Talk:Soviet famine of 1930–1933

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 24 February 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ytutu, HR Cat.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Map

Why are people using this map? It is extremely old, its foreign, it does not reflect contemporary scholarship (some severe famine areas are not even on the damn map, but some areas with no documented famine are shown black). At that time little was known about the USSR in France or elsewhere. Now we have mountains of scholarship on the famine, but we use an unsourced map thats 80 years old. The best you could say about it is that its: a.old (who cares) b. correctly identifies Ukraine as one of the worst hit areas (as everybody knows anyway).

I really don't see what purpose it serves, other than give people the a incomplete and inaccurate representation of the the famine's geography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.30.88 (talk) 09:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I added the reference for the map. It appears that Dr. Markoff was either shot or sent to the GULAGs in the late 1930's (1937 or 1938). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.57.210 (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

POV

This article makes no attempt to discuss the event from a neutral perspective. I introduced two references that dispute the assertion that the famine was mostly or soley due to political factors, but the article is still pretty lopsided and asserts opinions as facts. This is really a sensitive subject area with a lot of propaganda flying around both ways, writing the article like everything about this event has been established as fact is dishonest. FooBar82 (talk)

Holodomor Template

Holodomor Template was added to this article strictly for background information of related articles in Wikipedia. The Holodomor template is patterned after the Holocaust Template and the Armenian Genocide Template.

The template, if any, should meet the consensus by its content. So far it is a random and strange collection of stuff someone might have "heard" or something. It cannot be used in articles. --Irpen 05:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Tags - One by One

Hello,

There are three tags on the page, and I propose we discuss them one by one. First, the neutrality tag. The reason I think that this is not neutral is that by definition it ascribes the famine to the Soviet Union. When discussing the Irish Potato Famine, one knows that everybody in Ireland suffered. When discussing the Ethiopian famine, one knows that everybody in Ethiopia suffered. However, in 1932-33, only a few small parts of the Soviet Union suffered, mostly (and I mean MOSTLY Ukraine). Therefore, by naming the issue "The Soviet Famine" Wikipedia automatically distributes the suffering throughout the Soviet Union, which simply did not happen.

Second, the tag about OR. None of the references provided mention anything about "all the major grain producing regions of the Soviet Union". There are no in-line references until the "estimation of loss of life" section, and that is only to quote a number. Everything else seems to have been written by the editors, or put together by them. In other words, total OR. In the lead itself, there is a reference to the famine of 1932-34.

Third, about unpublished synthesis. In none of the references is there a description of a famine which affected "all of the grain producing regions of the Soviet Union". Because that never happened. That is not what scholars are saying, and therefore it has no place on Wikipedia. One more query about references. These were stated to be by "acknowledged experts", and yet one of them is titled "The Soviet Famine of 1931-33: Politically Motivated or Ecological Disaster?", with the wrong dates. How is this an "expert" source?

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Right, since you asked me to come here let me address the first point:

- The Ukraine at the time was part of the Soviet Union and all the references I found describe the event as the soviet famine therefore the article title is fine and based on that the title is neutral and factually correct. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, you're right that Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union at the time, but that's exactly the point - there were many parts of the Soviet Union, and most of them were not affected. Don't you think that by saying "Soviet Famine" it implies that everybody suffered, just like saying "Soviet losses during World War II" implies everybody suffered? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope. I think by saying Soviet Famine that it means soviets suffered and that the famine occured in the Soviet Union. Pretty basic stuff in my opinion (the exact same reasoning works for your Soviet losses example as well by the way. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that we have to be careful here because of the topic. When you speak of wars, you can assume that the entire country was involved, because as a political entity, it decided to declare war. (of course there are many times, like in Canada during the two World Wars, that some political entities within the country objected)That's why when you talk about the second world war, its acceptable to say Soviet losses.

However here, we're dealing with a natural disaster, and arguably a genocide. When you talk about the Tokyo earthquake of 1921, it's not the Japan earthquake of 1921, even though it happened in Japan. When you talk about Mt Vesuvius erupting, it's not the Roman volcano, even though it happened in the Roman empire. In those cases, suffering was very focussed. Now, when you talk about the Irish potato famine, it means everybody in Ireland was suffering.

However, with the Famine in 1932-33, there were very focussed areas that suffered - not most grain producing regions, and not the Soviet Union. Naming it the Soviet famine makes that assumption. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Horlo, your personal opinions are irrelevant. The famine's being Soviet is stated right in the title of one of the (if not the) most authoritative books on the subject by the leading scholars of the field.

• R. W. Davies, Stephen G. Wheatcroft, "The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933 (The Industrialization of Soviet Russia)", Palgrave Macmillan, 2004, ISBN 0-333-31107-8.

The authors specifically speak about Soviet famine and if you ever intend to start reading any scholarly sources on what happened during this famine (in Ukraine and elsewhere in the USSR), your best shot is to start with this work. (I could recommend also some works in Ukrainian but I am not sure you can read Ukrainian.) Such works are by far more educational than local Ukrainian community newspapers that you mostly use to "source" your articles. While buying this book may cost you, it would be money well spent. Alternatively, you may try a good library. Regards, --Irpen 04:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen, thank you for your opinion. Also, for somebody who makes grammar mistakes in English in almost every sentence, please don't start lecturing me about reading "scholarly sources". Note that THE most authoritative book (according to you) on the subject does not mention any soviet famine. It mentions soviet agriculture, and soviet russia. However, that is not what this is about. Perhaps "famine" and "agriculture" are two words that you could look up. There are some great dictionaries in bookstores, or if they are too expensive, you could check your local library.

If you have something constructive to add, please do. If you don't understand something, such as the difference between agriculture and famine, or soviet russia and the soviet union, please ask. However, please don't remove tags before checking the talk page.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Horlo, if you want to be taken seriously and get responses, do not leave trollish entries like above. Best regards, --Irpen 08:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC).

Hello, Irpen, again, if you have something constructive to add, please do. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Horlo's negligence

I've added sources to the different regions of the famine's locations, Caucasus, Central Asia and Siberia are quite vast territories, add Ukraine to that and it certainly fits the definition of a nation-wide famine. Now we must focus on expanding this article. --Kuban Cossack 12:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ain't this wonderful: Please discuss before removing tags - personal attacks are not discussions yet where are you Horlo on the talk page? All your previous queries have been answered! What do you want discussions to go on without your participation and until they endorse your svidomy POV? --Kuban Cossack 11:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, if you actually read the talk page, you will see that none of the issues raised have been answered - there is no mention about a Soviet-wide famine. There is talk about people suffering, people starving to death, and one book that describes the failure of Russian agriculture. However, nothing about a Soviet wide famine.

I'm sure that if I count how many times you have called me a POV pusher - in light of the fact that you have not answered any of my questions, and undid how many of my edits claiming "read talk - no consensus" rather than discussing in good faith, I'm pretty sure that it would become obvious who has to participate on the talk page. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I provided refrences to three of the named regions, one from a demographic journal, one from a historical journal and one from the release by the Siberian Academy of Sciences. I don't exactly think those are synthesis...--Kuban Cossack 08:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the synthesis is your combining all of those events into one. That's exactly the problem with this article - there is no source stating that everybody in the USSR was suffering from famine. By stating that there was a soviet famine, you are synthesizing, and Originally Researching. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In the Russian famine of 1921 there were areas of Russia that were not suffering from the famine. In the Holdomor there were areas of Ukraine that were not suffering from the famine. What's your problem? On the AFD NOBODY supported you in deleting the article, and now you want to discredit it. --Kuban Cossack 07:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I don't know anything about the Russian famine of 1921, so I won't comment on that. In the Holodomor, there were areas of Ukraine where food was available - the parts not in the USSR.

