Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:55, 8 November 2010

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ukraine Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Soviet Union High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Death This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:FAOL

You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in Portuguese. Click for important translation instructions. View a machine-translated version of the Portuguese article. Machine translation, like DeepL or Google Translate, is a useful starting point for translations, but translators must revise errors as necessary and confirm that the translation is accurate, rather than simply copy-pasting machine-translated text into the English Misplaced Pages. Consider adding a topic to this template: there are already 540 articles in the main category, and specifying|topic= will aid in categorization. Do not translate text that appears unreliable or low-quality. If possible, verify the text with references provided in the foreign-language article. You must provide copyright attribution in the edit summary accompanying your translation by providing an interlanguage link to the source of your translation. A model attribution edit summary is Content in this edit is translated from the existing Portuguese Misplaced Pages article at ]; see its history for attribution. You may also add the template {{Translated|pt|Holodomor}} to the talk page. For more guidance, see Misplaced Pages:Translation.

Template:WP1.0

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on November 24, 2007, November 22, 2008, and November 28, 2009.

A gentle reminder to all editors

"Misplaced Pages describes disputes. Misplaced Pages does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article." - WP:NPOV -moritheil 02:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Estimates range

Hi, please provide a quote from "Million Feared Dead of Hunger in South Russia" confirming "Estimates on the total number of casualties within Soviet Ukraine range mostly from 1 million" it is a source for --windyhead (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Where?

Yushchenko does not blame Russia for Holodomor. Where to put this in the article? — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 22:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That sounds very strange. Is there anybody who'd blame Russia for Holodomor? in case I'm not mistaken, Holodomor was a result of the policies by the soviet communist regime whose leader wasn't even a Russian. So what has Russia to do with anything here?--Termer (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

A popular meme, especially amongst some nationalists in Eastern Europe and their neocon supporters in the west, is that all the other republics were simply Russia's unwilling puppets, and therefore current day Russia must take full responsibility for everything bad that happened during communist rule. Obviously this is revisionist nonsense and shouldn't be presented as a legit viewpoint in the first place. Additionally, I would think Yushchenko is just trying to score some points with the moderates in Ukraine before the upcoming election, so I don't think this is worth putting in the article. Although maybe it could go in his own article. LokiiT (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

May I draw your attention here to the fact that Russia is the legal successor of Soviet Union. Also, please note that rhetorical use of terms like 'unwilling puppets' and 'revisionist nonsense' weakens any text's claim for objectivity. Lastly, the premise of the argument is 'obvious revisionist nonsense.' Does anyone know what is revisionist nonsense? Why is revisionism presented as nonsense? Is the history not always in the process of being rewritten? Any historical argument has to be grounded on facts, I see none here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.87.240 (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Legal successor has more to do with non proliferation of nuclear arms than policies of USSR. No, Russians, Russia and Russian leaders are not to blame in any respect to Holodomor and the 1932 Soviet-wide famine (yes, soviet-wide, this did not happen just in Ukraine). 99.236.221.124 (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that many Russians posit the "It was Soviet union, nothing to do with us" argument whenever they are faced with the evil or horrendous actions of the Soviet Union, but seem to instantly forget they said thet when the discussion of the GOOD things accomplished by the Soviet Union (Like Ww2) comes up. Either there is a continuity or not, there cannot only be a continuity of convenience, to be applied whenever one feels like it, and ignored when politically awkward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The term first appeared in print on July 18, 1988

Hi, please provide a quote from the source confirming "The term first appeared in print on July 18, 1988" --windyhead (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I second the request. I believe that in Czech, similar words hladomor (meaning famine) and hladomorna (dungeon used to torture prisoner with starving) are used for centuries (quick check on czech wikisource confirms that they were surely used in the nineteenth century). The word seems to be a really simple compound of rather basic words in both Czech and Ukrainian. It really surprises me that in Ukrainian, this compound is claimed to be neologism only thirty years old. There may be some shift in the meaning of the word, so it is now used only for this one great famine, the emphasis of the word mor may shift from plague to torment (by people, not by the Nature). But claiming the word is only 30 years old? Please, give (more) sources. --Tchoř (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

OK lets improve the article

few things that pop out for me right away: who exactly considers the Holodomor "one of the greatest calamities to affect the Ukrainian nation in modern history"?

and

"Millions of inhabitants of Ukraine died of starvation in an unprecedented peacetime catastrophe". Is it just me or does "an unprecedented peacetime catastrophe" sound a bit over the top? No disrespect meant but surely calling it "unprecedented" would at least need an explanation why and how it was "unprecedented". The human history has had its dark moments before and after Holodomor, so is this "unprecedented" really appropriate here? Hope you see what I mean.--Termer (talk) 03:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

unprecedented peacetime catastrophe - thats what Britannica says --windyhead (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe, initially the author meant that this catastrophe was "unprecedented" in Ukrainian, not world history. Obviously the statement needs some clarification.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point Paul! I've fixed it. For the next, anybody knows who exactly considered the Holodomor "one of the greatest calamities"? --Termer (talk) 06:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see that sometibes we can be unanimous.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm always intend to be unanimous with whatever the sources say. And currently there is nothing to WP:VERIFY with that the Holodomor was "one of the greatest calamities". So it needs to go.--Termer (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that would be correct. Only disputable statements need to be supported by sources. It is hard to imagine that loss of about 10% of population is not one of the greatest calamity. Note, the text states "one of the greatest calamities", not "the greatest". WP encourages us to use common sense, and to doubt that that was "one of the greatest calamities" is against common sense. In addition, according to WP:LEDE citations are not necessary in a lede. I propose you to restore this statement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No commentary any kind, especially unsourced commentary is necessary on wikipedia articles. The readers can and should make up their own minds based on sourced facts in the article either the famine was "one of the greatest calamities" or "the greatest..." etc. In case anybody is known to have said that about the subject, and it can be verified, there shouldn't be any problems with including such commentaries in the article.--Termer (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

News flash

I am afraid to add it to the article just yet, but here is an interesting report for discussion. (Igny (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC))

Would anyone be interested in adding a section linking this to the killing of Jews during World War II -- as a reprisal for the perception that Jews were to blame for the famine? (as communist agents). I am not arguing for or against this position (I do not know enough to say), but believe this is very germane to understanding the Holodomor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.237.237 (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look like news really. It has been going back and forward since Raphael Lemkin in 1953 coined the famine as "Soviet Genocide in the Ukraine". Just that the UN Genocide convention doesn't include social, religious etc groups in the term unlike Lemkin did. Therefore yes, currently nobody can really consider the Holodomor legally a Genocide according to the convention, and therefore there is nothing new in this newsflash really.--Termer (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

What is strange though that the section Was Holodomor a genocide? starts up with Robert Conquest and his views. at the time when in chronological sense it would be Raphael Lemkin who raised the question originally. So it seems this needs to be fixed.--Termer (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

When and where did he raise the question? (Igny (talk) 03:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

When looking for the source on this I only found the UCCLA blog and the report in Ukr Embassy in Canada. Are there any independent sources? It is not that I do not trust UCCLA, it is just that it is not the first time Ukraine fabricated facts during its campaign to gain international recognition of holodomor as genocide. (Igny (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

What are you talking about. Lemkin's essay is a known work on the subject. In case you're looking for secondary sources that refer to it here is one that first came handy: published by Oxford University press; Oxford Journals; Journal of International Criminal Justice, that among other things says about the work: Raphael Lemkin's essay 'Soviet Genocide in Ukraine' is one of the earliest writings on the subject by a non-Ukrainian scholar. etc.--Termer (talk) 06:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean Roman Serbyn? (Igny (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

What about Roman Serbyn? In case you're referring to the author of the article than yes, that's waht it says .--Termer (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I just keep waiting for a non-Ukrainian source of Lemkin's views on Holodomor. (Igny (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

Sorry, didn't get it, the Oxford University press who published this work by Lemkin and the New York Public library where its held are Ukrainian sources in your opinion?--Termer (talk) 22:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Oxford University published a work by Serbyn, not Lemkin. As I do not have access to NY public library I wonder is it the only copy of Lemkin's speech? Why noone brought this up other than Serbyn? I would still be interested in circumstances of this speech, and the context of his claims and Lemkin's actual words and not an essay by Serbyn. Do these words literally belong to Lemkin? Why couldn't I find any more sources on this speech other than reprints of Serbyn's paper? (Igny (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

You're incorrect. The source Journal of International Criminal Justice says it right from the beginning "We publish a piece by Raphal Lemkin". And Serbyn has written an introductory note to this, its all there n black and white.--Termer (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

After some extensive search I found what I was interested in.

Text was probably originally composed for Lemkin’s address at the 1953 Ukrainian

Famine commemoration in New York. Later Lemkin added it to the material he was

gathering for his elaborate History of Genocide which was never published. Ed, Roman Serbyn.

It was never published by Lemkin, only a few Lemkin scholars knew about this speech. On the other hand, phrases like "was probably composed", "ignored or downplayed by most of the scholars" are a bit worrying. (Igny (talk) 00:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC))

Well, its pretty clear, what wasn't published back then was History of Genocide by Lemkin. The essay under discussion however has been published by multiple sources like its clearly spelled out in there.--Termer (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

10 million

Hi, recent edits put "over 10 million of people starved to death" and so on into article, but that's not what the source says. The source given says "cumulative loss" which is not the same. --windyhead (talk) 09:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Moved: was at ]
Please explain what you mean by "the source says 'cumulative'". My source does say cumulative losses, but cumulative losses means not only Ukrainians, but other nationalities as well. Which is why I never claim that 10 million Ukrainians died - instead I say people. And this still doesn't actually explain the removal of the two other additions of mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxenbrigg (talk • contribs) 17:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No, cumulative losses means starved to death + unborn + so on. --windyhead (talk) 10:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Really, stating victims of the Holodomor were unborn is hyperbole. Isn't it an agenda to add cumulative loss articles to this article? You could proceed along that path ad infinitum.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Holodomor court hearings begin in Ukraine

The court of appeals in Kyiv has opened hearings into the "fact of genocide-famine Holodomor" in Ukraine in 1932-33 yesterday (Kiev-time). Only I do not understand who will be sentenced, Stalin In absentia??? Anybody knows some more on this? — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 22:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It almost did. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 23:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The Ukrainian Canadian Congress states 7-10 million.

