when the context and relationship is made clear.  —Michael Z. 17:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Aristophile and blindlynxThe problem I have stated is clear so please refrain from strawmen or pretending you don't understand it to obfuscate the issue. Doing so is not conducive to constructive dialogue and implies you are not here to build an encyclopedia. There is a citation in the lead (which should generally be avoided) which directly contradicts the body of the article. It is also a citation by an author who has no known publications on the topic. The sourced content of this article as it currently stand makes it clear there is neither consensus nor unanimity among scholars. What we do have is a LEDEBOMB whereby the Lede does not accurately summarize the content but seeks to discredit it. A common enough issue with controversial articles on Wikipedia. Activist editors tend to focus on the lead. Qayqran (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

It is one of precious few scholarly overviews, systematic reviews or meta-analyses on the topic which we need more of in the article because lists of scholars opinion inevitably lead to false balance. Without recent scholarly overviews, systematic reviews or meta-analyses any claims of consensus or controversy are wp:or and wp:synth—blindlynx 14:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

It is not a "systematic review" or a "meta-analysis" - that is a complete misportrayal of the source It is a unsubstantiated statement by a non-specialist in an encyclopedia entry which directly contradicts the sourced content of this article. There is no analysis whatsoever of the literature on the Holodomor in the citation. Not one mention of historiographical debate or any specialist author. I will not go as far as stating it is a falsehood - that is not my role here - but it certainly does not deserve a position in the lead where it directly contradicts the sourced content of the article. This is contrary to Wikipedia MOS regarding leads and is a clear case of Lede bombing. Qayqran (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

No it is neither of those things what is is is a recent scholarly—peer-reviewed—overview and a thin one at that but it is all there seem to be of that kind of analysis. You are welcome to find better sources that discuss the current state of Holod scholarship—blindlynx 15:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I have been looking into the history of the article and it seems that, as I suspected, the lede has come under intense attack over the last month by POV-warriors. The original LEDE was as follows:

According to historian Simon Payaslian, the scholarly consensus classifies the Holodomor as a genocide, but according to historian J. Arch Getty, the scholarly consensus considers the Holodomor the result of bungling and rigidity rather than a genocidal plan. Other scholars say it remains a significant issue in modern politics and dispute whether Soviet policies would fall under the legal definition of genocide. Scholars who reject the argument that state policy in regard to the famine was genocide do not absolve Joseph Stalin or any other parts of the Soviet regime as a whole from guilt for the famine deaths, and may still view such policies as being ultimately criminal in nature.

User:C.J. Griffin tried to restore the deleted material multiple times which gave for a balanced lede reflective of the article but must have given up at some point in the face of what looks like a concerted campaign by multiple accounts. There has been a complete failure in oversight in the article. I suggest the original stable version of the lead be restored and this article be semi-protected. This article needs more admin attention. Qayqran (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The Getty cite is from 2000 and the Oxford Biblio one is from 2019 they are not contemporary, it is totally false balance to present them as such —blindlynx 15:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The date is completely irrelevant. There has been no major historiographical reevaluation of the Holodomor since 2000. Its a predominantly 20th century debate. Both are 21st century sources and are current. Getty is a specialist academic on the Soviet Union qualified to evaluate historiography which he does extensively in the source. Payaslian is not. He has not one single publication on the Holodomor or Soviet history. His source is based on a sentence where he mentions the Holodomor in passing together with a number of other events in 20th century history. I'm finding it increasingly difficult to assume good faith here. As I said, we need serious admin scrutiny here. Qayqran (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Andriewsky had one in 2015 and there has been a tonne of scholarship since 2000. What are you accusing me of?—blindlynx 15:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I mean there has been no fundamental shift in historiography in the 21st century. The closest we have to a scholarly consensus if anything is that it was a crime but not a genocide. We know as a fact by the content of this article that Payaslian's statement is false. And given it is a non-specialist academic who does not substantiate his passing claim with an actual study on the matter it is deceptive. I don't like accusing Wikipedians of anything but I think what is going on here is quite evident to any objective outside observer. This article needs wider attention. Qayqran (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

No, there has been a shift in the last twenty odd years particularly away from the way scholars like Conquest and Getty approached this topic. Payaslian a historian of eastern Europe and genocide scholar i don't know where you're getting 'non specialist'. I agree that this article needs to be reworked around recent historiographies and more general sources rather than as a list of scholars positions. Spell it out for me because it is not obvious and your own objectivity could perhaps use some self-reflection as well—blindlynx 16:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I have no problems replacing the oxford biblio thing with Andriewsky more textured analysis that And even opponents of the concept of the Holodomor as genocide now concede that this has become the standard historical narrative in Ukraine (Soldatenko, “Trahediia” 4-­‐8). The widespread use of the term Holodomor—rather than “famine”—is one sign of how much has changed. For most historians of Ukraine, and, indeed many non-­‐historians, the word “famine” no longer seems adequate to describe what happened in Ukraine in 1932-­‐33 p24 but that whole section is worth reading—blindlynx 16:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Any attempt at consensus you come up with I will take positively blindlynx. If you have a good source to replace Payaslian I'll support it 100%. I'm not here to impose maximalist positions. Let's all just try to improve the article together. Its not false balance - just not having an obvious disconnect with content of article. Qayqran (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at the lead later today, restructuring the body is going to take much broader consensus and is unfortunately unlikely to happen. Have you had a chnace to read the Andriewska paper? —blindlynx 17:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