However, that doesn't change the fact that there was no one soviet famine, just a bunch of little ones. And please, don't speculate about my motivation - the reason I edit here is to make Wikipedia a better, and more transparent, place. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Really which is why so far your contribution has been a resultless attempt to mutilate the title of Kiev. Anyhow your lack of knowledge of the 1921 famine is really dissapointing, you seem to take so much interest in the subject but that comment shows how limited your wider knowledge of the subject really is. In that case, I would recommend that you withold from attacking articles you know nothing about, like this one. --Kuban Cossack 07:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Kuban kazak, please avoid such long-winded discussions that talk about alot but say nothing. None of what you wrote in that paragraph has anything to do with the discussion here - the famines that took place in the early 1930s.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't veer off subject Horlo, your limited knowledge of the topic and your ignorance to the wider facts are crystal clear in your tone above, and in the context of the content. I've made citations which prove everything, on the AfD NONE supported you. So please take that oppurtunity and read up on the subject. --Kuban Cossack 07:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, how am I veering off topic? I am asking questions about this article, and you are calling me ignorant. Please avoid personal attacks, but answer the questions. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

All your questions have been answered, you did not like the answerings file a WP:DR, stop reverting, otherwise I will request for the article to be locked from editing.--Kuban Cossack 07:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Hello, first, could you please show me one scholarly reference that states that there was a soviet-wide famine which included all of the grain producing areas of the soviet union? Let's start there. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

[1], is that enough? --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 07:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, actually, no, for three reasons. First, the book you found talks only about the Volga and Kazakhstan regions. Second, the book talks about denial by the soviet authorities and/or drought, not famine. Third, it does not mention one all-encompassing famine. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Look Horlo you might as well seek WP:DR, I can only say that your pointless attack on this article is getting irritant, reminds me of the fruitless attempt to rename Kiev, that one year on is nowhere. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 07:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, if you have something to add to this discussion, please do. However, statements like "your pointless attack" and "getting irritant" or even "that one year on is nowhere" do not help anybody. Please, try to avoid any personal comments, and let's build this into a better encyclopedia.

Now, do you have any reasons that the tags do not belong? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 05:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I ask - can you show one source that claims that "there was a famine in all major grain-producing regions of the soviet union"? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at the some of the scholarly sources that mention the "Soviet famine", they all seem to be discussing the famine in Ukraine. The way the lead is structured diminishes the famine in Ukraine to just another area in the Soviet Union suffering a famine, when it is clear that Ukraine had the lion's share of deaths, i.e. Ukraine accounts for >60% of all deaths in the "Soviet famine". I think the lead needs to be re-worded to reflect this fact. Martintg (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the lead to reflect the published sources. Martintg (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This says Kazakhstan lost a much larger percentage of its rural population than Ukraine, percent-wise. And no, Ukraine didn't account for >60% of the deaths. It accounted for under half going by most estimates. The intro right now seems to almost brush aside the other areas effected and make it seem like Ukraine was the only part of the Soviet Union that was hit hard. Not very accurate in my opinion. Krawndawg (talk) 02:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The absolute majority of deaths took place at the Ukraine (5 million versus 2 million elsewhere).Biophys (talk) 04:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The link by Krawndawg, although possibly not a reliable source itself, is interesting. It tells (with refs.) that Russian Federation lost 2.5 million, Kazakhstan lost 1.7 million, and Ukraine lost 3.3 million directly to the hunger, specifically in 1932-1933. After digging out the original sources, these numbers could be used in the article. Note that losses outside the Ukraine are significantly higher than those indicated by Conquest.Biophys (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I note that the infographic published by RIAN only gives the names of two authors, which I don't think is enough to be considered a reliable source. The Infographic notes the number deaths in Ukraine as "directly" attributed to the famine, as Dana Dalrymple notes in the paper "The Soviet Famine of 1932-1934" published in Soviet Studies, Vol. 15, No. 3, (Jan., 1964), "In speaking of deaths from the famine, it is necessary to include more than those who died from outright hunger. The majority died of slight colds which they could not withstand in their weakened condition; of typhus, the familiar accompaniment of famine; of "exhaustion", to use the familiar euphemistic word in the death reports". So without a more meaningful reference, we don't know if RIAN is discounting other deaths related to the famine but not directly through starvation in the case of Ukraine, but including other deaths in the case of the Russian Federation.

The issue here is that when the "Soviet famine" is discussed in scholarly literature, they are mainly talking about Soviet Ukraine as the focus. There is an issue of WP:UNDUE when other areas are given equal weight, which diminishes the significance of the famine in Ukraine. This is not reflected in the scholarly sources which gives the famine in Ukraine prime focus. Martintg (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There was no Russian Federation back in 30's, you probably meant RSFSR? Also I'm not sure what is the value of differentiating whether people technically died from hunger or from diseases caused by hunger, especially that these usually go together. This could be maybe relevant in a highly specialised medical article, but not really in an article discussing demographic consequences of the famine. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Stalin ordered that kulaks were "to be liquidated as a class" and this liquidation was considered by many historians to have resulted in the Soviet famine of 1932–33. This famine has complicated attempts to identify the number of deaths arising from the executions of kulaks. A wide range of death tolls has been suggested, from as many as 6 million suggested by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, whereas the much lower number of 700,000 deaths are estimated by Soviet sources. A collection of estimates is maintained by Matthew White. Soviet campaign of political repressions, including arrests, deportations, and executions of millions of the better-off peasants and their families in 1929–1932. The Soviet authorities labeled the richer peasants 'kulaks" and portrayed them as class enemies. I wonder why I see no mentions about the massacre of the kulaks having an effect on the famine of 1932-33? To me it seems it should be under the "Reasons"- category on the main article. HawkEye97 (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

But kulaks WERE class enemies, they were in direct conflict with kolkhoz-type of agriculture management, were taking large part of profits from peasants, were using peasants as capital and were speculating on price. Kulaks DID sabotage soviet efforts to make the region more effective. The grain production numbers from past 1945 years demonstrate the point exactly. Soviet type of agriculture farms were fair to workers, had thin management layer and were extremely efficient.89.1.129.167 (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Tauger's view and its critics

Holodomor genocide question Xx236 (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Mikhail Sholokhov's letter to Stalin

Mikhail Sholokhov wrote a letter in April 1933 [2].Xx236 (talk) 09:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

"Execution by Hunger."