The Ukrainian Canadian Congress states 7-10 million. - this statement is correctly reported and must not be deleted. It does not state that the death toll estimate is 7-10 million. It only reports what the Ukrainian Canadian Congress found through their inquiry. Please do not mis-quote WP:RS that the all info must come from peer reviewed sources. By deleting this NPOV is introduced into the article. Bobanni (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No. The source is not peer-reviewed, and it does not present any new data. The source states:

"The seven to ten million assessment stated in our Statement of November 10, 2003 comes from various sources such as: Robert Conquest’s book “Harvest of Sorrow,” the Final Congressional Report of the U. S. Commission on the Ukraine Famine and the findings of an International Commission of eminent international jurists convened by the Ukrainian World Congress which rendered its final report in 1990. The number seven - ten million ascribes seven million to the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR and three million to other areas of the USSR including Kuban, the North Caucases in Russia and Kazakhstan."

In other words, it just summarizes the data that are always presented in the article, i.e. it is a tertiary (and not the best tertiary) source. In addition, it clearly has been misquoted, because the number of 10 million relates to whole USSR, not to Ukraine. Since the number of victims is a subject of historical studies, not of opinion of non-scholarly sources, UCC's own opinion is hardly relevant.
I remove these data as redundant and incorrectly quoted.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

not surprising

Once more the US in good company, united with dictatorships, fascist and ex-fascist govs. Cute. Hey, even GB is missing. (This observation independent of the question whether holodomor happened or not, just noting the pattern of the game.) --92.202.213.51 (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

2.6m in the lead?

This seems like the total low end and only accepted by a fringe group of people. Majority of scholars put it at 4.8 as an absolute low, while 7.5 seems to be the higher. The generally accepted range should be in the lead, not the outliers.--Львівське (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating, when it comes to UPA membership the highest possible single-sourced figure clearly belongs in the infobox, but here 2.6 million is fringe. Actually read the death toll section. The numbers of two-something and three-something million appear far more often than what you claim to be the "scholarly generally accepted range"...especially when they are given some rationale, and not simply thrown out there. It's just remarkable what's happened to wikipedia. --Tavrian 02:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Most of the perpetrators and instigators of the Holodomor were Jews

I think this is important and it should be added to the article. I present this source http://www.altermedia.info/civil-rights/holodomor_1185.html . This will undoubtedly make this article non kosher, but it is important! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wis (talk • contribs) 03:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Do you think that the Jews also lynched all those poor white Americans? It's a big problem. Important! Drmies (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Holodomor as genocide

The official Yanukovich's statement hardly reflects his own private opinion, so this statement seems to be sufficient to state that Ukraine does not recognize Holodomor as genocide any more.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It is merely his private opinion, and it will cost him his political career. In any event Rada (the the Ukr. P'ment) has not rescinded the official status of Holodomor as genocide.Galassi (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That is merely your own opinion, which mean next to nothing on Misplaced Pages without backing up by the RS. (Igny (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

So give a RS that EXPLICITELY says the Ukraine no longer etc.-Galassi (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Here it is. Where is your RS? (Igny (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

Per WP:BURDEN "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Please, provide a source that states that current Ukrainian official position is that Holodomor was genocide.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually do not see much sense in compiling lists of countries "recognizing Holodomor as genocide". While dictatorships have uniform views on all history questions, democracies are run by politicians having different views (or even not having any particular views at all). USA e.g. couple of times adopted laws commemorating victims of the famine that used word Genocide. Its UN representative on the other hand voted against using this term at some point, etc. It is not showing changes in the official position of the USA (that does not exist) but just show that different American politicians have different opinions on the problem (as well as e.g. whether treatment of Australian aboriginals or American Indians constituted a genocide, whether Irish famine was a genocide, and million similar questions). IMHO much more usable will be to refer to laws, cour decisions, statements by officials, etc. that could be seen as support or otherwise that Holodomor was a genocide. Saying this, Ukraine position is based on Ukrainian Laws, Appellate Court decisions, etc. They are still valid whatever Yanukovich had said in an obscure speech. Thus, if we are to present lists of "Holodomor is Genocide" countries then Ukraine is still in although a footnote is probably deserved. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Technically, the "Holodomor is genocide" rhetoric and policy was mostly based on Yuschenko's (and his team's) speeches. I could not find references to appropriate Ukrainian laws in English, other than some vague news reports. Can anyone search Ukrainian official sites in Ukrainian? (Igny (talk) 04:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC))

Found it. What is the current status of this law?(Igny (talk) 05:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC))

Thanks! I meant this law. I think unless it is repelled or amended it trumps all Yanukovych's speeches Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The title

is another example of a very odd transliteration. "Holodomor" Template:Lang-uk means death of cold; death of hunger is Template:Lang-uk (Холод = cold, Голод = hunger, googletranslate will confirm that :). Everyone in their right mind would transliterate Голодомор as Golodomor. Any support to change the title? Materialscientist (talk) 07:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Main counterarguments

1. The choice for a WP title is directed by common English usage rather than standard transliterations (see the Kyiv v. Kiev dispute)
2. holodomor has bigger consonance with the Holocaust, as the parallels between the two have been strongly advocated by Ukrainian nationalists, which was likely the main reason for wider usage of holodomor in English in the first place
3. golodomor is also a transliteration from Russian, which is out of favor for Ukrainian nationalists, (again see Kiev v. Kyiv for more on this)

In short, any attempt to rename the article will fail. (Igny (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC))

• In both Russian and Ukrainian the famine is named Голодомор, but the transliteration is different whether the name is taken from Russian or Ukrainian. Ukrainian Г is usually transliterated H (see e.g. our own Misplaced Pages:Romanization_of_Ukrainian/BGN/PCGN_transliteration_table) while Russian Г is transliterated as G (see e.g. WP:RUS). Thus, transliteration from Russian is Golodomor and from Ukrainian Holodomor. As the famine is considered mostly as mostly a Ukrainian event naturally Ukrainian term is used more often (check Google usage). Spelling Holodomor sounds funny for a Russian ear but it is not the reason to change established English term Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Х=/x/=kh. Г(ukr)=/ɦ/=h. Ґ(ukr)=/g/=g. Generally speaking, that is... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

How did the famine end?

Could anyone add a section as to what brought an end to the famine, what actions were taken, how did Ukraine recover from the famine? What played the role in the famine, if one looks at the regional heads, then quite a number lost their position in 1933. Obviously a missing section in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.170.84.179 (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit war over characterisation as genocide at first line

My understanding is that this article is primarily about a famine that some also consider a deliberate genocide, an issue that is disputed. The introduction should be made as neutrally as possible, and the question of genocide raised in context of the famine event. Can the disputing editors please explain why the status quo ante should not now apply. RashersTierney (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Virtually all genocides are debated by some. This is mostly debated by Soviet/Russian revisionists, and another part skeptics. The Armenian Genocide is debated by Turkey, the Holocaust has its share of denial as well (however marginal). Why does this article have to be the exception to the rule when compared to other genocide articles?--Львівське (talk) 21:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my sentiment.--Galassi (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Because the fact that Holodomor is a genocide is a minority view. (Igny (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC))

...in the historiographical wasteland that is Russia, sure.--Львівське (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not so much that it is debated "by some", but that it is not accepted as such by a wide spectrum of historians as stated at this (neutral?) source. The former wording is in keeping with NPOV policy. There is no question of minimising the possibility, (and in the later period, probability according to this source), that the famine was deliberately exacerbated by Stalin to be genocidal in effect. RashersTierney (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Just how wide is that wide spectrum? My impression is that the specrum tilts in the direction of genocide, and that includes the US gov. position, as well as that of Lemkin, who coined the term.--Galassi (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