This discussion seems non-productive, as Qayqran repeatedly demonstrates they are not WP:HEARing arguments. They say Holodomor scholarship has not changed in a quarter century then use that to write off all of the sources that say or evidence that it has. They continue to harp on Payaslian’s personal history and ignore that Oxford Bibliographies has the weight of the entire O.B. International Relations Board of Editors behind it. They keep pushing one old Getty statement as if it was significant in the field of genocide studies or Holodomor studies, while its only merit is that it contradicts what’s been written in 23 years since.

This editor showed up here with fourteen edits and the intention of getting rid of an article that they admittedly hadn’t even read. They are still pushing for the same goals as well as they can. There is no concensus supporting this.

We should improve article wording and citations as we see fit, but this argument is not a productive venue for this.  —Michael Z. 18:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

do you object to using Andriewska paper's analysis of the currentish state of scholarship in place of the Oxford one? —blindlynx 18:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

... that Oxford Bibliographies has the weight of the entire O.B. International Relations Board of Editors behind it.

You have a very strange vision of reliability of sources.

According to O.B.'s own web site, it just "provides faculty and students alike with a seamless pathway to the most accurate and reliable resources for a variety of academic topics. Written and reviewed by academic experts, every article in our database is an authoritative guide to the current scholarship, containing original commentary and annotations." That means it is not a source, but a collection of sources, and the value of each source in this collection can be judged based on its own merit.

O.B. is more a tertiary source, OUP's spinoff, so it is hardly more reliable than OUP journals themselves. But OPU is just one (out of many) top rank publishers, so ... Paul Siebert (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Palasyan authoree no works about Holodomor, how can he be considered an expert in the field? Paul Siebert (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

He is a scholar of eastern European history and genocide, we're not peer-reviewers and shouldn't dismissing a peer-reviewed source because he hasn't written more on this. That said it is a very limited source and we should focus on replacing it with more detailed meta whatevers—blindlynx 20:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The question is not if he is a reliable source (per WP:V, he is), the question is if he has sufficient expertise to summarise opinia of other experts. And the answer to this question is obvious: he has much less weight than Getty, Graziosi, Wheatcroft or Suny. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@blindlynx Answering your earlier question, no I have not had the chance to read Andriewsky. But I'm cool with you giving a stab at it and boldly editing. I think everyone else here will be too. We can all discuss after that. If you say its a better source for historiography I take your word for it. Anything except Palasyan, which I agree with Paul Siebert just doesn't cut it. I just don't think he should be in there at all.

@user_talk:Mzajac, please, we are all hearing arguments and are discussing productively here to seeking to improve the article/s. There is no need for confrontational tone. Please have a little patience. Qayqran (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

With the exception of Suny—who's work is doesn't focus on the Holodomor in particular and is trying develop a different way of talking about soviet atrocities—all of those are older analysis and don't take into account the last twenty odd years of scholarship. Andriewska is a decent historiography we can use but ideal we'll find something more recent. What do you think about using her paper in place of Palasyan's?—blindlynx 21:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you talking about her 2015 work? Is it considered "fresh" as compared with the works published in, e.g. Contemporary European History, 27, 3 (2018)? Paul Siebert (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I see just two publications by Andriewsky on Holodomor. Is she really an expert?

In addition, it seems she heavily relies upon Ukrainian historiography. Keeping in mind that Holodomor is a very sensitive topic in Ukraine, and taking into account that the point of view of Ukrainian scholars on another sensitive topic, involvement of UPA in the Holocaust and Vohlynia massacre, differs dramatically from the mainstream views, I don't think that makes her acceptable. There is nothing anti-Ukrainian in that: I am similarly suspicious about Russian authors writing about WWII or Stalinism. Local historians are rarely the best experts in the topics that relate to sensitive moments of their own country's history. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Ignoring the claim Ukrainian's can't be objective. Do you have a better source?—blindlynx 14:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

You should not ignore the claim that most Ukrainian scholars are not objective when they discuss involvement of UPA in the Holocaust. That is the fact: most Ukrainian sources describe this topic totally differently than the international scholarly community. That is not a specific feature of Ukrainians, the same can be said about the Poles who discuss involvement of Poles in the Holocaust, about Russians, when they discuss the role of Russia in WWII, etc.