"Execution by Hunger." is title of a book http://www.amazon.com/Execution-Hunger-The-Hidden-Holocaust/dp/0393304167 and one of Holodomor translations. Xx236 (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The famine in Soviet/Russian media

I have found a 1989 article http://scepsis.net/library/id_1105.html, I don't know when the subject sstarted to be discussed. Russia's government declared the famine important in 2008. Xx236 (talk) 09:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Tauger

These edits give undue weight to a tiny minority position. According to "majority" of sources, this famine was not caused by weather or poor harvest. My very best wishes (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• RS to this effect can certainly be added. My concern was with the removal of cited material without a rationale. Tauger is a reputable historian and should be considered RS. I've not seen otherwise, please see random google search result A History of Russia Volume 2: Since 1855, by Walter Moss. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
• Fixed. My brain did not work properly. Certainly, the quality of this article is in stark contrast with, e.g., "Soviet grain procurement crisis of 1928". - üser:Altenmann >t 23:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Now this is better, although obviously still "wrong version". My very best wishes (talk) 13:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately there was never "good version" here. :-( 15:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Law of Spikelets

This section is moronic, entirely uncited, and completely unencyclopedic. 68.173.8.191 (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality

I overhauled a bunch of this article to try and get it to fit neutrality guidelines a little more. There are still a few statements that I feel are out of line but I've left them alone for the moment. It'd be great if we could reach a consensus on this so the maintenance template can be removed. Thanks! Alistoriv (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Great Depression

Should this be considered part of the Great Depression? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3C5:8200:B79:8D67:88C4:B4CF:459C (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Severe bias

Obviously a controversial issue, but this article is horrendously bias. There was an intentional aspect to the famine but their were numerous other causes, including drought, mass industrialisation, innefficiencies in collectivization and the hoarding of grain caused by price controls. The entirety of the front of the article has been edited to make this dissapear, which is clear intentional bias.

Quite frankly, the article should simply be deleted in favour of the much better written Holodomor article, which should then be scaled up to include the entirety of the famine.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SirusNotSirius (talk • contribs) 20:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Reasons

What I found missing from this article within the Reasons section was any mention of the unobtainable quotas put against Ukraine during this time which resulted in many deaths, or the numerous police squads sent to take grain away from the peasants personal supplies in order to meet the quota. This also led to many people dying of starvation.JerryBlandford (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Edits to the Reactions

I added the view that explains why Holodomor might not be categorized as genocide given by a work of the historian cited in the edit. The last paragraph of the section is the edit ("A comprehensive criticism is presented by Michael Ellman in the article “Stalin and the Soviet famine of 1932 - 33 Revisited”"...). I thought we could create an additional section in the article to add the points in the debate made by different historians and talk about what countries classify the famine as genocide but I could not figure out how to add a new section. Revisions are welcome. If you want to contribute to a new section, please do, then we can move that paragraph there.

In the hypothetical new section, I suggest adding information about which countries classify the famine as genocide. Then citing different historians. Tanya897 (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2019

The shortages were blamed on kulak sabotage, and authorities distributed what supplies were available into the urban areas only. 195.195.236.131 (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Genocide Issue

The article was just edited to conclusively state that the Holodomor was a genocide. It should be obvious that, between the cites given here and on the Holodomor page, that this is not the universal position: the editor's stated comparison to the settled issue that is the Holocaust only betrays a lack of knowledge on the issue, and their edit contradicts numerous points in this very article. I reverted, but this was undone and I was asked to take it to Talk. I want the page to recognize the unsettled nature of the field, as it generally does (though it really needs a re-write to avoid duplication with the major Kazakh and Ukrainian subpages, and to draw on the sources those provide). Note that I was not making a change, but reverting someone else's: if someone wants to change the existing consensus, they should have made this entry, not me.

• "The Holodomor in Ukraine and Kazakh famine of 1932–33 have been seen as genocide committed by Joseph Stalin's government." [cited]
• "The famine is seen by some historians as a deliberate act of genocide against ethnic Ukrainians and Kazakhs while other critics dispute the relevance of any ethnic motivation," [cited]
• "Members of the international community have denounced the USSR government for the events of the years 1932-1933. However, the classification of the Ukrainian famine as a genocide is a subject of debate." [cited]

At the same time, we have clear cited statements from Lesa Melnyczuk Morgan and Anne Applebaum that it was a genocide. This is not a matter of fringe vs. academia, but of different portions of academia battling it out. Palindromedairy (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Not only that, but this entire article starts off with vagueness that is akin to weasel-wording, for example:

It has been estimated that between 3.3[8] and 3.9 million died in Ukraine[9] and 2 million (40% of all Kazakhs) died in Kazakhstan.[10][11][12][13]

It should instead indicate that between 3.3 and 3.0 million died from the famine itself in the Ukraine [...]

As for academia vs fringe, you know as well as I know that the primary tactic of one side in academia is to push the other into fringe, because that is the best way to achieve what is desired when all that matters is that 6 is greater than 7. Imagine on the Holocaust page if people tried to use vague language to isolate typhus deaths from murders and have the isolated number be presented as the whole of the event, opening the door for a discussion as to whether typhus is genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B019:CEC7:110F:2427:65C5:283A (talk) 05:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I support this change I hope more people will join in on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:81:C400:7FB0:C57F:8B0A:8296:F6C8 (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

First report of Ukrainian famine.

Malcolm Muggeridge had report(s) published in the Manchester Evening News before George thingy, according to the Wikipedia page on Walter Duranty. A J Boothroyd (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately, Wikipedia advises all comers that it is not a wp:reliable source because anyone can edit and not everyone takes sufficient care to get their facts right. All assertions need to be verified by checking the cited source: no citation = do not trust. If this motivates you to search the archives of the MEU such that you can cite the date and page so that someone else can verify it, we will be forever in your debt. Wikipedia needs heroes! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Overemphasis on Mark Tauger?

This article seems to have a massive overrepresentation of Mark Tauger's writing, especially compared to authors like Davies & Wheatcroft. More anti-Soviet historians are only mentioned to be immediately dismissed, as happens with Applebaum, by Mark Tauger's criticism. Mark Tauger is the most pro-Soviet government historian among the mainstream Holodomor historians, and the article sways massively pro-Stalin as a result. It needs more Davies/Wheatcroft, Snyder, Kulchytsky, Wolowyna. Additionally, the conservative historiography needs to be expanded beyond Applebaum. Conquest is the most historiographically influential conservative historian on the Holodomor, so he should likely be discussed more than twice.

Ted52 (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the Tauger quote as it was undue given it was primarily a discussion of the Applebaum book, and added the source to a small paragraph which includes other critical scholars, in particular Wheatcroft per your comment above. The others should be added as well. Conquest is somewhat problematic. Sure his work was influential on the Holodomor debate prior to the opening of the archives, but now is wildly out of date. He also seems to have walked back some of the assertions from his 1986 book based on new evidence, as Wheatcroft notes in a citation I included in the article that in 2004 "Robert Conquest agreed that the famine was not man-made on purpose...."--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

editors, *excuse me??*

curprev 20:59, 6 September 2021‎ Lute88 talk contribs‎ m 41,313 bytes 0‎ Reverted 1 edit by 84.213.82.120 (talk) to last revision by Jprg1966 undo Tags: Undo Twinkle curprev 20:42, 6 September 2021‎ 84.213.82.120 talk‎ 41,313 bytes 0‎ your inline source quote doesnt match the figure given in text undo Tag: Reverted

what the hell is this supposed to mean? I deleted factually incorrect material and explain in the edit note why that is (which 95% of edits dont do) and somebody immediately reverts it back. Are there ukrainian government employees on this site or what? Do explain yourself or undo the edition. now.

graciously, me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet_famine_of_1932%E2%80%931933&action=history , [11.09.2021]

Reply: Your bias does not override how other people feel. Sorry?

Drought

This is a long article that gives a prominent place to drought as a major cause. The lead says Major contributing factors to the famine include: . . . several severe droughts.

Yet the article gives zero details about drought, doesn’t say when and where it occurred and what its effects were, and doesn’t even seem to agree whether drought was a factor. It does not support the statement in the lead.