When I was doing research on this subject I wanted to compare both historical narratives and the pro/con to the genocide debate, and I had a really hard time finding legitimate historians who were against the genocide classification or that it was intentional. If anything, the view that it was a Soviet-wide famine and nothing more is the most marginal of views only parroted by politicians.--Львівське (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The contemporary scholarly position on Lemkin and Eastern European genocides (non-German-aligned-initiated) is that Lemkin bent his term to suit the needs of his funding bodies, which included and then became solely Eastern European emigre communities. I forget the quote which is at the article formerly known as Communist Genocide, but to paraphrase: whatever Lemkin touched turned to genocide. Lemkin is not part of the contemporary scholarly mainstream or consensus wrt Eastern European genocide. However, afaik, some credible contemporary scholars consider the Soviet Famine to be genocide. For goodness sakes, don't rely on the US Government—which is not a historian or mass-death academic—for anything but the opinion of the US Government, which as the sole surviving super-power is notable but most definitely needs to be attributed when used. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"Lemkin for Hire" accusation sounds like a tall tale to me. You better source that.--Galassi (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• No worries Galassi, exceptional claims require sourcing, see the heavily cited section Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Origin_of_debate from the impeccable historiography article Weiss-Wendt, Anton (2005). "Hostage of Politics: Raphael Lemkin on 'Soviet Genocide'". Journal of Genocide Research 7 (4): 551–559. doi:10.1080/14623520500350017. http://www.inogs.com/JGRFullText/WeissWendt.pdf. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
• The actual quote was, "Like King Midas, whatever Lemkin touched turned into 'genocide.' But when everything is genocide nothing is genocide!" (Weiss-Wendt, opcit, 555-556). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Has the W-W opinion been seconded?--Galassi (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Excellent question. Weiss-Wendt 2005 was cited by two journal articles to date in google scholar (an extremely limited humanities citation tool), DC Peifer (2008) "Genocide and Airpower" Strategic Studies Quarterly (FUTON) to answer the question, "Committee members engaged with drafting the convention devoted much discussion and debate to defining genocide. What distinguished genocide from other forms of mass death, such as famine or war? How should the crime be defined so that the Soviets—guilty of their own mass murders—would not obstruct the treaty?" (Peifer 98); and by I Katchanovski (2010) "The Politics of Soviet and Nazi Genocides in Orange Ukraine" Europe-Asia Studies (FUTON of a pre-press) to answer the question, "Raphael Lemkin, who is credited with formulating the concept of genocide and advancing its adoption in 1948 by the United Nations in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, regarded as genocide mass murder, deportations, and assimilations of Ukrainians, Jews, Estonians, and other ethnic minorities in the Soviet Union. (See Weiss-wendt, 2005)." These both appear to be scholarly uses of Weiss-Wendt accepting his article as a full scholarly representation of the standard of genocide term use historiography. Weiss-Wendt's claim regarding Lemkin's motivations is the assignation of genocide are part of his scholarly representation of the standard of genocide term use historiography. This is well within the standards of citation of approval of sources in the humanities, which rarely if ever achieve the citation density of hard sciences, and the humanities is where people nail academics to the wall for stuffing up. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The 'pro-genocide' contributions above present the issue as if what occurred was either a famine or a genocide. That is a false premise. The sole issue is how this article is to be introduced to unfamiliar readers in a neutral way. The initial description as a famine does not in any way prejudice the question as to whether or not it amounted to genocide. It is simply familiarising readers with the subject in a neutral way (WP:NPOV) . For the record, I have no horse in this particular race, as between Russian and Ukrainian historiography. Also, the initiating editor, who violated WP:3RR has apparently 'disengaged' from debate. RashersTierney (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The instigators of edit wars rarely have intention to join debates, or they join under a different, more established, account. (Igny (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC))

Re "Virtually all genocides are debated by some. This is mostly debated by Soviet/Russian revisionists, and another part skeptics." This statement is obviously wrong. The article contains the clear and unequivocal statement of Ellman, who described Holodomor not as genocide (in its strict definition). He argued further that it might fit a definition of loosely defined genocide, however, such genocide is not something outstanding, so most Western countries were also involved in such "genocide". By no mean Ellman, Wheatcroft, Davis or Tauger can be considered "Russian nationalist", therefore, I revert the last edits which was supplemented with absolutely misleading edit summary.

Re: "Has the W-W opinion been seconded?" The Ellman's opinion on loosely defined genocide (the quote from the article is below)

"Based on this analysis he concludes, however, that the actions of Stalin's authorities against Ukrainians do not meet the standards of specific intent required to proof genocide as defined by the UN convention (the notable exception is the case of Kuban Ukrainians). Ellman further concluded that if the relaxed definition of genocide is used, the actions of Stalin's authorities do fit the definition of genocide. However, this more relaxed definition of genocide makes the latter the common historical event, according to Ellman."

conveys the same idea: if everything is genocide, nothing is genocide. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem as I see it, is that The Holodomor was a genocide (argue for or against it as you will) and the way some users are trying to bend this article is to turn it into the Soviet Famine of 1932-33 article. The Holodmor is more than just the regional term for the famine that occurred, and the article should reflect what the word means, that it is a very exclusive and separate part of the overall famine that occurred. --Львівське (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the interpretation of Holodomor as genocide is a national POV. This idea, as well as the idea that this famine was directed against some concrete nation, is not supported by many Western scholars.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

While the Holodmor is very much the product of a national narrative, the statement you're making that it was not directed against a concrete national / support by western scholars is an outright lie. The fact that the goal of the famine by Stalin was to destroy nationalism and resistance to Soviet rule has got to be the absolute most agreed upon aspect of the famine in western studies.--Львівське (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"Based on this analysis he concludes, however, that the actions of Stalin's authorities against Ukrainians do not meet the standards of specific intent required to proof genocide as defined by the UN convention (the notable exception is the case of Kuban Ukrainians)."(Michael Ellman, Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932-33 Revisited Europe-Asia Studies, Routledge. Vol. 59, No. 4, June 2007, 663-693.)

--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

What's your point? Ellman's questioning of intent trumps all? Or what?--Львівське (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No mainstream writer classifies this as genocide. The comparison with the Holocaust does not hold. Notice that there is a category "Ukrainian communists" but no category for "Jewish Nazis". Genocide has a narrow meaning. TFD (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Jewish cooperation with the Nazis is one of the major causes for the number of deaths that occurred (Arendt). Your analogy doesn't hold. Russian Red Army troops were used to enforce the perpetuation of the famine, not locals.--Львівське (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Before we label an action "genocide" we need a reliable source that says that is the consensus view in academic writing. Can you provide that? BTW could you mention what writing by Arendt explains her view of Jewish cooperation with the Nazis? TFD (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) Having read this conversation it does seem to me that there a re ligitimate historians on both sides of the genocide/nongenocide issue, and thus the word genocide does not need to be in the first sentence. On the other hand, scholarly consensus seems to be much stronger that it was a man-made catastrophe. Perhaps it can be described that way, without qualifiers ("proponents claim...") into the first sentence as a compromise? Perhaps the first paragraph can read:

In modern Ukrainian historiography, the Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор; translation: death by hunger) refers to the manifestations of the wider Soviet famine of 1932–1933 in the Ukrainian SSR. During the man-made famine millions of inhabitants died of starvation in a peacetime catastrophe unprecedented in the history of Ukraine. Some proponents of the use of the word even consider the events a genocide comparable to the Holocaust. Estimates of the total number of deaths within Soviet Ukraine range from 2.6 million to 10 million.

Also - why is the 10 million figure in this paragraph? It's something some politicians have said but is why outside the scholarly mainstream. This figure could be placed in the lead becuse it's notable that politicians have used it, but why is it in the first paragraph of the lead?Faustian (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

If the 10 goes so should the 2.6, that was just one writer's own research and falls out of scholarly consensus. So do we go with the max range, or general consensus?--Львівське (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

We should go to a mainstream text on genocide and use it as a source for how the event is viewed, rather than going to various sources and having to determine the weight of each source. TFD (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

What does "man-made" mean? Caused by human mismanagement, or caused by people who wanted to starve someone to death? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Faustian, I have tweaked the first paragraph to better reflect your POV. It now reads:

In modern Ukrainian historiography, the Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор; translation: death by hunger) refers to the manifestations of the wider Soviet famine of 1932–1933 in the Ukrainian SSR. Proponents of the use of the word emphasise the man-made aspects of the famine, often arguing that they meet some definition of genocide – some even consider the events comparable to the Holocaust. During the famine millions of inhabitants died of starvation in a peacetime catastrophe unprecedented in the history of Ukraine. Estimates of the total number of deaths within Soviet Ukraine range from 2.6 million to 10 million.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. – Searching for "man-made famine" on Google, indicates it is just another way of saying "genocide". -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Can't it be both? the famine abroad was by mismanagement, the Holodomor narrative states that this catastrophe was exploited for the latter. Virtually every source in the world calls the famine "man-made"; this wasn't a drought, which calling it 'just a famine' makes it sound like.--Львівське (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It can be a drought and a famine. It can be a drought and a famine and man-made. It can be a drought and a famine and man-made and intentional. It can be a drought and a famine and man-made and intentional and genocide. It is important to differentiate the scholarly consensus on the nature of the Soviet Famine itself from the popular narratives of what the nature of the Soviet Famine was. One popular narrative was the official Soviet denialist line, which, as it does not accord with scholarly consensus, should be indicated to be ideological or fictitious or denialist. One popular narrative is the Ukrainian Holodomor narrative, which, as it accords with some scholarly opinions ought to be indicated to lie within the credible scholarly debate; but, it may or may not accord with the scholarly consensus. The article ought to write facts from the scholarly consensus and note major credible divergent scholarly opinions while attributing them to their source. The article ought to also report fully major popular narratives and, for the reader, evaluate their credibility on the basis of the full breadth of true current scholarly debate. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where you're going with this, but it can't be both "man made" and a "famine", it's either a natural famine or a man-made famine; it's the latter, that's overwhelming absolute consensus to the nth degree. What are you debating here?--Львівське (talk) 01:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to reflect the scholarly consensus in the Soviet famine of 1932–1933. This article could concentrate on the Ukrainian narrative of the famine, its role in the national mythology of modern Ukraine and the politicization of the Holodomor issue. This article does not really need to state a single fact about the events of 1932–1933. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Only problem I see is that the "causes" section was turned into its own page, and a lot of that stuff is crucial the backing of the ukrainian narative....so what makes the cut to go back into a condensed version of the causes section--Львівське (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

At least in Australian English, famine implies widespread malnutrition or starvation as a result of lack of food; where as a man made famine is due to human causes but not necessarily intentional (environmental catastrophe can be a human cause); where as intentional famine is deliberately inflicted. I'm not debating that the Soviet Famine had the background of climate caused crop failure, but that the famine was caused by state policy with an awareness that mass death that would be caused as a result of policy.