WRT sources, see my earlier posts on this talk page. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

We are not talking about those events. Have you actually read Andriewska's 2015 paper or are you just objecting to it out of hand because she has a Ukrainian name and you don't trust the University of Alberta's peer reviewing? Getty, Graziosi and Wheatcroft are dated and Suny is trying to do something develop a diffrent framework for this so might not be the best source for an overview. @Cdjp1: added a historiography by Grynevych that i haven't had a chance to read perhaps that might work? —blindlynx 15:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that Suny's position is his own and not an overview of scholarship—blindlynx 22:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Wow, @Paul Siebert, what a racist diatribe. Just bringing up every trope from Putinist propaganda. Is this based solely on the spelling of the Trent University scholar’s surname, or are you saying she is actually guilty of the Volyn massacres? Why don’t you go to the discussion pages for WWII and Stalinism and suggest purging every reference to authors with Russian surnames first? Or suggest removing citations of authors with dark skin colour in Slavery in the United States? No, only suspected Ukrainians actually bother you enough to disqualify them?  —Michael Z. 05:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The 2008 paper from Ukrainian academic Liudmyla Grynevych that I have recently added may be a good answer to the matter. She is a specialist in history, has written on the Holodomor since at least her PhD thesis in 2014, and having written on Soviet Ukrainian history since her Bachelor studies in the 1980s. In her 2008 paper she specifically digs into the varying political motivations in the historiography of the Holodomor, including calling out various overt antisemitic research conducted by other Ukrainian researchers. Cdjp1 (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@Michael: Just. Read. What. I. Wrote.

I repeat it again.

1. This author heavily relies upon Ukrainian scholars.

2. Many Ukrainian scholars are biased when they write about some sensitive topics (e.g. Vohlynia massacre).

3. The same can be said about many other scholars (Russians, Polish, etc.)

4. In general, local scholars writing about sensitive moments of their country's history should be treated with caution.

In connection to that, can you please show what exactly in what I am saying is: (i) rasist, (ii) putinist, (iii) is based on the author's surname?

My statement is uinversal, and it is not directed against any concrete nation.

My statement reflects the views of many renown scholars about "natiuonalist history activism" in Ukraine, which is expressed here.

Please, apologize. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

You have not provided any evidence that this author is bias in this paper, or for that matter than any of the Ukrainian scholars referenced in the paper are bias. Forgive me if i am wrong but, it looks like you are asserting that we should dismiss all Ukrainian scholars writing on this because they are Ukrainian and therefor cannot be objective as they are inherently nationalist—blindlynx 22:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

No, that is not what I am asserting.

The question was if Andriewsky provides an adequate overview of the literature.

My answer is that her review contains a disproportionally high amount of Ukrainian sources, and there is no proof that all these sources are really of a good quality. If you believe they are good, please, demonstrate that, in terms of impact-factors, number of citations, publisher's credentials etc. These are quite legitimate questions, and you cannot argue that the literature collected by Andriewsky is good just because the list is long.

In addition, keep in mind that it is illegal to publicly deny Holodomor in Ukraine. Keeping in mind that the definition of "denial" is very vague, it is quite possible that a free discussion of this issue in problematic in Ukraine (for example, a person who argues that Holodomor was "just" a crime against humanity, but not a genocide, may, at least, theoretically, be accused of Holodomor denial). That is an additional argument to be cautions with Ukrainian sources. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

You say that's not what you're asserting then continue to assert it in the next two sentences!—blindlynx 23:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Compare this: " Forgive me if i am wrong but, it looks like you are asserting that we should dismiss all Ukrainian scholars writing on this because they are Ukrainian"

and that: "there is no proof that all these sources are really of a good quality. If you believe they are good, please, demonstrate that, in terms of impact-factors, number of citations, publisher's credentials etc."

Do you understand the difference between the words: "I would like to see a proof that these sources are good" and "I claim these sources are not acceptable"? Paul Siebert (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

East/West: Journal of Ukrainian Studies is a Canadian peer-reviewed academic journal, and has also published Graziosi.

I find that section 5 Contested History describing Soldatenko's objection the the categorization of the Holodomor as genocide and the currentish state of affairs is what we are looking for she writes: Even the opponents of the concept of the Holodomor as genocide accept the basic outlines of what happened. Among historians, there is no significant argument over the number of people who died. There is a general agreement that they died as a result of the policies implemented by the Party leadership, the introduction of unrealistically high grain quotas, and the confiscation of grain resources and food. Historians of Ukraine are no longer debating whether the Famine was the result of natural causes. 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. I haven't read Soldatenko but he might also be useful though he writes in uki —blindlynx 00:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think Andriewsky is especially bad, my point is that I see no reason to consider her as a better expert than Wheatcroft, Graziosi or Suny.