• Ellman . . . argues that famines and droughts have been a common occurrence throughout Russian history

  Is this general statement directly relevant to 1930–33? Are we guessing whether a drought occurred during the period of this subject?

• Russia's intermittent drought was not severe in the affected areas at this time.

  Reference: Kondrashin. What time is “this time”?

• Tauger has suggested that drought, damp weather, and the flooding of fields by heavy rain diluted the harvest.

  Only suggested not asserted? Does Tauger say a drought actually occurred and when?

• The theory that harsh rain was a cause of the famine has been criticized by scholars who believe that it contradicts Wheatcroft's theory that drought was a primary cause of the low harvest.

  It’s entirely possible, e.g., that both took place and separately affected planting, growth, or harvest. So what is being specifically alleged and criticized?

• After recognition of the famine situation in Ukraine during the drought and poor harvests, the Soviet government in Moscow continued to export grain rather than retain its crop to feed the people

  My understanding is that in Ukraine there was a low but not disastrous harvest in 1931–32, but not in the Holodomor years of 1932–33, when specific government policies and actions were responsible for deaths of millions of food producers. I don’t know the specific role of drought. If someone has access to the source, this statement should be made more specific.

The text of the article does not support the statement in the lead. I will tone it down to say that there is disagreement whether drought was a factor. If anyone can improve the text based on my suggestions above or otherwise, please do. —Michael Z. 17:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Industrialization

The lead states Major contributing factors to the famine include: . . . combined with rapid industrialization and a decreasing agricultural workforce. The infobox also says disputed theories include demand spiking in industrialization.

Tauger states the effects of [collectivization and forced industrialization] were worse than has been assumed, preceded by some discussion that procurement displaced the famine from urban areas. I don’t see how can be interpreted as industrialization was an effect that caused the “low harvest.” The quotations here only support it as the reason the authorities decided peasants and not workers should be the ones to die.

The section #Causes mentions increased demand for food caused by the urbanization and industrialization, but leaves the reader puzzled how this increases demand. Is “increased demand” the only role of industrialization in causing the famine?

The second paragraph there says industrialization became a starting mechanism of the famine, and mentions share of investment, mentions a growing urban labour force, and says the anticipated surplus was to pay for industrialization. But then it meanders off into collectivization and kulaks. None of it explains how industrialization “became a starting mechanism,” and the reader might speculate that some of these things somehow related to the famine, but it might also be pure innuendo. Do people need more food to survive when they move to cities?

Next para: . . . and a lack of favored industries were the primary contributors to famine mortality. What the heck does this mean?

Lower down The reasons for the famine are claimed to have been rooted in the industrialization and widespread collectivization of farms that involved escalating taxes, grain-delivery quotas, and dispossession of all property. No reference. Claimed by whom? How exactly are “reasons . . . rooted in the industrialization”? I guess this just vaguely means the Soviets decided to starve farmers because they favoured workers.

Which is pretty much the only connection of industrialization to famine that I can divine in the whole article. None of it shows that industrialization caused famine, only that industrialization served as the reason the authorities inflicted the effects of famine on peasants and not workers. If that is it, then the article should state so clearly.

If no one can access the relevant sources, find any other explicit connections, and state them clearly, I am going to fill the article with maintenance tags, then get to work slashing and burning, and writing things clearly. —Michael Z. 17:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

And regarding decreasing agricultural workforce, I can’t find anything in this article attesting that the agricultural workforce was decreasing, or that that was a major contributing factor to the famine.  —Michael Z. 20:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

To eat your own children is a barbarian act

The claim that the Soviet regime printed posters declaring: "To eat your own children is a barbarian act" is supported by Reference 99, however the link http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/cannibalism.pdf provided in this reference is dead. This paper can be found elsewhere but it is paywalled so I did not read it. I doubt that Soviets really printed such posters for the following reasons:

• It would directly contradict that Soviets "actively denied the famine's existence" as stated in the paragraph before.
• I could not find an image of such a poster, or even the original text in some of the languages of Soviet Union. Google image search returns tweet https://twitter.com/laszloblanar/status/1398444763209211904 showing a poster which does not mention eating children.
• This claim appears on several pages on the Web and it always appears to be citing the same text in English.

Vitkecar (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

There’s an archived PDF.[3]

Don’t underestimate the Soviets’ ability to completely contradict themselves.  —Michael Z. 20:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The reference footnotes the statement:

6. This is quoted by Miklós Tápay in his study, “Az 1932–33 - as nagy szovjet éhinség. Sztálin holokausztja” [The Great Soviet Famine of 1932–33. Stalin’s Holocaust], in Krónika-Proceedings, vol. 44, pp. 106–113; quotation from p. 112.

 —Michael Z. 20:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah, Krónika-Proceedings is A XLIV Magyar Találkozó Krónikája [Proceeding ofthe 44th Hungarian Congress], ed. Lép F. Somogyi (Cleveland: Árpád Könyvkiadó Vállat, 2005).  —Michael Z. 21:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Found here,[4] in the PDF pp 106–113:[5]  —Michael Z. 21:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the links. Miklós Tápay indeed mentions such a poster in his 2005 conference paper but does not specify the source. He gives five references at the end, maybe one of them is the source. I could access only the first two and such a poster was not mentioned. Given that such a poster would be in a stark contrast with Soviet policies of the time, I think that a harder evidence than a casual mention in a conference paper is necessary to report this as a fact. In the absence of such an evidence I would consider the existence of such a poster an unverified rumor at best. Even if the existence of such a poster was established, rather than taking for granted its authenticity I would question its origin. A poster in a direct contrast with the Soviet narrative of the time could have been more likely printed by their enemies than by Soviets, however controversial they may be. Vitkecar (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

It is mentioned in secondary sources, including the EEQ article which we have cited. You are starting to conduct WP:original research in an attempt to disqualify a secondary source by evaluating its primary or secondary source yourself, without even having access to all of its sources. “I would consider the existence of such a poster an unverified rumor at best,” etcetera, is pure OR. A no-no.

And “could have been more likely printed by their enemies” does not even pretend to be research, but opinionated speculation. There are sources that count the number of times necrophagy and cannibalism appear in Soviet news and court documents of the time (see Soviet famine of 1930–1933#Cannibalism for a start), contradicting your logic.  —Michael Z. 18:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't the verifiability requirements that exist for Wikipedia articles also be applied to all the sources referenced in Wikipedia? The Miklós Tápay paper does not specify the source of the claim that such a poster existed, so can it really be considered to be a reliable source that Wikipedia requires? Even if I had all the sources available, is a source considered to be verifiable if it lacks inline references and one has to read all the books mentioned in the bibliography list in order to verify its claims? It is strange to read that one is allowed to cite such a source but I am not allowed to question the reliability of the source because that would qualify as an original research.

Sorry if I broke any rules, it was not my intention and I had an impression that quality requirements for Wikipedia articles such as the "no original research" requirement do not really apply to the talk pages which have the form of a free discussion, at least judging from this page. Otherwise it would be difficult to discuss.

I am also not the first one to notice that there is a problem with the reliability of this source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AHolodomor%2FArchive_18#%22To_eat_your_own_children_is_a_barbarian_act%22_--_unreliable_source? Vitkecar (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The cited source we’re discussing is the Várdy and Várdy paper, not the Tápay paper.  —Michael Z. 20:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Várdy and Várdy cites the Tápay paper. Which means that one just needs to publish some nonsense once, make a proper reference to it in another paper and afterwards one can infinitely cite the second paper as a bona fide source. Vitkecar (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Except that reliable secondary sources are professionally qualified to assess their sources, while you and I are not. The more sources assert this, the more it becomes part of the academic corpus, and the harder it is to dispute it.