I would much prefer that the Soviet Famine article deal with the historical incident, and that the Holodomor deal with the popular and historical narrative which began in Ukraine regarding the historical incident due to advantages to the English language reader. But this is basically a Request for Move and should be proceeded officially to allow other external editors to debate it. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we ought to do something about the lede. It is too verbose. (Igny (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC))

I do not see that we will get very far with this editor based on previous discussions about Jewish Bolshevism. TFD (talk) 04:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

New infobox template for famines

While working on Famine in India, I thought of and created a new infobox template that can potentially be used in every famine article on Misplaced Pages. For a list of articles where it can be used, see the categories famines in India, famines and other relevant categories. The usage documentation still needs some improvement and the template might undergo minor teaks further. I am looking for feedback from an expert on famines so I can add/improve parameters in the template. Please feel free to comment/suggest improvements. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Implementation

I started a section that ought to be expanded about how this was accomplished - not underlying causes but how the grain was taken/how food was taken from the starving peasants/how the Holodomor was implemented.Faustian (talk) 05:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Background

Some background info would be helpful - the historical resistance to collectivization by Ukrainian peasants, Stalin's unrealistic but significant for him fears about a Polish invasion (the famine occured after Stalin's non-aggression treaty with Poland, which to Stalin meant a free hand to do what he wanted in Ukraine).Faustian (talk) 05:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Move notice

The name seems POV and a more neutral name is "Ukrainian famine". TFD (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This is like suggesting we move "Holocaust" to "Big Jewish pogrom", big time reject on this prop.--Львівське (talk) 06:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Scanning for quantity of (scholarly) sources "Ukrainian Famine" seems to edge out "Holodomor" slightly, but not by much. I couldn't find a decent source that discussed use of the name in the context of which is more appropriate, although "Holodomor" appears to originally be a "POV fork name" created to maintain the association with the Holocaust. --Errant 11:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you do a google search in scholar on those, and compare also to "Soviet famine" which is the name I've come across almost universally in my reading (admittedly, a reading focused on Soviet historiographies rather than Ukrainian ones). Fifelfoo (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit of a roughshod method because I am using quote marks to focus the phrase a little (google scholar will pick up the word "famine" and so w/o quotes you will get a lot of unrelated material). So with quotes "Soviet famine" actually does worse, looking through the material briefly this looks a lot like a subset of the Soviet famine, given the term "Holodomor" for semi-political reasons and also commonly called Ukrainian famine. I'm inclined to say that the scholarly work under Ukrainian famine is generally better, but w/o a source to back up the choice of one phrase over the other it is hard to make a decision. --Errant 11:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Do not move - Holodomor describes this event specifically and is used by the European Parliament, Ukrainian Government, etc. specifically to describe this event. "Ukrainian famine" could refer to lots of events; even the "Great Ukrainian famine" would be a form of denial, i.e. a POV in the title. Smallbones (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you briefly explain your use of denial in this context so I can make full sense of your expressed opinion? The issue for me in comprehending your opinion on the move is that Holodomor in English appears to have a different meaning to the word's Ukrainian root words, based on a specific predominantly Ukrainian historiography. Thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 12:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a complex problem, I think we need to dig more into the sourcing to decide either way, --Errant 12:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Reject. See Lvivske comment above.--Galassi (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

His reasoning is particularly bad/useless... I'd consider adding your own rationale. --Errant 12:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Perfectly fine rationale. Same as calling the American Revolution a colonial riot. And also: Ukraine had a famine in 1947 as well, naturally caused.--Galassi (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Also 1921-23--Львівське (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, my final thought on this is to keep the article at Holodomor. Bear in mind I have only read about 15 of the main sources (in Google scholar) for each of these terms. It appears that the term is 100% political term adopted by historians to help cement the association to the Holocaust. The better scholarly work appears to refer strongly to "Ukrainian famine" and notes "Holodomor", generally, only as a term adopted by Ukrainian Historians. On the other hand it is a widely adopted term, and no longer quite has the POV twist it originally inferred. So... whilst there is no really strong reason not to rename it, I don't think a strong reason exists to rename it. Although I would note that the above rationale against the move is mostly junk and not based in either policy or sources. --Errant 13:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It is adviseable to be respectful of someone else's "junk" opinion, at least outwardly.--Galassi (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Uh, not really :) it was a bad and non-policy based rationale, hence my point. If that was construed as bite-y I apologise, but the rationale was poor --Errant 14:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It is impossible to describe the scholarly consensus on the famine under the title Holodomor, as it is a propaganda term. If this article is to discuss the famine, then the title needs to be changed. If however we are to have an article under the present title, then the first sentence must make it explicitly clear that the term is not universally accepted and is only relevant in the context of modern Ukrainian historiography. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot find a source that disputes this as universally accepted. Care to point me in the right direction? My reading points to this being a relatively accepted term --Errant 13:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

To Petri: You would need to source the specific evolution of the word from propaganda to scholarly, otherwise it won't wash here.--Galassi (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The term is universally accepted for the Ukrainian nationalistic narrative that Russians / Commies / Judeo-Bolsheviks genocided Ukrainians. What Is not universally accepted is the POV, that this narrative accurately describes the events of 1932–1933, nor that the term should be used to refer to them. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. – The Russian position on the issue may have been expressed in the most polite manner in the message of the President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev to the President of Ukraine Victor Yuschenko on the subject of the so-called Holodomor (Hunger-plague) on the 14th of November, 2008:

• Dmitry Medvedev (November 14, 2008). "TO THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE VIKTOR ANDREYEVICH YUSCHENKO". kremlin.ru.

Others in Russia will be less polite. A major opinion states, that the word is noting more than incitement to ethnic hatred targeted at Ukraine's Russophone majority. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Although Valentino writes about the famine in the Ukraine, he never gives it a name and never mentions the term "holodomor". Rummel refers to the "Intentional Famine in Ukraine" and never uses the term "holodomor". This book uses the term "holodomor" in brackets for the "(artificial) Ukrainian famine". TFD (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Although the event is politicized (so is the Holocaust, it was used as a state-building and unifying theme by Zionists in Israel, but nobody in their right mind would argue that the Holocaust itself is a political invention) it has far more scholarly backing and documentation than the Russian narrative, which basically has no proof and just continue's Stalin/Hitler's "big lie". This Russian narrative is far more politically motivated.--Львівське (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

By "Russian narrative" I assume you mean the Stalinist narrative. But we should not be promoting any narratives, merely using the terminology generally used by scholars and explaining how they have viewed it. TFD (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"Holodomor" is a widely used term at this point. As it encompasses more than a natural famine, it might mislead some if it were simply called "Ukraine famine" to be sure. Collect (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The claim at the top of this thread that This is like suggesting we move "Holocaust" to "Big Jewish pogrom" fails quite miserably. Holodomor is a Ukrainian term, used in a particular nationalist narrative. "Holocaust", on the other hand is an English term. The argument would only make a tiny bit of sense if Misplaced Pages's Holocaust article were at Shoah, which (unlike Holodomor) is not a nationalist term, but (like Holodomor) is a foreign-language term. However, as you'll notice, the Shoah article is just a re-direct to The Holocaust, so if anything, that would be an argument for moving the Holodomor article to an English-language title, and keeping Holodomor as a re-direct. As an aside, that comment must be a record for proving Godwin's law - first comment in the thread, and it took only 28 minutes.
Now, if we were to restrict ourselves to relevant arguments, the only relevant guideline here is WP:ENGLISH, and all arguments should be made in relation to it. What is the most common term used in reliable English-language sources? It's possible that it's also Holodomor, but we need some evidence one way or the other.Jayjg 18:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose move. It seems so obvious that I'm not even sure how to justify this oppose. But anyway, in terms of English language sources, how hard is it to type in "Holodomor" into google books (by itself 3K+ hits ) along with a some English word to screen out non-English sources: , , etc. While the word Holodomor may be of Ukrainian origin by now it has entered the English lexicon and most certainly English language academic discourse.

Also, while I understand (and essentially agree with) Jayjg's point one big difference in the Holodomor/Famine vs. Shoah/Holocaust analogy is that in the latter case, both terms "Shoah" and "Holocaust" accurately convey the nature of the thing being discussed. Not so with Holodomor and Famine where the second term obfuscates rather than informs.radek (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Please note that Misplaced Pages requires sources. Could you please provide a evidence that the term "Holodomor" is more commonly used than "Ukrainian famine". TFD (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know Misplaced Pages requires sources. Don't patronize me. However, you and a couple of others seem to be working under the mistaken impression that for the article to be under "Holodomor" it must be shown that this term is more commonly used than "Ukrainian Famine" (actually most sources seem to use something like "Holodomor, A Ukrainian famine"). That's not the case. What needs to be shown is just that the term "Holodomor" IS used by English language sources (and oh boy are there a lot of those, per the links I've already provided above). The relative usage of "Holodomor" vs. "Ukrainian famine" MIGHT determine what this and some other articles are about. But it doesn't determine whether or not an article under the title "Holodomor" should exist.radek (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