In general, the author who has a bigger number of publications about Soviet Famine, and these publications are broadly cited should be preferred. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

And, yes, the quote provided by you is quite reasonable, the only problem that I am sure that most Ukrainian sources lean to the idea that the famine was intentional, whereas English sources (Russian sources are marginally relevant) are less categorical. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm mostly favouring it because there has been a lot of research in the last twenty odd years. The point is that she's right about the narrowness of the question, regardless of which way sources lean the question of if the Holodomor is a genocide in scholarship is entirely down to the question of intentionallity. Also see Grynevych's 2008 paper has an assessment of positions of scholars from various countries, but again, it's older—blindlynx 01:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I won’t apologize. Your statements are not “universal.” They are not based on anything that reliable sources say, only on your own theories about discrediting Ukrainians. They are racist. This is unacceptable in Wikipedia discussions. Please stop and think about what you’re saying. I will take this to ANI if you don’t stop.  —Michael Z. 05:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Michael: You should apologise. You accused me of racism, which is a personal attack. I never said that ethnic Ukrainian scholars must be ignored. For example, I myself use Khimka (who, judging by his last name, is an ethnic Ukrainian). If you want a recent example, I support usage of Plokhy (who seems to be an ethnic Ukrainian too). I am insisting you to strike your personal attack and apologise.

I maintain: Ukrainian sources published in Ukraine and not cited in the West must be treated with a very big caution. Their quality is totally unknown, and it is comparable (or even lower) with the quality of tons of articles and books published by various Russian universities (including low and medium ranked ones) and publishing houses. If you open this can of worms, what prevents other users from using Russian sources (which are "peer-reviewed" or published by "university press")? Paul Siebert (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Now you’re changing what you said. You did not write or imply “Ukrainian sources published in Ukraine and not cited in the West must be treated with a very big caution.” On the contrary.

You insisted Andriewsky, an established US Scholar, is not “acceptable” because “she heavily relies upon Ukrainian historiography,” in her paper that covers historiography of Ukraine, based only on your whim.

You wrote that “local historians are rarely the best experts in the topics that relate to sensitive moments of their own country's history,” although you are only trying to apply this blanket censorship of sources based on authors’ nationality to Ukraine.

You wrote that Andriewsky and all historians from Ukraine should not be used because of the Holocaust and the Volyn massacres.

The thesis that Ukrainian scholars and your target Andriewsky should not be cited on Ukraine is racist, and no matter what (poor) logic you have wrapped it in, no matter what ethnic assumptions you claim based on authors’ last names (a rather perilous line of reasoning, racism-wise). I will not apologize for making this observation. I’ll go further and state that you oughtn’t edit articles and talk pages related to Ukraine until you reconsider this POV and stop pushing it.  —Michael Z. 00:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, "Ukrainian historiography" is the term that covers historians working in Ukraine. The same applies to other nations. For example, Maksudov is an ethnic Russian, however, he is an American scholar.

I insisted that Andrievsky should be treated with cautions because (i) there is no evidences that she is an established Holodomor scholar (how many articles or books about Holodomor and Soviet famine did she authored, and how broadly are they cited?), and (ii) she heavily relies upon Ukrainian authors, some of whom have unknown credibility.

You continue to ignore the fact that I never demonstrated any prejudice against Ukrainians specifically. I already clearly explained that I am equally suspicious of Russian authors (not ethnic Russians, but the authors working in Russia) who write about sensitive moments of Russian history, of Polish authors writing about the history of Poland, etc. You are cherry-picking my words, which is unacceptable. If you are cherry-picking the words of your peers, how can we be sure you are not cherry-picking the sources?

WRT "You wrote that Andriewsky and all historians from Ukraine should not be used because of the Holocaust and the Vohlynia massacres." That is a direct lie. I didn't mention Andrievsky in a context of Vohlynia massacre. I never said that historians from Ukraine cannot be trusted because their country of birth was Ukraine or USSR. Moreover, I never called Andrievsky a Ukrainian historian (btw, her surname looks more Polish than Ukrainian, especially taking into account 'w').

WRT "The thesis that Ukrainian scholars and your target Andriewsky should not be cited on Ukraine is racist" This is another personal attack. That is a serious accusation. Let's check if it is justified.

I checked the talk page history, and I found all my posts where I discuss Andrievsky.

I mention her name for the first time here. Besides that diff, I mention her here. I found no other posts where I mentioned Andrievsky/Andriewska/Adrie*. In connection to that, could you please show me where I am using Andriewska's ethnicity as an argument?

Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence is considered a personal attack. Please, show where and when did I claim that scholars of certain ethnicity must be ignored. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Michael: In addition, I don't know if you noticed that, but I am editing the articles about Soviet Union, Eastern Front and other Russia related topic. And I am using the same approach when I am editing these topics: I am trying to avoid Russian authors if they publish their works only in Russia and if they are not broadly cited by Western peers.

And I am going to continue implementing the same approach in Ukraine related topics.

Actually, upon reflection, I decided not to demand explicit apologies from you. If you stop labeling me as a racist, that will be considered as an apology. However, if you continue your allegations, I'll report you. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Long footnote quotation, etc.

I just removed this [2]. Any objections? My very best wishes (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

no, the citation should be enough—blindlynx 14:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, great. Then, there is next question. Why did someone make two large separate sections, before and after the dissolution of the USSR. Most reserachers, even such as Conquest and Getty were working before and after the dissolution of USSR. Their views should be described in their own subsections which cover whole their work, regardless to USSR dissolution. My very best wishes (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it's meant to reflect research done with and without access to soviet archives—blindlynx 18:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Organizing these sections by historians makes a lot more sense. Besides, Soviet (KGB) archives in Moscow were never opened to public beyond providing access to limited sets of documents for selected historians (like Zemskov and some others). Yevgenia Albats described in her book how Lev Ponomarev committee was disbanded for trying to get an access to old KGB archives and publishing a few findings (by Gleb Yakunin). Even some documents related to Katyn massacre, for example, were not provided to Polish government. The archives were opened in Baltic states and some other former republics, but not in Russia. My very best wishes (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm concerned that just having lists of historians positions just muddies this into a !vote kinda thing, but i don't really know what a better way of organizing it is—blindlynx 20:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Famine archives have opened and closed at different times in different places. There were a lot of important changes before the dissolution during perestroika, and also afterwards, but I don’t know if that constitutes two different eras of the Holodomor genocide question. Nor do I love the “Famine as a genocide/as a crime against humanity/as not genocide” sections: they misleadingly reduce much more nuanced positions to black and white and a different white.

It might be better just to list all of the scholars separately, by the period of their significant work.  —Michael Z. 22:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

What you are saying is exactly what our policy says: Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents Paul Siebert (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Good to know that there's a policy about this...So what's the solution?—blindlynx 16:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Eliminate the subdivisions altogether: as this is a historiography article, list them all in purely chronological order.

Work on turning this into an encyclopedia article rather than a list of positions, or a poll. Start with historioraphical outlines like Andriewsky and Grynevych for the structure and manner of expression. Describe what historians said and its significance, rather than letting them speak for themselves and relying on the reader to draw conclusions.  —Michael Z. 16:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

More sources.[3][4]  —Michael Z. 16:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Interesting (with full PDF link).[5]  —Michael Z. 17:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Except Andriewsky and Grynevych. That doesn't mean I oppose, I just need to read them before I make a conclusion. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Sugget shortening Kulchytsky's section

It's one of the longest; he is also the only seemingly non-notable historian cited, and the section has low density of citations. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Виктор Не Вацко: added that section and has been editing it—blindlynx 18:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

It really depends on what you mean by "non-notable". At least in Ukraine Kulchytsky is well-known for studying and analyzing Holodomor, if I'm not mistaken he was one of the first to establish the number of victims (cca 3-5 million) and I don't see any reason for excluding him from the article. Regarding the length, I'd like to make it shorter, but at the same time I want to keep the section coherent. And no, I didn't add the section. — Виктор Не Вацко 17:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Famine as a result of natural factors undue

This section is way to long for and totally undue for an outlier position—blindlynx 14:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEITQayqran (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. There is clear scholarly consensus that it was man made. A large section to a single thirty year old paper on a marginal position is wp:undue—blindlynx 14:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. This is pretty much "fringe". That was not a matter of lower harvest. The grain was forcefully taken from the population, and the people were prevented from moving to other areas by NKVD troops. This is just a matter of historical fact. All famines in modern times are pretty much "man made". But I can see other problems on the page. It cites too much revisionist historians like Getty. It cites a private letter by Conquest instead of citing his books where he said something very different. And so on. My very best wishes (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

There are multiple factors at play. Kosior overestimating the Ukrainian SSR's grain production capability compared to other Soviet SSRs, seemingly due to party-mindedness. The use of internal passports designed to prevent shortfalls in food production (hence NKVD troops). The slowness of Gosplan. And of course weather. It is true that all famines are man made, because all economic activity is ultimately directed by people. But it is also the case that they are not, because no single person can overcome structural issues, even less so when these issues are compounded by natural disaster. KetchupSalt (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