Please step back for a moment and consider what we are doing here. We are recording verifiable facts in sources, and not divining the WP:TRUTH. I suggest that you consider the usefulness of arguing this one issue, over doing other more productive work here.

If you can demonstrate that all other sources depend only on Tápay, and that there is a real reason to doubt Tápay’s assertion above and beyond “it feels unlikely to me but I can’t find all of his sources,” then we can attest the statement to Tápay. That’s the biggest change this is likely to lead to unless some unanticipated information is brought to light.  —Michael Z. 21:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I need to demonstrate that all other sources depend only on Tápay. It is enough that the cited source, Várdy and Várdy, depends only on Tápay, as it does because it cites only Tápay, to make this cited source unreliable if Tápay is unreliable. And Tápay is unreliable because it does not cite a source. If you can find a source that you consider reliable and use it instead of Várdy and Várdy, then we can talk about the reliability of that particular source, without ever taking on the impossible task of demonstrating that all other sources are unreliable that you propose. Vitkecar (talk) 06:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Is that how our guidelines say reliable secondary sources work? Doesn’t sound like sound logic to me. If you want to press this angle, I suggest you get a WP:3O, call an WP:RFC, or start a query on WP:RSN.

The only possible argument you have is that this is a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, therefore requiring multiple sources. I don’t believe this assertion falls under the definition of exceptional given in the guideline, but I will see if I can indulge you and find some more sources.  —Michael Z. 18:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, your logic makes some assertions.

1. It is enough that the cited source, Várdy and Várdy, depends only on Tápay, as it does because it cites only Tápay, to make this cited source unreliable if Tápay is unreliable.
2. Tápay is unreliable because it does not cite a source

Please back them up from our guidelines.  —Michael Z. 18:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The problem with the logic in principle is that Várdy and Várdy are more qualified than we are to judge whether Tápay is reliable. That’s why they are a secondary reliable source, and we are just Wikipedia editors.  —Michael Z. 18:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

So are Cribb and Nakhimovsky.[6]  —Michael Z. 18:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they just quote Vardy. And they are not experts in history of the Ukrainian famine. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The guidelines are not laws. They do not say that if a source falls or does not fall into an exhaustive list of categories then it must be considered reliable. It would be difficult to compose a list of all possible ways in which a source can be reliable. The guidelines just say where reliable sources are usually found. They are just guidelines. They leave space for a source to be scrutinized and rejected based on common sense.

The guidelines say that a primary source is close to the event. A conference paper published more than 70 years after the in event in a different country is a poor primary source.

But, you say, if Várdy and Várdy think that this is a good primary source, then who are we to challenge them? They are more qualified than we are, challenging them constitutes an original research.

Well, it does not. The guidelines do not say that scrutinizing a source is an original research. They do not try to limit the ways in which we should scrutinize the sources. Sources can, and must, always be examined using our intelligence. Neglecting a chance to use our intelligence is very dangerous. Lots of evil has been done throughout history by people who thought that they must not think. Think of concentration camps. The Third Reich was built on people who thought that others are more qualified to think and that they should just follow the rules and not think about them.

Thanks for pointing out, WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim is accommodating for this case, but I don't think it is the only possibility. The claim that such a poster existed easily qualifies as surprising, not only because it contradicts the official Soviet narrative, but also because it is so grotesque. It also qualifies as important because it is used on a page that covers issues that are so sensitive that it is semi-protected. Is this "covered by multiple mainstream sources"? I see no definition of what a mainstream source is. Even if these sources are not totally obscure, journals with high impact factors they certainly are not. Moreover, the guidelines only say what red flags include, they do not attempt to give an exhaustive list of all possible red flags. Common sense says that if all sources lead to a single suspicious primary source then it is a red flag.

Thank you for offering to try to find more sources. I think that this is the right thing to do. I understand that a request for a third opinion is an option but I think there is still room to reach an agreement. Vitkecar (talk) 07:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, the page about the original research says "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." Vitkecar (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

So you’re arguing that we can use OR to inform our consensus to deprecate a source, while not injecting it into article text? Fair enough. You’ll have to present much better research, though.  —Michael Z. 20:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

And you’ll have to apply your argument to other sources that assert this.[7][8]  —Michael Z. 20:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

If any of these sources is more reliable then that one should be cited instead of Várdy and Várdy or the Tápay paper. Vitkecar (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

No. I am just arguing that I am allowed to use what I consider to be a logical reasoning in a discussion. Vitkecar (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Either way, you haven’t convinced me yet.  —Michael Z. 21:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Michael, WP:OR refers only to the texts that you add to the article space. In contrast, our policy requires that we do some research and source analysis before we add something to the article space. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I've just noticed that two parallel discussions occur in two different pages. It seems I reproduced the same arguments at the Holodomor talk page. It seems we should merge them, and continue it in one place. Although this article can be considered as a mother article for Holodomor, the latter seems more popular for political reasons, so I propose to continue there.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The same editor started both. This one is earlier and has more replies. I linked to this one in the first response there. —Michael Z. 23:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, I see no problem to continue here. I don't see how any of my concerns have been addressed here. I already explained why this claim is exceptional: it is an exceptional claim not covered by multiple mainstream sources, and per WP:REDFLAG I request you to provide at least one more independent source (that does not cite Tapay). It is very desirable to see what exactly Tapay said (the source seems to be unavailable online). Please, do that, otherwise I'll remove it. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

So, you’re saying we are qualified to disqualify Tápay as a reliable source, without even examining all of its sources (not that that would do), because what, because we don’t like the assertion and have a strong hunch based on our outstanding history knowledge? And then we disqualify Várdy and Várdy’s citation of Tápay on the basis of they can’t be reliable because they cite Tápay whom we’ve “proven” is unreliable? And we disqualify multiple other sources because they cite V. & V.?

I don’t think this is sound. I think this suggestion puts up red flags.

If it resolves the argument, we can cite it with attestation.  —Michael Z. 20:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree to continue here. The only reason I started the other discussion was because I was unable to put a dubious tag in the article.

The fact that the person who raised this question there over four years ago gave up waiting for someone to respond does not imply that he changed his opinion, and it is worrying that nobody cared to address the valid concerns that he raised for so long. Maybe this was because he did not (could not?) put a tag in that article, so it was not very visible that anybody is questioning this. Vitkecar (talk) 07:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, this rationale is wrong: It would directly contradict that Soviets "actively denied the famine's existence" as stated in the paragraph before.

I suppose you must think that the Soviets were directly contradicting their Holodomor denial when they blamed food shortages on “Kulak sabotage,” “secret societies,” and “bad weather,” and when they delivered food to starving areas they decided to spare or to rehabilitate. It’s the same with police reports documenting high incidences of necrophagy and cannibalism, and a poster demonizing them. They did all of these things.

Holodomor denial is “diminution of the scale and significance of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 or the assertion that it did not occur.”[9]

The Soviet government did deny the famine internationally. It didn’t circulate this poster internationally. But Holodomor denial also liberally directly contradicted itself: Duranty wrote “There is no actual starvation or deaths from starvation but there is widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition, especially in the Ukraine, North Caucasus and Lower Volga” (New York Times, March 31, 1933, p 13).