And another issue while we're at it. Since the term "Holodomor" was first used in print in the late 1980's what matters here is what is the CURRENT usage of the term. Hence the proper criteria for analysis of relative uses of Holodomor and "Ukrainian famine" include the appropriate time period - say, post 1993 or something. To reiterate my point above, this determines what goes IN the article, not what the title should be.radek (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is a bad argument, because Ukrainian Famine is a reasonable alternative scholarly term. It appears, generally speaking, to be slightly more used/accepted and generally appears to have better scholarly work associated with it. However; as I said before upon reflection Holodomor seems a reasonable term and fairly widely adopted within academic circles (which is an important marker) --Errant 20:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The fact that the term "Holodomor" gets 3k+ hits in Google books (even allowing for some non-English sources) means that the term is notable and not just a neologism. Hence there needs to be an article under the title "Holodomor". "Ukrainian famine" is the term that was used for this event prior to the fall of Communism. But that was about 20 years ago. "Holodomor" is no more a neologism then than the term "Mobile phone", which also didn't exist 20 years ago. If you limit google books search to post 1990 "Holodomor" outnumbers "Ukrainian famine" by about 3 to 1, never mind that "Ukrainian famine" picks up hits on other famines or other Ukrainian things, whereas Holodomor is a lot more precise; basically "Ukrainian famine" should be a disambiguation page which possibility links to this article, among others. At any rate, the consideration as to which term is more widely used can only affect what goes in the article. It does not affect that an article under the title "Holodomor" should exist - that depends simply on the term's notability which is well beyond being clearly established.radek (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Having completed a fairly exhaustive run through of the Google scholar and most of the book hits for the famine name I can confirm that it is widely and consistently used to refer to this event. --Errant 22:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The argument of Jayg that the claim at the top of this thread that This is like suggesting we move "Holocaust" to "Big Jewish pogrom" fails quite miserably. Holodomor is a Ukrainian term, used in a particular nationalist narrative. "Holocaust", on the other hand is an English term. is invalid and itself fails miserably. 'Holocaust' is no more an English word than 'Holodomor' is, the usage of the former is simply more widespread than that of the latter. As the respective article tells us, the word Holocaust comes from the Greek ὁλόκαυστος holókaustos: hólos, "whole" and kaustós "burnt". That we (still?) know much less of the Holodomor than we know of Holocaust doesn't render it a mere phenomenon of nationalist narrative. MIaceK (woof!) 20:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you're misunderstanding. Holocaust is an older English word adopted in modern times to commonly refer to the Jewish Holocaust, now universally accepted amongst scholars. Holodomor is a Neologism created for political impact (the association with Holocaust), however is appears to be gaining acceptance. Lets use good arguments people :) --Errant 20:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Errant (and other editors), could you please provide evidence that the term Holodomor appears to be gaining acceptance. TFD (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

For someone who hasn't provided any kind of evidence or sources to back up your own contentions you sure demand such of others quite quite a bit. In a way, the evidence hasn't been provided (actually I did link to some searches) because it's so obvious to anyone who is capable of typing the word "Holodomor" into their computer that no one's bothered.radek (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you please read this discussion thread before commenting. Please see above: "Although Valentino writes about the famine in the Ukraine, he never gives it a name and never mentions the term "holodomor". Rummel refers to the "Intentional Famine in Ukraine" and never uses the term "holodomor". This book uses the term "holodomor" in brackets for the "(artificial) Ukrainian famine". TFD (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)" TFD (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I have read it. Please don't assume I haven't and again, please drop the patronizing tone. I fail to see how a couple of data points - isolated books - prove anything, especially when you're asking for evidence about whole literatures and general English language usage. What you've shown is that there exist at least two or three books which do not use the word "Holodomor". And I've shown that there exist more than three thousand that do.radek (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

TFD, I could be convinced to revise my opinion. The body of scholarly work under the term Holodomor is slowly appearing to be mainly nationalist based (i.e. from Ukraine), which lends weight to the idea this is not as widely accepted outside the country. my main feeling before was that there was no particular strong argument for the move (and so it would be unnecessary). I still feel that now, but if there was a source that dealt more carefully in the origins of the term I could probably be swayed :) --Errant 22:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Nicolas Werth, the main contributor to The Black Book of Communism writes, in "The Great Famines of 1931-3" in the 2010 Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies (p. 396), "The term used today in Ukraine to designate this famine, Holodomor, is explicit: it combines the words holod (hunger) and moryty (to kill by privations, to starve, to exhaust). Thus it clearly emphasizes the intentional aspect of the phenomenon. The description of the 1932-3 famine as a genocide is not, however, universally accepted among historicans who have studied the question, whether they be Russians, Ukrainians, or Westerners." TFD (talk) 23:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What does that prove? The author gives the origin of the term. And how is this relevant to the move discussion? The author states that there is a dispute among historians whether or not the Holodomor was a genocide or not. Ok. That's stuff for article content. It is not in anyway evidence for moving the article.

One of the first books in the 3000+ hit google book search for "Holodomor" is this which is written by a non-Ukrainian, it's from Princeton University Press, and doesn't have even a whiff of "nationalism" about it. Yet it has an entire chapter entitled "Holodomor". And yes, likewise the author gives the origin of the term, which is not surprising or actually relevant here.radek (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The book is by Norman Naimark and called Stalin's Genocides. As you may remember you proposed moving the article Communist genocide to Mass killings under Communist regimes because you believed the term "genocide" was not neutral and could exclude the Ukraine famine. Certainly some historians use the term "genocide" but most do not because although they consider it to be at least to some degree mass killings, they do not think that it meets the criteria for genocide as normally defined. TFD (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

<--First, no. That is not what I "believed". I have no idea how you get that from my comments (the word "Holodomor" does not appear in your link. The word "Ukraine" appears twice in someone else's comments). Second, what is the relevance of that to this discussion? We are NOT discussing whether the Holodomor was or wasn't a genocide (which is indeed under discussion among scholars), what we are discussing is whether the term Holodomor is used by English language sources (which it is, overwhelmingly). This is a red herring. To steal a bad joke from a bad movie a red red herring. So what does your comment have to do with anything? You're not only bringing up irrelevancies but are also putting words in my mouth/head.radek (talk) 05:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I am just quoting one expert who btw you have strenuosly defended in Mass killings under Communist regimes. I always opposed using his writings in that article because the Black Book was published outside the academic mainstream but now defend his work published within the academic mainstream. Ironic that you are now trashing him. TFD (talk) 06:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What. Are. You. Talking. About. ???. I haven't trashed anyone. I have no idea what the relevance of any of your last few comments is to this discussion.radek (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason not to use the The Black Book at the other mentioned article is that the two chapters which actually support the supposition weren't academic or in fact supporting the supposition. As much as I detest the work, at least some of the other chapters are, to my knowledge, scholarly. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Radek, we should name articles using the terms most commonly used by scholars and avoid controversial terminology that implies an interpretation of events. You and I are both aware that policy requires that and we are both aware that each other is aware. TFD (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Firstly, I do not see any POV in the current title. Nobody argues with the fact of mass deaths from hunger. The word is relatively new in English but it is intensively used in diplomatic and scolareship communications. Secondly, Holodomor is shorter and more specific than Ukrainian famine that may stand e.g. for the 1921 famine or any other event. Thirdly, and most important the proposed move seems to upset many Ukrainian editors and we need them to develop the article Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Lvivske & Co. This is a rather silly request. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral prefer content migration of the famine to Soviet famine of 1932-1933 and producing this article as an article on the historiographical tradition using the Holodomor term here, pulling Holodomor genocide question back into this article on three grounds: 1) English. The term Holodomor originates in the late 1980s, and the vast bulk of scholarship in English preceeds this work. A further significant bulk of English language scholarship preceeds the limited adoption of Holodomor by English scholars. 2) Precision. Holodomor in English is implicitly tied up with a particularist post 1988 Ukrainian historiography, which through popular use has been tied up with stronger claims than the academic consensus. This introduces the problem of NPOV where scholarly works dismissive of the strong claims closely associated with the term Holodomor are used to support an article titled Holodomor which necessarily deals with stronger claims than the consensus. 3) Expansion of Soviet famine of 1932-1933 will draw out the historical difference in famine amelioration in the non-Ukrainian SSRs, and the absolute and deliberate failure in famine amelioration in the Ukrainian SSR. This will better contextualise the historical failure of the Soviet government to prevent famine in Ukraine SSR. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been following the discussion from the beginning and now I think what a wonderful suggestion Fifelfoo has made! It seems to summarize everything neutral and scholarly that has already been said. --Garik 11 (talk) 08:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Could not have said it better. This article needs to focus on the historiography. There is also the question, whether the "Ukrainian famine" realiy needs an article apart from the wider Soviet famine of 1932–1933. This is in fact similar to my comment here: User talk:The Four Deuces#How to get rid of POV crap?. This article however is not total crap and will not just melt away. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think there needs to be an article on the subject of the Holodomor. This is the name currently given for it. It is not helpful to have some watered-down article title such as Ukrainian famine. Clearly the name "Holodomor" was coined to echo the "Holocaust" name given for German-led genocide against the Jews. The Holodomor has many dimensions - one of which is the way that communist-sympathisers/infiltrators in the West either denied it or tried to make out that it was a natural event. Ultimately, Misplaced Pages is meant to be an encyclopaedia, that normal people use a reference work. It is useful and helpful for normal people to be able to find an article on the Holodomor, and calling it "Holodomor" makes it easier to figure out that they have reached the right article.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Use Caution

As an uninvolved administrator I would ask that you pay very careful attention to the WP:3RR and WP:EW pages. Some of you are in block territory. You may only revert plain obvious vandalism and not issues of editorial content. If you need outstide help please let me know. JodyB _talk 15:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Genocide

Burpelson AFB makes a sensible point . However the current heading is very pointy (worse that I changed it to) and an example of "begging the question". I suggest something like "As a genocide", "Classification as a genocide". The whole section is a little worrisome - it does deal with counterclaims but quite strongly dismisses them (my sourced reading says; the main body of scholarly work is fairly evenly divided over whether it can be defined as a genocide) --Errant 15:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

How about "Genocide question"? - Burpelson AFB ✈

Yep, seems reasonable. --Errant 15:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I would actually support reducing the size of that section since there's a whole separate sub-article about the genocide question If there's info here that is missing from the main article, it should be moved there, and only a 1 or 2 paragraph summary should be here. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that. Agree on the reduction of the section; it could be summarized into two paragraphs - the sub-article has a little more info on the countries positions (plus what we currently have here, in its entirety). --Errant 16:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

false edit summaries

To TFD:

Please do not call my edits "POV edits" without basis, as you did here . It's obvious to anyone who looks that the concept of Holodomar is not confined to just "Ukrainian historiography". This work is non-Ukrainian . This work is non Ukrainian . This work is non Ukrainian . This work is non Ukrainian . This work is non-Ukrainian . This work is non-Ukrainian . This work is non-Ukrainian ... shall I continue? Like I said, there's more than 3000 hits for the word, most of them by Western scholars. Hence, pushing such an assertion into the lede is completely unsupported by sources. I have not edited this article so far and I've only made this edit after a thorough look through the sources. On the other hand, this is your 3rd revert of November 2nd, which may lead someone to believe that you're "fence hugging" in terms of the 3RR restriction - in addition to using false edit summaries.radek (talk) 05:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Clearly James Macenko and Robert Conquestchuk are Ukrainian nationalists in disguise.--Львівське (talk) 05:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see discussion above - it is POV, it may of course be the correct POV but Misplaced Pages is not about truth, neutrality must be observed. TFD (talk) 06:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a vessel for your to exact "truth"--Львівське (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

radek, the terms used to describe WP articles are supposed to be neutral. The term "Holodomor" is only used in far right, extremist and fringe writing. We should use the terms used in neutral sources. I have read your links and here are my comments.