"the use of internal passports designed to prevent shortfalls in food production (hence NKVD troops)" ??? They used internal passports and NKVD troops to prevent people from leaving the area and being able find any kind of food. Yes, that made them die, but how could that prevent the shortfalls in food production? Note that the shortfall in the food production was mostly due to the policy of collectivization, i.e. also "man made". My very best wishes (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM Our role here is not to debate the Holodomor. It is to reflect as accurately as possible what sources say. Mark Tauger is a historian specialized in agrarian reform in the Soviet Union and has various publications in this field. There is nothing wp:undue about his conclusions and he is as much a WP:RS as it gets. Calling his position "marginal" or "fringe" is a total misrepresentation of reality. What is wp:undue is having Simon Payaslian in the lede - a person who has not one single publication on anything remotely related to the Holodomor. All because he made a mistake on a bibliography entry which is appealing to some editors. But there you go. Qayqran (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

You know that his position doesn't have traction in the academic circles that study this. The section should be trimmed seriously down—blindlynx 12:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

"Yes, that made them die, but how could that prevent the shortfalls in food production?" See Socialist Planning by Michael Ellman, third edition. To have agricultural output you must have agricultural workers. The CPSU saw that the peasantry was moving en masse into the cities, and so had to reinstate the system of internal passports of Tsarist Russia so as to not risk a shortfall in agricultural output. This happens some time in the 1920's if I remember correctly. To suggest that the CPSU wanted to deliberately kill workers is nonsense, since they were well aware that labour is the sole source of value. The entire point is to enable the peasantry to become proletarian, hence also the long-term goal of transforming the kolkhozes into sovkhozes. KetchupSalt (talk) 08:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

You say: "To suggest that the CPSU wanted to deliberately kill workers is nonsense". What? I am sorry, but what did they do during Red Terror and Great Purge? As about "natural factors", that can be easily fixed by simply rearranging and changing the titles of sections, as I just did. My very best wishes (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous instance of bad faith, and of missing my entire point. If you read the literature on Soviet economics you can plainly see that a) they knew they had to build up an industrial base and b) this could not happen at the expense to either the cosmopolitan proletariat nor the rural peasantry, the peasantry acting as the main source of the growing Soviet proletariat. This process is known as primitive socialist accumulation, and the CPSU would not deliberately sabotage it. Whether this strategy was the most appropriate is an issue discussed to this day and is outside the scope of this article. KetchupSalt (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

What you are talking about is known as Great Break (USSR). Yes, they built up the industrial base [needed for future wars] at the expense of rural peasantry, a significant part of which was sent to remote areas. However, even at such background, Holodomor stands out as an enormous crime they have committed and hide from the outside world for many years. My very best wishes (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

"at the expense of rural peasantry" more correctly at the expense of kulaks to the benefit of the peasantry. The entire point is to increase agricultural productivity, thus enabling proletarization of the peasantry. Again, the notion that the CPSU would deliberately sabotage the process that they themselves had set out to do is simply wrong. While it is clear that there was plenty of incompetence involved (a point made by for example Ellman), to suggest intent of the leadership to sabotage their own efforts (a point made by Naimark if I'm not mistaken) is beyond ridiculous.

"[needed for future wars]" I hope this does not imply what I think it implies. KetchupSalt (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

You’re literally arguing the CPSU’s points, not academics’ points about it. This is not helpful.  —Michael Z. 15:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

“The December 1932 decree turned Stalin’s all-Union ‘grain-extraction’ campaign into a direct assault on the Ukrainian political elite and the cultural foundations of Ukrainian nation-building, thereby distinguishing the famine in Ukraine from that in the other parts of the USSR.” (Plokhy 2021, “Killing by Hunger” in Frontline:98). The preceding paragraph summarizes how the decree did this.  —Michael Z. 16:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Internal passport system was imposed in 1932, after peasants in Ukraine started moving to find food, and then used in combination with confiscation of grain, seed, and food, with blacklisting of settlements and regions, and with closure of internal borders, to kill millions.  —Michael Z. 14:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

"Internal passport system was imposed in 1932" I stand corrected. "to kill millions" 🙄 KetchupSalt (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Don’t be childish. Academic consensus is that millions were killed by the things I named. restrictions on movement was one of the key ones that distinguished the genocide from famine in other parts of the USSR. Your cute emoji is tasteless and demonstrates a contempt for the seriousness of this subject.  —Michael Z. 16:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Show me where this intent to kill millions is articulated. Where are the political screeds? Because again there is the problem that the intent is the complete opposite, a fact that is repeatedly ignored here on WP. KetchupSalt (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Seriously? Whether or not the deaths were intentional is the ONLY thing that is still debated in scholarship there are plenty of academic sources for both it being intentional and not. This section is about it having natural causes, something current scholarship agrees wasn't the case—blindlynx 22:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