The Soviets probably did not deny the famine to people while they were killing them by famine in blacklisted regions, and probably not to the survivors and the people they eventually decided to spare while they were giving famine relief. That someone in the Soviet hierarchy in some famine-stricken region distributed a poster discouraging necrophagy only directly contradicts that the Soviets actively denied the famine’s existence to the people suffering from famine while they were suffering from famine.

After the famine was over, the totalitarian régime denied it to their own citizens and to themselves, criminalizing and violently suppressing any dissent or “discrediting socialism” for decades. Said poster disappeared. They suppressed it so thoroughly in the public sphere that their own government commissioned a report to discredit “Nazi propaganda” about the famine and was shocked that their own academics confirmed there had been an artificial famine. But many reports letters, eyewitness accounts, and victims survived. —Michael Z. 23:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Your arguments are not convincing. A typical propaganda picture was that collectivisation was a complete success, and some minor incidents, including Kulak sabotage, secret societies and bad weather, did not affect the overall picture. A "do not eat children" poster would have smashed that ideal picture. It looks very odd. However, I cannot rule out a possibility that that took place. In that case, some additional sources must exist that confirm this fact independently. I made good faith efforts to identify them, but I was unable to find anything Please, provide some independent source, otherwise I'll delete that text per WP:UNDUE. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, we only have to verify the sources and not convince you personally. Multiple reliable sources have accepted the statement. You can attribute or reasonably qualify it, but please do not remove it without consensus.  —Michael Z. 20:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

No, you should convince me that WP:REDFLAG is not applicable here. So far, I have very serious reasons to believe that we are dealing with a surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources.

Please, provide sources. Even the original source quoted by Vardy is not available online, and the very journal does not exist. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I linked to the full text of Várdy and Várdy 2007 in my first comment above. I linked to a full archive of the nonexistent journal Krónika and full text of the article in my third.  —Michael Z. 23:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand what you mean. In their 2007 article, Várdy&Várdy just quote (their own term) the article from "Krónika proceedings", and that is the only mention of that journal in Google schoolar: see this.

The article by Várdy&Várdy just quotes another source, it is not an independent source. We need to see the original article (published in Krónika proceedings) to make a conclusion if REDFLAG is not applicable here. Furthermore, if even we assume that Várdy&Várdy is an independent source, it was cited just a couple of times, and only once in a context of this poster. Therefore, this surprising and apparently important claim was not covered by independent multiple mainstream sources.

Again, please, post here the links to multiple mainstream sources that independently confirm this surprising claim. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I linked to Krónika above, in the paragraph that starts with “Found here . . .”  —Michael Z. 01:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I found it, thanks. That is the page 112. Google translates it as follows:

"In the summer of 1933, the typhus epidemic came on top of the famine, as a result, in many thousands of villages, there are only 2 a dozen survivors remained. The GPU and Italian diplomatic reports they also unanimously reported cannibalism! In this completely in a hopeless situation it became so widespread that the govt printed posters with the text: “Your own children eating it is a barbaric act”. "

My conclusion is as follows. First, according to our policy, this is a reliable source. However, it is not the best quality source, because it is just proceedings (not peer-reviewed).

Second, if we decide to keep this information, all other sources, which just quote Tapay or quote Vardi&Vardi, who quote Tapay, should be removed, because they are not independent.

Third, this information doesn't seem to be author's own research, it cites no primary sources. The cited literature is as follows:

1.) Nicolas Werth: Forced Collectivization and Dekulakization in The Black Book of Communism: crimes, terror, repression. 1999 p. 146-158.

2.) Nicolas Werth: The Great Famine in The Black Book of Communism. 1999 p. 159- 168.

3.) Roy Medvedev: Let History Judge. The origins and consequences of Stalinism. 1989 p. 240-248.

4.) Edward Radzinski: Stalin. 1996 p. 256-259.

5.) Dr. Miklós Tápay: Khrushchev's secret speech. – The beginning of decentralization. The XXXIX. Chronicle of a Hungarian Meeting. 2000. 314-326. side.

Radzinski is not a historian, he is a playwright, so that source should be excluded, as well as Tapay himself (the source #5 is about Khruschev speech). Roy Medvedev is also not the best source. Most likely, Tapay took information from Werth, who is a very serious and good author. Therefore, instead of citing questionable proceedings, we should check if Werth (or, maybe Medvedev) wrote something about that poster. In particular, it is not clear if that was just a single event, or many copies of that poster were printed and posted broadly. All of that will allow us to decide if this information should be kept. Meanwhile, Vardy&Vadry, as well as other derivative sources should be removed and replaced with Tapay.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Redflag: “Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources.” With the knowledge that not only necrophagy and cannibalism took place, but there were thousands of cases, why is it surprising that authorities took steps to try to discourage it where there was famine?

The argument this was contrary to their denial is unconvincing, because they denied the starvation internationally, not to starving people.

Also mentioned above is WP:independent sources. That means independent of the subject and not biased. (It does not mean the fact of the poster has to be independently reported by multiple sources.) That multiple reliable sources cited the other reinforces its likely reliability, because they are qualified to judge that. Offsetting to some degree it’s non-peer-reviewed status. Like I said, we can attest it since we don’t know where Tápay found the information.  —Michael Z. 02:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not questioning the very fact of cannibalism, and its scale. However, we have the following situation.

1. Conquest writes about cannibalism during the famine.

2. Werth includes Conquest's information into his chapter. Conquest is the only source cited in the paragraph that tells about cannibalism, so Werth adds no facts to Conquest's information.

3. Tapay uses Werth massively (on the verge of plagiarism), and Conquest's information about cannibalism is now included into the article by Tapay. Again, Tapay cites no additional sources (except political writing by Medvedev and Radzinski's very questionable text), so I have no idea where the information about the poster was taken from.

4. Vardy&Vardy quote Tapay non-critically, without fact checking.

5. Vardy&vardy's information is quoted by few other sources.

6. Wikipedia cites Vapay&Vardy and other sources as if they were independent from each other.

Keeping in mind that all of that originated from Conquest's "Harvest of Sorrow", how can we be surprised when people do not trust Wikipedia? Paul Siebert (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

It is ok that some information was quoted by several sources. However, none of them performed any fact checking (Vardi&Vardy just openly say they quoted this information, and they provide no analysis, other sources just quote Vardy&Vardy as if they were the original source of information). That makes those sources not too reliable. Furthermore, citing multiple sources as if they were independent from each other creates a false impression that the information is mainstream, which is a violation of NPOV.

Therefore, both REDFLAG and NPOV are violated, and I still don't know were Tapay's statement comes from. His source is unclear, so, keeping in mind REDFLAG and NPOV, we should remove it.

However, you can prevent it if you demonstrate me that Conquest, or Werth, or Medvedev really wrote about that, and that they obtained the information from some concrete archival document (i.e. it was not just a hearsay). Paul Siebert (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The source #3 is Medvedev's book that was published first in 1973. Medvedev is not a historian, but a political writer, he had no access to archives in 1973, so I have serious doubts that his books contains a verifiable information about such a poster. To summarise,

Werth says nothing about that poster, we don't know if Medvedev says that, but it is highly unlikely he could have access to that type information in 1970s. Moreover, had the information about the poster been found in Medvedev's book, other authors would reproduce it in other publications. However, I am not aware of any publication of that kind.

Radzinski is a playwright, and is hardly a reliable source.

Therefore, the only source of information is Tapay himself. But he cites no primary sources, so I have no clue on where he took that information from.