• Norman Naimark's book Stalin's Genocides defines the Ukrainian famine as genocide, which as explained is a fringe view.
• Ludwik Kowalski's book Hell on earth is self-published.
• Deathride is a popular book published outside the academic press.
• Lami in Religion and power in Europe refers to the "great artificial famine" and puts "Holodomor" in brackets.
• Averting crisis in Ukraine is published by the Council on foreign relations, not an academic source.
• Europe: I Struggle, I Overcome is the autobiography of a Belgian politician, Wilfried Martens.
• The Evolution of Strategy refers to the Ukrainian famine as a "genocide", which as explained is a fringe view.

TFD (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

"The term "Holodomor" is only used in far right, extremist and fringe writing." TFD, I think you just completely outed your bias and extremist take on this position. To say that the majority of scholarly work is "far right extremism" is just total nonsense. Also, taking reputable scholars and historians and using this blanket statement, "they say its genocide, therefore they are fringe writers and inadmissible" reeks of POV pushing on your behalf to limit sources only to those who fit your ridiculous worldview--Львівське (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

which as explained is a fringe view as perhaps "explained" (more like "asserted" without proof) but not shown. Where's your sources? And do you know what a circular argument is? You are saying that "The Holodomor is only used in far right extremist sources. Hence any source which uses the term is far right extremist. The fact that all these sources are far right extremist proves that it is only used in far right extremist sources" - which is logical nonsense. Apparently Princeton University press and the Council on Foreign Relations, among others are "far right, extremist, and fringe" (actually CFR has been accused by the John Birchers of being part of the liberal conspiracy but nm). Please stop making stuff up.radek (talk) 03:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

As you are well aware, mainstream writers do not use the term "holodomor" (except in brackets). They may be wrong, but please do not pretend they do anything else when the evidence clearly shows they do not. TFD (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No I am not aware, simply because it's not true. As shown above. If you're published by Princeton University Press, you're a mainstream writer more or less. You are continuing with simply making unfounded assertions of your POV without any backing what so ever.radek (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

And the edit under contention - you changed the subject again - was not about whether the Holodmor is genocide or not (on that sources DO differ), but whether the term is used "only in Ukrainian historiography" which it very obviously isn't.radek (talk) 03:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No the issue is the normal terminology used, which is not "holodomor". TFD (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The edit which you reverted was about "Ukrainian historiography". Don't try to change the subject.radek (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, it is in fringe historiography, which includes "Ukrainian historigraphy". We should not mislead readers however in believing that it is a mainstream view. TFD (talk) 03:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. No that's not my point at all.radek (talk) 03:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You have a point of view term you want for the article which is not what mainstream writers use. We are supposed to be neutral and not take sides on ethnic issues. You and I both know that. TFD (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Another completely unsupported assertion. The term is in fact used by mainstream writers, as shown by sources above. We are being neutral when we include it. We are being POV if we weasel it. And it's not an ethnic issue. That's what I know. I have no idea what you know.radek (talk) 03:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right about his circular logic. / Be neutral, use mainstream writers / These mainstream writers are right-wing frige writers, find neutral writers who support my POV/ He wont be happy unless the word "holodomor" is censored from the article on the holodomor--Львівське (talk) 04:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I cannot agree with the thesis that Holodomor is used by far right writers only (see, e.g. ). However, such notable scholars as Ellman, Davis, Tauger or Wheatcroft prefer to use the term "Soviet famine" (or "Great famine") instead. Since the latter words are too common in literature, I have been unable so far to make an adequate google scholar search to show which term is more common in English literature. However, it is more or less clear that "Holodomor" is gradually becoming popular.
However, the issue with the word "Holodomor" is different. Its usage generates a circular argument, which can be formulated as follows: "Since the word "Holodomor" is used to describe the famine in Ukraine only, then Holodomor was the event totally unrelated to the Soviet famine of 1932-33". Some proponents of this type arguments go even further claiming that Holodomor was the act of genocide (by contrast to other Soviet famines).
That is why we have to decide if we will be able to harness these ultra-nationalistic POVs in this article (which requires us to make Holodomor a daughter article of the Soviet Famine article), or, if we will see that that is impossible, the article should be moved. Since both names seem to be about equally abundant, both variants are formally acceptable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, I am not saying that only writers on the far right use the term Holodomor, just that it is not a neutral term. I have checked the first page of your link to Google scholar showing how the term is used and the results are below. It shows that the term is used in Ukrainian historiography and law, but is not used by mainstream scholars.

• "Making Sense of Suffering: Holocaust and Holodomor in Ukrainian Historical Culture": "Of the murder of Jews in Ukraine the books are silent, choosing to highlight the genocide directed against Ukrainians instead."
• Why Holodomor is a Genocide": Ukrainian non-academic source
• "Ghosts of the Holodomor": about prosecution under Ukrainiain Holodomor laws
• "THE PROBLEM OF DETERMINATION OF LEGAL LIABILITY FOR CONVICTING HOLODOMOR": Holodomor laws.
• "LEGAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE 1932–1933 HOLODOMOR": Holodomor laws.
• "Deleting the Holodomor" (no abstract)
• "The Holodomor": "subsequently termed the “Holodomor” by Ukrainian historians".

TFD (talk) 10:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

What counts is whether a person looking up the topic might logically use the term, or any term used in a redirect. The fact, moreover, is that the word "Holodomor" has made the NYT and other major RS newspapers, has made it into UN resolutions, into Congressional resolutions, into EU papers etc. Thus is it reasonable that users might use the term, and it is that which governs the simple fact that the word exists as a likely search term. Collect (talk) 10:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Certainly the term is used but it represents a particular view of the event. I suppose we could have too articles, one about the famine and one about the use of the term "holodomor". TFD (talk) 11:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

By ignoring the largest body of accepted scholarly work on a subject that is also pushing a POV--Львівське (talk) 13:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The largest body of scholarly work does not use the term "Holodomor" except to describe one interpretation of the events. If you want to persuade people that this is the correct interpretation, the best way is present the topic in a neutral way and allow readers to judge for themselves. Trust the reader to make reasonable conclusions. It is very off-putting to readers to be provided with one-sided articles and leaves them with a sense of mistrust. TFD (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Holodomor will lead to this article in any case. Unless you propose a deliberate POVfork? That is contrary to WP policy. Collect (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It would not be a POV fork because it would be about the Ukrainian famine while this article would be about a unique interpretation of it. We have for example articles about the murder of John Kennedy and about 9/11 and we also have separate articles about unique interpretations of those events. TFD (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Intro wording

I'm not going to propose a concrete edit for this one, given the ideological minefield evident above, but I must point out that the intro sentence as it currently stands "The Holodomor refers to..." is nonsensical: it mixes up use and mention. The Holodomor was an event. Events don't "refer to" things, and certainly not to themselves. Only expressions refer to things. This needs to be changed either to "The Holodomor was ...", or to "The term Holodomor refers to...", or yet something else.

Unfortunately a very common mistake. I know this happens in a lot of articles, but it's still wrong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You stepped on a mine. The majority of the debate above is whether the term "Holodomor" which exists within a particular historiography is adequately representative of the position of the general historiography for the term to represent the event, and, what the event is known as commonly to English language readers. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears that is definitely sufficiently used in English language RS sources. More than ten uses in NYT articles. PM of Canada went to the memorial, getting many mentions in the Canadian press. Though the Russians choose to emphasize the symbol of the Latvian Air Force during World War II was… a swastika and assert that this is all irresponsible and morally indefensible actions in countries which in 1941 to 1945 were allies of the Axis, and where subtle pro-Nazi sympathies still exist. Even The Times uses the term and "Visiting a monument to what Ukrainians call the Holodomor, the Russian President placed the candle at the foot of a statue of a young girl clutching a sheaf of wheat." Seems that is more than sufficient. Collect (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Please let's not repeat that debate here. I see this has been under discussion elsewhere, and I have no opinion on that. My point is a different one, it is purely about linguistic correctness. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

When we used politically charged terms, e.g., Reaganomics or The Gore Effect, it is normal to define them as terms and explain what the terms mean. In Collect's example above it says, "what Ukrainians call the Holodomor" and his first reference uses the term in scare quotes. When we use noncontroversial terms such as the Ukrainian Famine 1932-33, there is no need to do this. TFD (talk) 15:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Your inference that these are "scare quotes" is incorrect. This is dealing with a non-English word, something that hasn't entered the general English lexicon. --Львівське (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Even though I have an opinion; did everyone notice how—for the uninvolved editor—I characterised the debate without stating my opinion? This was to try to avoid duplicating the actual debate occurring in other sections here. It would benefit all editors to not duplicate the actual argument here. The very generous and kind uninvolved editor has been told politely by the editorial community, that their grammatical change depends upon the proper object of the article, an item under current debate above. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The correct term is "scare quotes". But as it is a "non-English word, something that hasn't entered the general English lexicon" then it should not be the title of an article. TFD (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