You're right, this fits better under a separate discussion. KetchupSalt (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by calling Getty a revisionist? what about his methodology do you find inappropriate? Simply because he does not draw the same conclusions as the literal cold war propagandist Robert Conquest that does not indicate his being wrong. O-caudata (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Please read wp:RS and wp:NOTAFORUM rather than linking to tanky drivel—blindlynx 16:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

That’s not a real argument. Getty’s conclusion is the same as literal Cold War propagandists’ too. Just commie ones.  —Michael Z. 15:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Raphael Lemkin's Section

This section is the lead section under the "Famine as Genocide" portion. However, the arguments presented and cited from the author do not seem to indicate a belief that the famine was used as a genocide but instead talks about the anti-religious and pro-russification efforts under the USSR as being cultural genocide of the Ukrainians. While cultural genocide is indeed something recoginized by many scholars, if not under international law, I do not think its appropriate for the famine as genocide section as it is a different claim. AevumNova (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree.

Firstly, this article is about the question of Holodomor as genocide, not “Holodomor as genocide in only some very specific arbitrary definition that lets us discount much of the literature on Holodomor as genocide.”

Lemkin clearly argues that the famine was an integral aspect of genocide, in so many words. I can’t imagine one can read his essay without understanding that. I do recall that at least one source says that Lemkin’s essay was written with the legal definition in the Convention on Prevention and Punishment of Genocide in mind, and this seems obvious since he was instrumental in creating it and wrote the essay “Soviet Genocide in Ukraine” afterwards, intending it to be a book chapter.

Regarding “different claim,” who says so? Lemkin says “This is not simply a case of mass murder. It is a case of genocide, of destruction, not of individuals only, but of a culture and a nation.” That clearly is a case of legal genocide, meaning committing any or more of five acts “to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.” The Soviets committed all five as part of the Holodomor.  —Michael Z. 21:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The article defines the Holodomor as the famine specifically. This is not an article about the cultural genocide of the Ukraine. AevumNova (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Narrowed or Expanded Scope?

The beginning of this page describes the Holodomor as the famine. However, it has often been used to mean the famine as well as the cultural genocide of Ukrainians. This has led to situations such as authors that do not assert that a famine was made to specifically target the Ukrainian people being cited in the genocide portion because they believe that the Russifaction of the Ukraine was cultural genocide.

I would post that because of this the article needs to either expand in scope to be about Ukrainian Genocide including both the Cultural Genocide and famine, or to narrow specifically to the famine. AevumNova (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

No. You are defining a “situation” (in your assertion I am having trouble understanding) to manipulate the article content. Your opinion is not supported by scholarship.

It’s about the Holodomor, primarily a man-made famine in 1932–33 which is widely considered to be the central focus of a genocide, but also can be broken down into a series of atrocity crimes that included a lot of other specific acts (for example, all five of the potentially genocidal acts outlined in the Convention on Prevention and Punishment of Genocide).

People were shot for “stealing” their own food to live, and this is part of the Holodomor. Borders were closed to prevent people from moving outside of famine-stricken regions and this is part of the Holodomor. Facts were suppressed and propaganda was created to hide the Holodomor, and this was part of it. The Holodomor is denied by some and this is part of it.

Rafael Lemkin also explicitly defined the genocide as including the extermination of the national elite, the liquidation of the Ukrainian church, and forcible population transfer, which are all parts of the subject of the genocide which is the Holodomor, however integral or peripheral one might consider them to be.

If you have some ideas about what belongs, please back them with reliable sources. Scholarship seems to see Rafael Lemkin’s writing on the Holodomor as extremely important to the subject (see, e.g., Andriewsky 2015).[6]

The article’s subject is defined by us to be the Holodomor, but what is the Holodomor is defined by reliable sources. Please don’t try to to artificially constrain the subject and therefore water down the article.  —Michael Z. 15:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry but that is not correct to the article. The article defines the Holodomor in the opening as being the famine but contains other aspects such as Russifaction which you mentioned.

This comes across as you redefining the Holodomor as is sometimes used politically solely in your choice of scholarly references which defines it differently.

This would be an example of "Righting Great Wrongs" it is not the scope of Wikipedia to redefine Scholarly definitions to match the most common political narratives. AevumNova (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

No, you’re trying to remove mentions of aspects of the Holodomor and related issues from this article based on your WP:SYNTH statement on the situation would make the article worse. Your accusation is not helping win me over to your view. I suggest you move on with WP:dispute resolution.  —Michael Z. 17:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Please let me know how I am using WP:SYNTH.

Additionally I would please like to ask that you do not accuse me of making accusations when you have contentiously tried to tell me I am having motivations you have not substainiated.

Let us please remain focused on the facts and remain civil AevumNova (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Your original post above is not clear, but I believe it makes assertions that are not supportable, and I do not agree with what you presume to be this article’s scope or that something about it needs to be changed.

If you want to suggest changes and ask for consensus, I suggest you posit your premise with reference to reliable sources, and propose concrete changes to the article text.  —Michael Z. 18:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I am talking about the the scope of the article as defined in the article's opening paragraph. I do not understand how I could be more clear. Given the quality of these discussions with you in particular as compared to other users which hold similar positions where we had far more fruitful and respectful conversations, I agree that mediation should be involved. AevumNova (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

James Mace broken source

In the James Mace section is says "Professor of political science James Mace helped British historian Robert Conquest complete the book The Harvest of Sorrow, and after that he was the only U.S. historian working on the Ukrainian famine, and the first to categorically name it as a genocide, while Soviet archives remained closed and without direct evidence of the authorities' intent." Using citation 23.

I tried to follow this citation as, and I can try to find these scholars, I am fairly certain that he was not the only scholar working on the Holmodor prior to the soviet archives being opened and was brought to the wayback machine. This page had a link to download the article but that link is broken.

As the article does not seem to be accessible anymore could we perhaps find this from another source or find a working link to the article? AevumNova (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

If you use the doi link you'll find it. Teh full text is here [7]—blindlynx 15:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you for bringing to my attention how to access it, but the text itself does not make any mention of James Mace, much less even make the claim that he was the sole U.S. historian to work on the Ukrainian famine while the Soviet archives remained closed.

I worry that this may have been an assertion by an editor rather then by the source. AevumNova (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes it does, top of page 25 ( page 8 of the pdf) [...] James Mace remained the only historian researching the famine in the United States. [...] James Mace was the first and, for a very long time, the only historian to go on record stating that the famine of 1932-­‐33 in Ukraine constituted genocide. The article devotes quite a bit of time to examining Mace's report in a contemporary light—blindlynx 16:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah thank you, somehow I both missed that with my eyes and when using a text search.

I will have to revisit this later, but what is our policy when a scholarly work makes a claim that no other american scholar researching the famine if we have proof to the contrary? AevumNova (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

who? The article means at he was the only one still working on it immediately after the publication of Harvest of Sorrow—blindlynx 20:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The book had many scholarly responses such as from

Lewin during the extremely brief period (roughly 4 years) between the publishing of the book and opening of the archives. After which the main writer of said book amended views to those not mentioned in this Wikipedia article but are mentioned in the article about the book itself.

Given all of that I'm not sure the significance or accuracy of the statement to the point where it deserves it's focus and citations. AevumNova (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

admittedly saying he was the only one working on it isn't exactly relevant—blindlynx 22:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

It’s extremely relevant to his significance in the field, and to the historiography of the subject in terms of how far it’s come.  —Michael Z. 22:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

How do? There was a larger then 4 year gap in publication before him that isn't brought attention to AevumNova (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I don’t understand exactly what you’re saying. Gap when, between what, and how is that relevant?  —Michael Z. 15:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, why is a 4 year gap in a period where 3 of the years scholars knew the archived would be open soon because significant enough to warrant a mention?

Exactly, why is a 4 year gap in a period where 3 of the years scholars knew the archived would be open soon because significant enough to warrant a mention?

Especially considering there were larger gaps between other publications.

Additionally the article's claim that no-one else was researching the topic in that period is dubious at best considering other researchers in the field directly replied to the book in question. AevumNova (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I can’t tell what you’re saying or whether you’re even proposing a specific change to this article. If you are trying to dispute what the article says, then just find some sources that say otherwise. I think I might sit out the rest of this discussion thread.  —Michael Z. 18:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I am uncertain what the confusion is. The conversation between myself and blindlyx above is still present and both parties understood the other. AevumNova (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

What proof?  —Michael Z. 21:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Re-structuring article

We talked about this before. Should we list the positions chronologically rather than by position?

best i can tell the chronological order of the authors is :

Raphael Lemkin 1953

Robert Conquest 1986

James Mace 1987

John Archibald Getty 1987

Mark Tauger 1991

Andrea Graziosi 2004

Robert Davies and Stephen Wheatcroft 2004

Michael Ellman 2007

Stanislav Kulchytsky 2008

Hiroaki Kuromiya 2008

Norman Naimark 2010

Timothy Snyder 2010

Ronald Grigor Suny 2015

Stephen Kotkin 2017

Viktor Kondrashin 2018

Nancy Qian et al. 2021

Any corrections or concerns before i re-work things?—blindlynx 17:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense to me given that the understanding of the famine has changed considerably over the years. This also allows adding earlier forays into the subject, such as those aired at the Nürnberg trials. KetchupSalt (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes please do this. Carlp941 (talk) 08:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I also think this is a good idea. AevumNova (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done please take a look for any weird gaps or mistakes copy pasting i missed—blindlynx 19:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I just got back around to looking at this. Looks great! Carlp941 (talk) 02:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)