Again, a highly controversial information obtained from a very odd source. Please, provide a better source. Paul Siebert (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually, a situation is even worse. Below, I there is a translation of Tapay's paragraph on page 111. I used google translate.

"It is for the threat of a critical food shortage expected in the winter of 1932-33 the first reports reached Moscow already in the summer of 1932. In August Molotov indicated to the Politburo that the threat of starvation was real it exists even in those regions where the harvest was exceptionally good! But his intention remained the implementation of the collection plan, regardless of the consequences. In the same month, Pyotr Isayev, Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of Kazakhstan, to Stalin's knowledge brought the extent of starvation among them, where collectivization, nomadic life the taking of the livestock of the living population and the forced resettlement completely overturned the traditional of that republic economy. Party leaders from other regions also asked Stalin to reduce collection plans. The Politburo's answer to this was that they instructed the local leaders in a letter to complete all those farms to confiscate its grain stocks, which were delivered below schedule, including seed stocks set aside for next year!"

And now compare it with what Werth writes on the page 163, starting from the words "The first reports on the risk of a "critical food situation" for the winter of 1932-33..." and ending with "...or there will be no one left to sow next year's harvest."

I have a strong feeling that a significant part of the article by Tapay is just a translation of Werth to Hungarian. I am going to remove this lousy source abd the notion of the poster if no better source will be provided within one month. Paul Siebert (talk) 05:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The full fragment from Tapay is as follows:

"In the summer of 1933, the typhus epidemic came on top of the famine, as a result, in many thousands of villages, there are only 2 a dozen survivors remained. The GPU and Italian diplomatic reports they also unanimously reported cannibalism! In this completely in a hopeless situation it became so widespread that the govt printed posters with the text: “Your own children eating it is a barbaric act”. "

Now let's compare it with what Werth says (p. 165):

"In the countryside the death rate was at its highest in the summer of 1933. As though hunger were not enough, typhus was soon common, and in towns with population of several thousands there were something fewer than two dozed survivors. Cases of cannibalism are recorded both in GPU reports and in Italian diplomatic bulletins from Kharkiv: " "Every night the bodies of more than 250 people who have died from hunger or typhus are collected. Many of these bodies have had their liver removed, through a large slit in the abdomen. The police finally picked up some of these mysterious 'amputators' who confessed that they were using the meat as a filling for the meat pies that they were selling in the market."

That is all what Werth says about cannibalism. Clearly, Tapay's text is a liberal translation of Werth, and Werth mentions no posters. I cannot rule out a possibility that Radzinski wrote about that, but Radzinsky is not a historian, and not a reliable source. If Tapay uses Radzinsky for that claim, that undermines credibility of Tapay. Paul Siebert (talk) 05:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

You are undermining your own case by openly documenting your original research on this talk page. It is nonsense based on pure speculation about where the sources’ information comes from, and about other sources you don’t have access to.

You can introduce criticism of these sources by other sources, but apparently you can’t find any. Only citations by other sources.

I think this discussion has run its course. Consult the dispute resolution guidelines.

Please don’t remove anything without consensus.  —Michael Z. 17:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Michael, you are an administrator, which implies some level of familiarity with our policy. You should have known that NOR does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources. You literally accused me of doing what any good Wikipedian is supposed to do. And I do not need to obtain consensus to remove it, in contrast, it is you who need to obtain consensus that the proposed text complies with WP:REDFLAG.

In other words, you are undermining credibility of your own admin status.

But I agree that the discussion is closed. Provide another sources (actually, multiple sources), otherwise I am going to remove this text and this source in one month. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Except the research is unsound and unconvincing.

And except the claim that some authority notorious for propaganda made a minor propaganda effort in the midst of thousands of cases of necrophagy and cannibalism is not surprising nor extraordinary.  —Michael Z. 19:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I cannot rule out a possibility that some local official ordered to print such a poster, and that was really a minor incident. However, this raises some questions.

First, are we allowed to make generalizations and present it as if posters were printed and posted massively (the current text creates a false impression that that incident was not minor)?

Second, do we have any evidences that that really took place? Note, The Hungarian Association is a cultural organization sponsoring an annual Congress which provides a forum for the discussion of issues impacting Hungarian Americans and offers educational, literary, scientific, artistic and informative lectures, films and seminars by members of the Hungarian community. It is not a scholarly association, this is just a group of Hungarian emigrants, and their Proceedings is just an SPS. Vardi&Vardi cited Tapay because they are Hungarians (judging by their names and diacritic symbols they use). This source is by no means reliable enough to make any claims of that kind.

Again, please, provide another source (at least one). That may postpone deletion of this information. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I’ll not entertain arguments that derive the reliability of a source from the spelling of their ethnic name.

This discussion has completely outrun its course.  —Michael Z. 23:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

That was just one argument out of many. You preferred to ignore other arguments, including my observation that the Tamay's article was published in Proceedings of some Hungarian émigré club, which, most likely, means it is an SPS. I've just noticed that, but why haven't you noticed that by yourself? Admins are supposed to be knowledgeable in our core policies, and that raised a concern if your competence is sufficient to maintain your admin status. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Let me be clear. Your argument has racist elements. It doesn’t belong in Wikipedia. It mustn’t be tolerated on pages subject to discretionary sanctions. I don’t want to discuss anything with you.

Don’t mess with long-standing text in the article unless you have consensus.  —Michael Z. 15:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mzajac: I guess, your personal attack was triggered by my notion that Vardi&Vardi and Tapay are Hungarians. Well...

Try to think logically: Tapay's article is not found in google.scholar, Tapay authored no publications that can be found in google. The Hungarian association's web site is blocked by my university (I can access it only from home, and I am living NOT in Russia, so the problem is not with my university, but with the Association). How did Vardi&Vardi manage to find Tapay's article published on such an obscure web site? Because they are of the same ethnicity, they speak the same language, they are probably connected to the same emigre community. By the way, East European Quarterly is based in Hungary.

That doesn't imply anything bad about Hungary or Hungarians: the ethnicity doesn't matter, Tapay and Vardi could be Poles, Russians or Czechs, the point is that they are of the same ethnicity. That explains a lot: Polish authors are more likely to be cites by Poles, Russian authors are more likely to be cited by Russians, etc. (of course, I mean a relative frequency)

My point is that Tapay, as well as the Hungarian Association, is absolutely not notable, and Vardi&Vardi cited him just because they both are of the same ethnicity. Had Tapay been, e.g. Slovak, Vardi&Vardi would never cite this obscure article: they simply wouldn't know about it.

It is very strange that I have to explain these obvious things to you.

Anyway, I suggest you to withdraw your personal attack, which is totally unjustified. You should better focus on finding a good source for the claim about the poster, otherwise, it will be removed. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies. To source the claim that the Soviets printed such a poster, I would expect at least to be able to find, by following secondary sources to primary sources, either a source that reproduces the poster, or a source who claims to have seen the poster. Anything less leaves us in "urban legend" territory. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Lang, Harry (April 15, 1935). "SOVIET HORROR STORIES ARE CONFIRMED". The Washington Times. In the office of a Soviet functionary I saw a poster on the wall which struck my attention. It showed the picture of a mother in distress, with a swollen child at her feet, and over the picture was the inscription: "Eating of dead children is barbarism." is the most likely origin. Here is some more on Harry Lang's articles[10]. Various Russian, Yidish, Hungarian, to English translations accounting for the difference? What does Food or War have to say? fiveby(zero) 03:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Good. At least, we have a better translation, for "Eating of dead children is barbarism" sounds somewhat more rational (if this word is applicable to this terrible story): the poster clearly speaks about dead children.