So now you want to ignore common use because it's non-English? Before you wanted to ignore it because it against your POV--Львівське (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well we use common English usage not foreign terminology. For example we write about "the United States", not "les etats unites", even though that is the term that is commonly used in France. This is an English, not Ukrainian, encyclopedia. TFD (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Invalid comparison. Holodomor is gradually entering the English lexicon, and I don't think that you can deny this. I originally learned of this famine under the Ukrainian name from non-Ukrainian sources, so to call it exclusively foreign is, in my opinion, risible. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

To quote Himka (2006) on this matter, " it first appeared in print in early 1988 in an article by another writer, Oleksa Musiienko (Kul´chyts´kyi, 142). The word soon passed into English, if not into dictionary English, then at least into the lexicon of the English-language publications of the Ukrainian diaspora."--Львівське (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly - a term used by the Ukrainian diaspora. TFD (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

<--1. The sentence has the words "at least" in it you know. 2. Initially it was just the English-language publications of the Ukrainian diaspora (soon after 1988), but then it was English-language publications in general (a bit after 1988, which is still 22 years ago). English-language publications are still English language publications. Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

...and now it's become the common term to use when speaking of this subject now. There are "Holodomor memorials", not "Ukrainian famine memorials", it is used in English speaking countries with regard to the event, ie. National Holodomor Remembrance Week (Canada), Ukrainian Holodomor Remembrance Day (USA).--Львівське (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No it is not, and you need sources anyway. That is like saying that kielbasa is now the English word for sausage. TFD (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't need sources, it's been hammered into your skull over and over again on this discussion page. If you don't think it's common use, or even usable in English, WP:PROVEIT.--Львівське (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Kielbasa is the English word for... kielbasa. Try again. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The Ukrainian word for sausage is kielbasa and we do not therefore change the name of the article sausage to kielbasa, just because that is what Ukrainians call them. TFD (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Dude, how do you counter "kielbasa is the english word for kielbasa" with "sausage is the english word for kielbasa". Your pseudo-argument doesn't fly.-Львівське (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't call me dude. I did not say, "sausage is the english word for kielbasa", I said "The Ukrainian word for sausage is kielbasa", i.e., "kielbasa is the Ukrainian word for sausage". If you step outside Roncesvalles and call a frankfurter a kielbasa people will not know what you are talking about. Just to be clear, English-speaking people outside the Ukraininian diaspora use the term sausage not kielbasa, except to refer to a specific type of Ukrainian sausage. TFD (talk) 01:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Dude, frankfurters and keilbasa are different things. Kielbasa, in english, is not a blanket term for all sausages - it's a specific term. If I walk into a portuese bakery that has a deli section and I ask for kielbasa, I will be given kielbasa. It has nothing to do with "Ukrainian", or regions. It's the english language.--Львівське (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Lvivske, dude, I hate to remind you your own (Judging from your name) language: Ukrainian sausage is kovbasa. Kielbasa is moc bardziej szlachetniejszy produkt. Smacznego :-). Staszek Lem (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I know, bro, but I didn't want to further confuse this discussion ;) Keilbasa, like pierogies, is said by Ukrainians when speaking English in Canada/USA despite them being Polska wordskas. This brings up another example though: Pierogi article shouldn't be renamed "Potato dumpling", the Polish word is by far common use and now an English word.--Львівське (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Aaand once again, we see exactly how poorly TFD chooses his analogies. His oh-so-clever "kielbasa" quip serves only to erode his own position. Just as kielbasa is used to refer to a specific sort of sausage, Holodomor is used to refer to a specific "sort" of Ukrainian famine. Moral of the story: if you are incapable of using witty retorts correctly, it is best not to even use them. Otherwise, you make yourself (and, by way of association, your position) look awfully silly... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Fut.Perf. – there is a linguistic problem. I have restored the original correct wording and tweaked it a bit. The sentence needs a context. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You didn't actually fix the problem I described. It's still saying "the Holodomor refers to". If you want to use "refer to", you need some device that marks "Holodomor" as a word being cited, not a thing. Italics, or quotation marks, and/or the explicit phrase "the term ...". Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

He sure didn't. He just used your statement as an excuse to reinsert his POV "in Ukrainian historiography" claim which is unsourced and in fact contradicted by the numerous Western English language sources provided above. Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedias, Misplaced Pages included regularly twist the structure if the first sentence in order to get the keyword or article name into the beginning. The normalized form for the sentence would be the following.

In modern Ukrainian historiography, the manifestations of the wider Soviet famine of 1932–1933 in the Ukrainian SSR are referred to as the Holodomor (Template:Lang-uk).

As you can see, the sentence makes perfect sense and there is no need for the "term" qualifier. The only change, besides the word order, is the change from refers to to → are referred to as – emphasized in italics. Can you or any one propose another way of modifying the word order without changing the meaning or too much of the vocabulary? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Between "is referred to as" and "refers to" is a world of a difference, syntactically and semantically. One is, indeed, correct. The other just isn't. That's not just a small "twisting of the structure". These two sentences syntactically just have nothing to do with each other. – I offered several relatively easy options that keep the term near the beginning:

• without "refer":
  • The Holodomor was ...
• with "refer to"
  • Holodomor refers to the famine...
  • "Holodomor" refers to the famine...
  • The term Holodomor refers to the famine...
• other options:
  • Holodomor is a term used to refer to the famine ...
  • The Ukrainian famine, also referred to as the Holodomor ...

I'll emphasize again that I am not taking any sides on whether the term ought to be used as our own primary handle for the historic event. For me this is still simply a matter of grammatical correctness over the use of the verb "refer". Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct, the sentence structure requires italics. I would not use quotation marks or the "term" qualifier, as they would undermine the Ukrainian point-of-view. In fact, the as loaded loan word without universal acceptance Holodomor should always be italicized when used on Misplaced Pages. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is with the "in Ukrainian historiography" which I'm pretty sure you know is the claim under contention. I'll reword it better. Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Claims made in the lede which are not made in the body require proper RS citations. Ledes are not the place to insert assertions which are not cited. Collect (talk) 10:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I would use the following sources:

• "The term used today in Ukraine to designate this famine, Holodomor, is explicit: it combines the words holod (hunger) and moryty (to kill by privations, to starve, to exhaust). Thus it clearly emphasizes the intentional aspect of the phenomenon. The description of the 1932-3 famine as a genocide is not, however, universally accepted among historicans who have studied the question, whether they be Russians, Ukrainians, or Westerners." (Werth)
• " it first appeared in print in early 1988 in an article by another writer, Oleksa Musiienko (Kul´chyts´kyi, 142). The word soon passed into English, if not into dictionary English, then at least into the lexicon of the English-language publications of the Ukrainian diaspora." (Himka)

TFD (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Leave your OR and WP:SYN out of this. Your understanding of the word is flawed. It was a man-made famine, that is an indisputable fact. It was forced hunger as part of collectivization. That is also a fact. The word does not mean anything outside of those 2 previous statements: death by hunger. You are inferring that since starvation was forced on the population that that equals a genocide narrative, and that is incorrect. The Holodmor as an event and the arguments that it is genocide are two separate things. I see what you're trying to do here, discredit the word as "fringe" so that you can push your POV, but I'd say 9/10 editors are smart enough to read between the lines of what you're trying to pull here. "Holodomor" is the local, and now widely accepted title of the 1932 famine in Ukraine, get over it.--Львівське (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

And for what it's worth: ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Presenting reliable sources with no interpretation qualifies for neither Or nor SYN. In fact one of those quotes was provided by yourself. LvR, that you for pointing out the example from the White House. This has become a political issue, which should be mentioned in the article. TFD (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Holodomor is shorthand for "The Ukrainian Holocaust". The "death by hunger" etymology is a backronym. It was created and popularized in deliberate effort to capitalize on the Holocaust narrative, to further a nationalistic, ethnocentric, and anticommunist agenda. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break (Man made famine – again)

I agree that the contention that this was a "man made famine" is pretty indisputable and this is found in the sources (there's actually a theory in economics which posits that virtually all famines of the modern world have been man made - so this kind of claim is not particularly controversial). But beyond that there's different levels. It could be "man-made" through sheer incompetence. It could be "man-made" deliberately but directed at "class enemies" rather than along ethnic lines. Or it could be directed at a particular ethnic population (here, Ukrainians). Pretty much all sources discuss all three and where they differ is in which aspect they emphasize. "Soviet apologist" sources tend to stress the incompetence part and usually construct some kind of a "it was man made but just a accident" kind of narrative. "Holodomor was a genocide" sources tend to stress the last one - that it was directed at a particular ethnic group. They got more sound evidence than the Soviet apologist sources but since this kind of thing is hard to prove this interpretation is not universally accepted. A lot of sources deal with the conundrum by ... discussing other sources. At any rate, trying to introduce the article with some kind of "Holodomor is just a Ukrainian word for death by hunger" narrative is pretty silly in light of what the sources actually do. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree.--Львівське (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

See what Werth says in the The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies (2010): We can distinguish two main interpretative trends. In one camp are historians who see the famine as having been artificially organized by Stalin's regime in 1930 to break the back of the Ukrainian peasants' resistence... to destroy the Ukrainian nation in its 'peasant-national' specificity.... These historians adhere to the genocide thesis. In the other camp are historians who, shile recognizing the criminal nature of Stalin's policies, consider it necessary to study all the famines of the years 1930-3... as a complex phenomenon in which several factors, ranging from the geopolitical situation to the imperatives of industrialization, played an important role alongside Stalin's "imperial intentions". For these historians, the term 'genocide' is not appropriate.... A third position is emerging... appear to be direct but unforeseen, unprogrammed, unintentional consequences of policies inspired by ideology...."