And now I understand the source of this story: it was Lang. Everything what I found in google cites either Lang or the sources that cite Lang. By the way, in what The Washington Times the article was published? It seems it is a different newspaper, because the currently existing newspaper was founded pretty recently (that is just an idle curiosity, I am not questioning authenticity of the scan).

I myself was not able to find it because I was using different keywords, and because google scholar shows just two sources. One of them is the book where Lang's statement is debunked (although I am not sure that criticism is valid).

Actually, the only remaining question is: why this fact is not discussed in numerous books, articles and monographs devoted to the Soviet Famine and Holodomor in particular? And why the poster says about dead children specifically, if the main instances of cannibalism described by Werth and Conquest was stealing liver from dead corpses? Paul Siebert (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

From Holodomor Studies it is not quite clear if this incident was earlier published in The Forward but for April 15, 1935 it looks like it appeared in at least New York Journal-American and The Washington Times (1894–1939), yes both Hearst. fiveby(zero) 04:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Slightly different account in Lucy Lang's Tomorrow is Beautiful. It does seem odd, and first though this was a non-Russian speaker's incorrect reading, but that wouldn't apply to the Langs. Snyder[11] is the best source i have access to, do you have Graziosi's Stalinism, Collectivization and the Great Famine? fiveby(zero) 05:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation about the Washington Times (1894-1939). With regard to incorrect reading, I am not sure if I understand it. As far as I understand, this poster says "Remember, when you are drinking (alcoholic beverages) your family is starving". Are you sure we are talking about the same poster Lang saw?

I checked, Graziosi is not available from our library. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I first saw this as "Remember, It’s Wrong to Eat Your Children" and thought it implausible (there being a poster, not the documented incidents), something misread or purposefully exaggerated or possibly 1921. That poster i linked was just an example of how something might be misread, and before i saw Lang's account.

Applebaum does say[12] that Douglas Tottle correctly identified some bad or misleading reporting from the 1930's in Fraud, Famine, and Fascism you found through scholar, but it's certainly not appropriate to use for any "debunking". fiveby(zero) 06:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The problem with "The Oarsman" publication is that it is most likely based on this Wikipedia article (the article is pretty recent, it uses the same photo as in the Holodomor article, and it cannot be ruled out that other information was taken from it too). I also found some other articles that reproduce this story, but the source of this information is unclear, and they say the poster "was said to exist".

I am more interested not to debunk this story (that is not my goal), but to verify it. I will be pretty satisfied if some real documentary evidence will be provided. In connection to that, I still want you to elaborate on this poster: it completly fits Lang's description ("a mother in distress, with a swollen child at her feet"), but the inscription is totally different: that is a propaganda against alcoholism. We know that in early 1930s, soviet authorities unleashed a massive anti-alcoholic campaign, and many posters were printed. My hypothesis is that there was a misunderstanding between Lang and the Soviet official, and the latter interpreted Lang's question ("Are conditions so bad as that?") in the context of alcoholism.

I am just working as devil's advocate, but I am really puzzled by the absence of any mention of "do not eat your children" poster in scholarly literature, and I don't want Wikipedia to become an promoter of urban legends. Paul Siebert (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the more I am reading, the more I am puzzled. Lang was a Russian speaker, and it would be unlikely that he misread the poster. However, if such a poster was printed in many copies, that fact had to be documented. A significant part of Soviet archives is now in Ukraine, and Holodomor is being extensively studied by Ukrainian scholars. Why no information about that poster has been found in archives? In addition, Werth (who cites Conquest) describe multiple cases when liver was stolen from adult corpses, but he doesn't mention any documented case when children's corpses were eaten. Obviously, printing "Don't eat children" posters was supposed to be a response to some widespread phenomenon. Are there any evidences that eating children corpses was widespread in 1933?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

You saw that the Langs claimed to have seen it in a Moscow office? I have doubts about the existence of a poster, but am not qualified to make a judgement. We are also not certain, although it looks very probable that Lang is the source for Tapay.

I think you and i would both agree that issues such as this could be avoided by proceeding from WP:BESTSOURCES. There is much high quality scholarship describing this horror (including Leviticus 26:29) that if used would better serve the reader. Unfortunately that isn't the way WP works. fiveby(zero) 16:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

"Once upon a time, a poet, a physicist, and a mathematician were on a train moving across Scotland.

The poet looked out of the window and exclaimed "Look! Scottish sheep are black!"

The physicist said, "No, no. I see just one sheep, so I conclude some Scottish sheep are black."

The mathematician summarized: "There is at least one field in Scotland, containing at least one sheep, of which at least one side is black."

What we can conclude from the Lang's article? That Lang saw one poster saying “EATING OF DEAD CHILDREN IS BARBARISM”, and that he was told hundreds of those posters were printed. That is what we can write in the article. The problem is if it is complies with WP:DUE: so far, I found no mention of this Lang's statement in the sources that can be found via google scholar. Yes, Motyl, who is a reliable source, whites about that in his blog, but why no information about the poster (and about eating children corpses) appears in scholarly literature? Paul Siebert (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know that is it possible or productive to try and determine how widespread, but should document that it happened. Did you see Snyder p. 51 An orphan was a child who had not been eaten by his parents...Some mothers and fathers killed their children and ate them. I don't think the article should mention the poster at all, but instead use such as Snyder to describe what happened, which is very much DUE. fiveby(zero) 17:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I see that this statement has been removed from this article but it still stands in the Holodomor article, unchallenged, since the dubious tag has been placed on the sentence that follows the one about eating children. Vitkecar (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Content fork

Section "Causes" is a big content fork of page Causes of the Holodomor. This needs to be summarized very briefly. But instead, most of the space is dedicated to disputes between different authors. My very best wishes (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Image

Is the picture used in this article real? The photo at the top of this seems to be distorted (look at the face). Could we use a different photo? 2603:8001:13F0:85C0:9832:BA8C:C46B:BEAE (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Kazakhstan isn't a part of Russia.

Re-did the edit to list it alongside Ukraine as the non-Russian republic it also was. 2804:1684:111:EA68:780C:EAD9:63AA:20E (talk) 05:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Until 1936, Kazakhstan was not a republic at the same level as Ukraine, but was an ASSR (autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic), part of Russia.

I guess this is a sufficiently confusing point that we should add an explanatory note in the text, not just in the edit summaries and here in the talk page. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that *requires* inclusion in the "different parts of Russia" formulation, but insofar as it was the case then, "the Kazakh ASSR" may make things clearer. 2804:1684:128:6941:7566:C56F:39B7:1487 (talk) 05:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Strange infobox

I posthumously congratulate Joseph Stalin and the Soviet officials in charge of agricultural policy for their Pulitzer Prize!!! 🏆 Shoshin000 (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Short description

Is there anyone who thinks that "Man-made famine that affected the major grain-producing areas of the Soviet Union" is appropriate for the WP:Short description of this article? I would be OK with "Famine in the Soviet Union, 1930-1933", as proposed by another editor, or, since that's so close to the title of the article, maybe no short description at all. Of course, there are practical problems with a short description that is 81 characters wide; see WP:SDLENGTH. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The current version is long-standing, and it summarizes succinctly the content. No reason to change it.--Aristophile (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)