None of the mainstream positions that do not accept the term "genocide" are Stalinist and in any case we are supposed to report all mainstream views not just one single narrative.

TFD (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Um..the quote you cite in the end actually uses those words "A third position is emerging... appear to be direct but unforeseen, unprogrammed, unintentional consequences of policies inspired by ideology.." towards all the Soviet famines (such as the Kazakh one) but if you read the book a it more the authors state that later, the Ukrainian famine was unique in taking a turn from being an unintentional one as the Kazakh famine towards becoming an intentional famine (unlike the other Soviet famines). Stalin came to believe that Ukriane was becoming a center of resistence and so he decided to intentianlly amplify the effects of the famine, sending activists and armed detachments from Russia to grab every bit of grain, etc. Basically that source states that the Ukrainian famine became unique within the Soviet Union.Faustian (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Ugh. Ok. At this point I am finding it very difficult to have a meaningful conversation with you (that'd be TFD). What Werth is saying is essentially the same thing as what I said and in fact that was one of the sources I had in mind (the differences between what I said and what Werth said to the extent they're there are due to the fact that I was also considering other sources). Yet, somehow you try to present Werth as disagreeing with my statement, which is not true. So here's what Werth says:

• There are historians who see the famine deliberately organized by Stalin with the intention of more or less killing Ukrainians. They are in the "Holodomor was genocide" camp
• There are historians who see the famine as a result of Stalin's criminal policies but they don't see it as necessarily directed at the Ukrainians, although they admit the role of Stalin's "imperial intentions" in the famine. I.e. the ethnic aspect was a factor but not the only one.
• There are some other historians who are "emerging" who think that the famine was a consequence of "ideology" (i.e. what I called "directed at class enemies" above) and that lots of the specific policies which caused it where made as events unfolded (i.e. the "natural" causes of the famine occurred. Stalin saw them and decided that this was a good way to get rid of potential political problems as well as to quiet down Ukrainian nationalism. He, obviously, didn't cause bad harvests. But when they happened he took advantage of them - in other areas of the Soviet Union affected there actually WERE relief efforts aimed at preventing people from starving. In the Ukraine on the other hand, grain in the whole state was confiscated and the whole state cordoned off so that no outside food could get in to relieve the hunger.)

Under any of these lines of thought it was a man made famine and that's what Werth says - and which is what I said.

I never said that only non-Stalinists call this "genocide". Stalinists obviously don't. Even among mainstream authors there's disagreement whether or not this was a genocide (which has a pretty high bar for inclusion in the definition). And this is what the article as she is currently written rightly reflects.

But this has nothing to do with the lede and the first sentence, specifically, with whether "Holodomor" is specific to Ukrainian historiography or not, or whether this was a man made famine or not. Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I see your confusion. The term "holodomor" is associated with the "Holodomor is genocide camp", therefore not neutral and the usage of the term must be explained. TFD (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) – In fact, Holodomor is the "Holodomor is Holocaust camp". -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's right. I think you're confusing your universals and particulars. Everyone who's in the "Holodomor was a genocide" camp uses the term "Holodomor". But not everyone who uses the term "Holodomor" is in the "Holodomor was a genocide camp". P->Q does not imply (not P)->(not Q). Those who are of the opinion that "Holodomor was a genocide" are a proper subset of those who use the term "Holodomor" to describe the events that this article covers. You've been contending that the description of the Holodomor as a genocide is non-mainstream. This is not true in itself - more accurately, those who describe the Holodomor as a genocide are PART OF the mainstream but do not compromise all of it. But even if that premise was granted, it does not follow from that premise that the term "Holodomor" itself is non-mainstream.

I think you need to work your own confusion about this topic out first and get a little bit more precise, before we can actually discuss the sources here. Otherwise it just seems like you're responding to things that nobody ever said and it's hard to respond to that. Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The "Holodomor is genocide" view is not mainstream and mainstream writers refer to the events as the Ukrainian famine. If I am wrong, then I invite editors to find sources that contradict this. TFD (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not true as evidenced by sources provided above. It is also irrelevant to what this talk section is about - the lede. Please start a new section if you want to discuss this. Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

...and the reason they avoid the word Holodomor is that they understand that it is a propaganda term aimed at undermining, Russia, Russians, Russophones, and the Russian language (or dialect). One must be extremely naïve not to understand this. Any historian not pushing a political POV will avoid it. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, not true, per sources. Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Re:Any historian not pushing a political POV will avoid it.. That is No true Scotsman fallacy. (Igny (talk) 23:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC))

Yes :-) Per WP:RS, any source that does not agree with you is unreliable. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope that is meant for TFD who's been using precisely that kind of logic throughout this discussion. Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You should not make personal attacks. I do not recall any reliable source I have rejected at all. Could you please provide an example. TFD (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Back to the Holo-this, Holo-that issue. A relevant policy is Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (words to watch)#Contentious labels, also known as WP:LABEL. To quote: "The prefix pseudo- indicates that something is false or spurious, which may be debatable. The suffix -gate suggests the existence of a scandal." Likewise, the prefix Holo- indicates or suggests genocide comparable to the Holocaust. Definitely a word to avoid. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this is a very silly comment. "Holo" is not a prefix, it is part of the word Holod the Ukrainian word for hunger. This seems to be straw-grasping.Faustian (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, that doesn't necessarily say to not use such labels at all, it says don't use them if they aren't "widely used by reliable sources". Holodomor is becoming more and more widely used, and I don't think that this can be rightfully denied... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Is there an academic consensus to call the Ukrainian Famine 1932-3 "Holodomor"

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: History and geography Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Is there an academic consensus to call the Ukrainian Famine 1932-3 "Holodomor", or is it a term that implies a unique interpretation of the events? TFD (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"The term used today in Ukraine to designate this famine, Holodomor, is explicit: it combines the words holod (hunger) and moryty (to kill by privations, to starve, to exhaust). Thus it clearly emphasizes the intentional aspect of the phenomenon. The description of the 1932-3 famine as a genocide is not, however, universally accepted among historicans who have studied the question, whether they be Russians, Ukrainians, or Westerners." (Oxford handbook of gencide studies, 2010)

" first appeared in print in early 1988 in an article by another writer, Oleksa Musiienko (Kul´chyts´kyi, 142). The word soon passed into English, if not into dictionary English, then at least into the lexicon of the English-language publications of the Ukrainian diaspora." (Himka, John-Paul, "A central European diaspora under the shadow of World War II", 2006)

• Not consensus since sources do not say it is. TFD (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
• Consensus The word is a well known and widely used term for the famine as a whole. Though the motives, events, narratives, and politicization of the Holocaust is a subject of scholarly debate, the name of the event and the broadness of the topic are two separate matters. In the case of the Holodomor, though the arguments towards genocide, intent, scale, politicization, etc. are subject to debate, there is no need to ignore the widely accepted name of the event regardless of your POV on the history the article discusses. The Ukrainian famine of 1932, the Ukrainian Holocaust, the Great Famine, the Terror Famine...these are all names for the same event, but Holodomor is the most widely in contemporary use and should remain the title of this article.--Львівське (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
• Found in current reliable sources Including Washington Post, New York Times, The Times etc. There is no need to assert any "academic consensus" where a word is in sufficiently common usage in RS publications. Collect (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
• RfC is flawed to begin with. First, instructions for filing a RfC specifically state the the statement requesting the comment needs to be brief and neutral . We have neither here as TFD plucked two quotes supposedly favorable to his POV to start the RfC off with, therefore possibly prejudicing any outside comments. Second, and more importantly, an "academic consensus" is not what is required for this article to be under its present title. What is required is that English language sources use the term extensively to describe the subject of this article. Which they do. Some, particularly older sources use "Ukrainian famine" - in a google books search "Holodomor" beats out "Ukrainian famine" (any famine, not just this one) three-to-one if we're looking at post 1992 sources. This appears to be intentionally moving the goal post for article title. Of course all of this has been covered in the discussions above. Fourth, we've already had a requested move above which failed to get any traction and had strong consensus against it - hence this appears to be a form of forum shopping (first an rm, and when that doesn't get you your way, an rfc). Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
• Consensus, for all intents and purposes. Upon having a move request soundly defeated, adding a RfC in an attempt to overturn it immediately afterwards looks awfully desperate. I'd call into question your own POV. At any rate, Marek's point about "Holodomor" outnumbering the generic "Ukrainian famine" in post-1992 sources counts for more, I think, than anything else. This term is clearly here to stay; any attempts on your part to fight against this are fated to be rearguard actions with little hope of long-term success. Elmondatott minden, ami elmondható - all has been said that can be said. Drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• Not consensus – Propaganda term used for nationalistic goals. The causal appearance of the neologism in Western "reliable sources" like the Washington Post, New York Times, or The Times do not establish or reflect academic consensus. –– Petri Krohn (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

1. ^ Michael Ellman, Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932-33 Revisited Europe-Asia Studies, Routledge. Vol. 59, No. 4, June 2007, 663-693. PDF file

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Ukraine articles
• Top-importance Ukraine articles
• WikiProject Ukraine articles
• B-Class Soviet Union articles
• High-importance Soviet Union articles
• WikiProject Soviet Union articles
• Unassessed Death articles
• Unknown-importance Death articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Selected anniversaries (November 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (November 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (November 2009)
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment