Talk:Holodomor/Archive 3

message: I see you're restoring the "military needs" in the lead. What were the military needs of USSR in 1932 then~, that made several million of Ukrainians starve to death ? --Lysytalk 22:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we have no references to more than one author attributing the famine to the "military needs", I would suggest removing this term from the article. --Lysytalk 14:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest reading the article instead. The reference should be easily understandable to readers broadly familiar with Soviet history. It is well known that the Soviet Union was a paranoid regime in an almost-constant wartime crisis atmosphere since the great war scare of 1927, when many in the party and the country believed that renewed military intervention by 'capitalist powers' was imminent. Setbacks included the diplomatic crisis with Britain with the Zinoviev letter, the Kuomintang's attack on its Communist allies in China, and the strain placed on Moscow's Repallo relationship with Germany by Germany's rapprochement in the mid-1920s with the Western powers. For brief surveys in monographs on the subject of the restoration of wartime conditions in the late 1920s, I recommend Kennan's Russia and the West under Lenin and Stalin and Soviet Foreign Policy, and for something more recent, Sheila Fitzpatrick's Russian Revolution. 172 14:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your patronising tone, it really helps the discussion. According to your explanations the correct term would be "Soviet regime's paranoia" and not "military needs". --Lysytalk 18:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Readers are not stupid. We do not need to load the text with bad-sounding adjectives every time Stalin and the Soviet Union come up. When I see summaries of Tauger's article in scholarly sources, "military needs" are mentioned. If you are interested in a more specific summary, I suggest reading the atricle, rather than making emotional off-the-cuff descriptions. 172 21:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As to myself being emotional on the topic, believe me, I'm trying to stay calm but it's hard knowing what was done to these people and seeing that it been made the subject of the pseudo-scientific dispute of the likes of Tauber no later than 15 years ago. It's so disgraceful... --Lysytalk 22:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I'm interested in trimming down the summary and removing borderline speculations to their appropriate sections. If, for whatever reason, you insist on keeping such information in the lead, I will insist it is precise and not misleading. Either do move it where it belongs or phrase it so that it's clear there were no objective military needs that would justify starving Ukrainian population to death in 1932/33. --Lysytalk 21:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The intro cannot make assertions that disregard certain points of view in the Western academic literature that do not align with the POVs of certain Wikipedia editors. The view that the "holodomor" was an intentional campaign of genocide against the Ukrainian population is disputed by Western scholars. Wikipedia articles can summarize arguments stating that the "holomodor" was genodice and evidence supporting that view; but they cannot make the assertion themselves. 172 21:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, are you able to show that Tauber's theory is seriously supported by any modern (e.g. published in the last 3 years) scholarly source ? how about these "military needs" ? You have still not explained it otherwise than Soviet paranoia, which can hardly be considered a "military need". I agree that this can be discussed and explained in detail further in the article, but leaving it in the lead section of the article like this is simply misleading. This is not an abstract of an academic paper, but a summary of an encyclopedic article and has to be phrased clearly and straightforwardly.  I'm assuming your good faith of course, but please explain your rationale in all this pushing. --Lysytalk 22:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your request that I show you that Tauger's research is supported by a work published in the last three years suggests to me that you do not know academic publications work. The process of submitting an article for peer review and publication is a long one that can take at times a couple of years. Go to Jstor and do searches on key words dealing with the famine. The view that poor weather had something to do with the famine has always been an assumption held by some Western academics. That's why Mikka, who is as well-read as any Wikipedia editor, inserted a note on the possibility of a draught earlier. A reference to that view, without an assertion of its validity, is appropriate. 172 17:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I do not appreciate your patronising attitude in this dispute which only shows how mature you are. Rest assured that having published myself, I am aware of the process of academic publication and of how the value of academic research is evaluated. Are you trying to suggest that nothing has been published in the recent years as nobody has submitted anything before ? Or what point are you trying to make with this ? As to Mikka, I believe that he is better-read than "any" Wikipedia editor and I value his contributions a lot, but I don't think this is an issue we are discussing here. As to the draught itself, are you aware of why had it not created famine in Western Ukraine, what was not under Soviet administration at that time ? --Lysytalk 17:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry if you took offense to my tone. Since you have published yourself, you should have been aware that the request that you made earlier was somewhat unreasonable. As to the draught itself, yes, I am aware of the point and other arguments against the notion of a draught. I am not qualified to state support for either your POV or Tauger's. Nor do I need to be qualified to edit this article. Wikipedia:No original research requires that editors refrain from inserting their own jugments about the historiography in articles and instead summarize the views of all sides in a debate, even ones with which they are not inclined to agree. 172 18:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I will not reply to the red herring above. This is a moral and normative question because you are asking if something justifies something else. It is utterly inappropriate because no scholar I'm citing defends Soviet policy. 172 16:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to phrase it your way, of course. All I'm asking is your confirmation that the "military needs" can go. I'm not insisting on replacing it with "Soviet paranoia" since you seem to care about political correctness. I'm asking you to confirm this as a courtesy, as I don't want to respond by reverting to your reverts. I do respect you but would like to ask you for the same. --Lysytalk 17:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen references to "military needs" regarding Tauger's work in academic literature reviews that I have read. I am having server problems and do not remember the exact journal volumes and numbers at the moment. I will get back to you shortly with the reference. 172 17:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the "military needs" term was used in academic reference, as an abreviated phrase intended for initiated reader of the scholarly publication. Our context however is the intro of an encyclopedic article and has to be understandable also to people searching for basic information regarding the Holodomor. Therefore using such ambiguous wording, assuming some wider previous knowledge of the subject is not appropriate in the intro. Is this something you could possibly agree with or not ? I do not doubt you can find a reference for someone using this term, but that is not the point. --Lysytalk 18:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not want you to consider it ambiguous. I think that the following is a more clear summary for the purpose of the intro: Some scholars have also attributed poor weather and Stalin's military and economic goals as additional factors in explaining the famine. 172 21:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that would be addressing my concerns. Thanks. --Lysytalk 21:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Military needs

message: Alexander, could you please stop modifying the intro as per your own discussion? You opposed my suggestions to the intro because the article needs to be worked through first. I agreed to that. The fact that you continue to edit the intro is quite uncalled for. Could you please stop modifying the intro? Because if you continue to modify the intro, I will do the same, because your are pushing your POV.Dietwald 13:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But I don't "continuously edit" anything. Simply restoring facts and references deleted by other users. If you have more facts and references to add to this article, please do so. I will never erase them.--Andrew Alexander 18:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And you, of course, will be the arbiter of those. How about a time-out on the intro?????? I have not touched it since, even though I hate it. I would appreciate it if you would reciprocate, and the same goes for the others. Let's deal with the article first, and then the intro. The intro sucks. There should be a banner for that... Sucky Intro alert, or something like that. Dietwald 19:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arbiter of what? Please read the previous response. Cutting facts and references is easy. Finding them is hard.--Andrew Alexander 19:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: POV pushing is what you would do by ignoring a more commonly used name for the Holodomor. Please read the arguments in the archived discussion. "Genocide" is mentioned MORE OFTEN in relation to the Holodomor than the Holodomor itself. Following the Wikipedia guidelines the article has to actually move to "Ukrainian Genocide". The only reason it's not moved there is to accomodate "diverse points of view" of the people who deny the genocide. And this is fine.--Andrew Alexander 19:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In just about all scholarly accounts I can think of at the moment, the topic is found under "famine" in the indexes. Making references to "people who deny the genocide" is not in good faith. No serious scholar does not consider the famine any less of an atrocity than authors like Conquest make it out to be. And, yes, we do have to accomodate diverse scholarly points of view on the subject per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. 172 21:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm happy to focus on the article, as well as "freezing" the intro summary, but would like it to be respected by everyone, including 172. That is: trim the lead down and rewrite it based on the article's contents only when we are more or less happy with it. This would involve 172 not pushing the POV of Holodomor denial into the lead, of course. --Lysytalk 21:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am glad to see that you are stating that you intend to be compromising here. However, I will only be fully convinced that you are working in good faith if you refrain from using emotive and grossly unfair allegations of "holodomor denial" against academics whose work does not align with your POV. No serious scholar denies the scale of the atrocities in Ukraine in 1932-34. The issue is their argument that they are bring to bear evidence suggesting that rapid industrialization without reference to the humanitarian consequences was the regime's main objective during the 1930s, not genocide against Ukrainians. 172 21:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. That's what I meant when I wrote that the major divide is whether the peasants died because they were "kulaks" or because they were Ukrainians. OTOH it would be nicer if you assumed my good faith and not required me to convince you of it. As to my will to compromise, I'm surprised that you had not noticed yet that, unlike you, I've not reverted your edits that I don't find appropriate, and I'm trying to persuade you in the talk instead. --Lysytalk 22:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You're over-simplifying the scholarly debate. The view that the famine was a result of state policy but not a deliberate genocide against either Ukrainians or kulaks is still held by historians. I will try to assume good faith on your part. You will be able to help me do that by refraining from the usage of politically and emotionally charges of "holodomor denial" to scholars and others who cannot be fairly described as such. 172 16:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me quote Lemkin on Genocide, then: [Genocide] is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group. Are you saying that Stalin was so naive or ignorant as not to be aware that millions of people are dying while he exported the grain to the West ? At to my usage of "holodmor denial" I obviously used the term for simplicity and I do not understand why does it irritate you ? --Lysytalk 17:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No, the intro will have to take into account with attribution all the academic accounts on the famine, even those with which individual Wikipedia editors disagree. If you want to exercise greater editorial discretion over the point of view of articles, I recommend joining a project that does not put a constrain such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view on its participants. 172 16:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but Tauger's POV is far from anything being Neutral. I hoped it would be possible to reach some compromise with you but you seem to be pushing his POV above the limits. I understand that members of your family perished in the Holocaust and that you do not appreciate its usage as an object of political rhetoric. I'm going to respect it and apologise if I've written anything that would hurt your feelings. Now, what do you think about respecting the memory of millions of the Holodomor victims ? --Lysytalk 17:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The fact that Tauger's POV is not neutral is neither here nor there. The POV of no scholar is neutral. Following NPOV, we summarize and attribute his views and those of other scholars without making our own assertions about whether they are right or wrong in the article. 172 17:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know I'm repeating myself here, but somehowe you're missing the point. The idea of NPOV is not that we need to mention every borderline view there ever existed. There were scientists (in fact all did) that believed that the Earth is flat. Would you be mentioning this as an alternative POV in the lead of Earth article ? Similarly the fact that Tauber published something in the early 1990s is not so notable today, after the collapse of Soviet Union, after Ukraine got independent and after the academic research in this particular subject moved lightyears ahead compared to where it's been for the previous 50 years. I have nothing against discussing different strange ideas in the article, but the leading intro is for the summary of the facts and not a place for a wider discussion of Tauber's peculiar views. --Lysytalk 18:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem is that if Tauger himself started edting Wikipedia he might start comparing the people who disagree with him to flat-earth theorists. No matter how passionately you feel about a subject, there is no license for any editor to disregard the NPOV policy. 172 18:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. We both understand well the reasons to respect the memory of the Holocaust victims. Why would you deny the same right of respect to the victims of Holodomor ? I'll spare you the graphic descriptions of how long and how terribly these people suffered. All these apologetic attempts, attributing their tragedy to bad weather, bad position of the moon and what else are just so obviously disgraceful that I cannot imagine you don't realise this, especially given your family story. I'm sorry for this personal appeal, but these double standards astonish me. --Lysytalk 19:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not interested in editing this article or the Holocaust article from an emotional perspective. I already explained to you why the two subjects are different ball games. It is regrettable that the subject of the famine in Ukraine is still more debatable precisely because the Soviets managed to conceal evidence so long. But Wikipedia editors have no business changing the world. Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy or original research. 172 03:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the western sources on the subject today are sparse or, as you claim, dominated by the likes of Tauber, the more we should reach for Ukrainian sources. This is not original research. --Lysytalk 08:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly enough, David Duke had to go to Ukraine to get his disgraceful PhD. He would not have been able to get it in the United States. I stand by my support of the usage of Western scholarship on the subject. 172 16:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, so now you see what a POV is. Your POV is that all Ukrainian research is not worthy because of MAUP. Is this POV of yours enough to exclude Ukrainian results from the Holodomor article ? --Lysytalk 20:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that Ukrainian research is not worthy because of MAUP. Ukrainian research can be cited; but like Western research, it cannot be considered the final word on the subject. As an aside unrelated to this article, I am glad to hear news that Yushchenko has condemned MAUP. Still, Western scholars are concerned that MAUP remains accredited by the Ministry of Education. I get the impression that you are a leading scholar in your own country. I regret any way in which MAUP tarnishes the reputation of Ukraine's community of historians, as I know the vast majority of historians there are competent, striving to hold themselves to the highest standards of historical research possible. 172 21:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: :As far as I am concerned, we can remove the weather for now, and I think, forever too. The contentious point, as I see it, is the following. No one denies that the Famine was caused by the action of the Soviet government. But this, by itself, does not automatically implies that the term Genocide is appropriate. Genocide includes not just Genocideal consequences but genocide anti-Ukrainian intent. The intent of the confiscation of crop is what matters. Was it to support industrialization AND suppress an unreliable for Bolsheviks peasantry? In the latter case, the consequences for the Ukrainians, as the most agricultural nation of the USSR, would be the most devastating. OTOH, if the goal set by Moscow rulers was to exterminate Ukrainians as an ethnic group, the term Genocide is applicable. This is the matter of debate in this article and we cannot present both sides in the text but pre-conclude the outcome in the intro by using the POV term. This debate neither denies the national catastrophe that the famine was for the Ukrainians nor it is apologetic for the Stalin regime. --Irpen 22:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the real intentions we will not know, probably at least as long as the Soviet archives remain closed. And while they are sealed, we can only wonder what's so secret there that cannot see the daylight. If there are proofs of Soviet's god intentions then why would not they announce it ? Anyway, the term "genocide" itself belongs to the realm of international politics rather than scholarly research. It is there for the simple reason that many countries had officialy recognised Holodomor as an act of genocide, nothing more, nothing less. These are just facts. And what is the problem with it ? --Lysytalk 22:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's read again, "Art. 2. In the present convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such." Now, why again "the term Genocide belongs to politics among the politicans only"? I am missing your argument here. No, not "only". It can be mentioned and is mentioned in many other places. This is why it is mentioned here. To reflect the reality.--Andrew Alexander 00:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks! I now see why you wanted to delete the "Elimination of Ukrainian Cultural Elite". Because it shows the anti-Ukrainian intent. It's hard to deny the obvious. So delete it! This genocide never ended since the "genocide denial" stage is still on.--Andrew Alexander 00:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Should I bring links with deletions? It's not hard, tell me when you want to see it, OK?--Andrew Alexander 08:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You pointed nothing of the sort. I am still waiting on the citations that support your assertions. Writing "Subtelny and Wilson" is not enough. Sorry, but your own thoughts on that subject are known, no reason to repeat.--Andrew Alexander 08:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Was most of Russia or Belarus not as "agricultural" as Ukraine was? Do you even believe what you write here?--Andrew Alexander 08:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: User 172 already deleted the chapters on the mass killings by Stalin in the Stalin article. To me he seems like a not very "mainstream" thinker.--Andrew Alexander 08:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did no such thing. I deleted your text dump which was redundant and did not fit into the three-year old organization of the aritcle. By the way, I have a low tolerence for ad hominem fights on talk pages. I have and will again request arbitration against users who make such politically and emotionally loaded insinuations against other Wikipedia editors. 172 16:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 172, you deleted the chapters describing the mass killings of Kalmyks, Chechens, Crimean Tatars, Kazakhs, and Ukrainians from that article. In the case you need a link to that deletion, just let me know.--Andrew Alexander 17:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As Irpen already asked you, please stop smearing your opponents. I did not delete established "chaperts" on the subjects but a text dump that you inserted with a bunching of headings dealing with topics already covered in the article. At any rate, we should agree to disagree on the merits or your edits earlier on another article so that we are can focus on the subject at hand we are supposed to be discussing on this talk page. 172 17:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reminding you and Irpen your editing history is not "smearing". You deleted several chapters dealing with several Stalin-ordered mass murders not covered in the rest of the article. You can see this deletion here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Stalin&diff=33355632&oldid=33354707. You chose to delete relevant and new information for that article showing the numbers and circumstances of the killings. We can go sentence by sentence and compare it with what already was in the article. So please stop your "smearing" rhetoric and aknowledge what you did.--Andrew Alexander 05:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Give us the facts and references, would you please? I don't even know what you mean by "social" policies. Were armed brigades of NKVD on the border between Russia and Ukraine a "social" policy?--Andrew Alexander 08:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Andrew Alexander, I expected you to be more familiar with the Western academic literature that your dialogue with Irpen above suggests. The view that famine was the result of economic and social policies, rather than genocidal ethnic policies, is widely accepted. As I stated earlier, see authors such as Lewin, Viola, Manning, and Fitzpatrick. In the coming days, I will be summarizing their intepretations on the famine with attributions in relevant portions of this article and perhaps other articles. 172 16:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Show me where and I will stop it. Until then, discuss the article please.--Andrew Alexander 08:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User 172 already deleted the chapters on the mass killings by Stalin in the Stalin article. To me he seems like a not very "mainstream" thinker. That smear was as extreme as any smear a Wikipedia editor can make against another Wikipedia editor. An apology on your part would be encouraging. 172 16:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The statement that the subject of genocide is not a matter of genocide is not a matter of academic debate is one of the most absurd statements I have read on this talk page. It is wrong on a clear factual level because historians and social scientists have been studying the subject for years. Frankly, it gives me the creeps. The idea that politicians should take over the tasks of historians and social scientists and are higher authorities on the pursuit about the historical past reminds me more of Soviet totalitarianism than any model of a free society.  172 16:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wake up, then. How do you explain that the U.S. recognised Holodomor as a genocide while Russia had not ? Do you think they don't read each other's historic research works ? --Lysytalk 17:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not saying that the U.S. commission findings are wrong. I am just saying that it is not our business as Wikipedia editors to declare them correct, which is simply a cut-and-dry matter of the policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. 172 17:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and what I'm trying to explain, that whether a crime is a genocide or not is not a matter of POV of one or the other historian. By definition, it is only whether intarnational community declares it a genocide or not. Only then it has any legal importance. You may go on denying that it was a genocide, but if a government recognised it as a genocide it will be prosecuted, regardless of your personal opinion. That's why it is to be seen as belonging to the realm of international politics and not scientific dispute. Of course scientific research is (or should be) the basis of such political declarations. But obviously it is not since Russia does not call it a genocide, while having access to the same academic research that Ukraine or USA. I apologize if I'm sounding desperate here, but somehow you're not understanding what I am trying to explain~, while it seems so obvious to me. I'm probably using wrong words, or you're not willing to give me some credit and try to understand it ? --Lysytalk 17:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. However it should be (and it is) clearly mentioned that much of the international community already recognised it as a genocide in the formal sense. BTW, does anyone have the complete list of the countries and the dates when they declared Holodomor to be a genocide ? --Lysytalk 18:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's very reasonable to me. By the way, Lysy, thanks for your reference to the letters between Conquest and Tauger. Interesting read. Dietwald 19:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Lysy, to specify, the way that it should be made clear is a note in the intro listing the major countries that have made such a declaration. To introduce the "holodomor" as a genocide at the very beginning of the article is inappropriate because calling the terror-famine a genocide ourselves signifies that we are openly picking sides in a debate on which historians disagree. 172 16:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but I believe we have it already in the intro, so it seems we all agree on that one ? I've asked about a more complete list of the countries and dates out of the curiosity rather than any intent to cram it into the intro. --Lysytalk 19:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Andrew Alexander keeps reverting back to a version of the intro that introduces the terror-famine as a genocide at the very beginning. Earlier I was wondering if you'd been supporting Andrew's reverts. 172 20:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 172, I simply edit the article the way the topic is already represented in the mainstream media, Internet, historical forums. If the word "genocide" was rarely applied to the Holodomor, it would make sense to make an argument against introducing it into the article. But the word is applied almost universally, "genocide" is used more often than "Holodomor". It is impossible to ignore the reality and say, "we don't care what the world thinks, we would like to follow a few people instead."--Andrew Alexander 02:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that the term "genocide" generates more Google hits than "holomodor" is neither here nor there. The former is an English term and the latter is not. English terms are almost always likely to generate more results on internet searches because the intenet is still mostly an English-speaking world.  Of course the point of view that the famine was an intentional policy of genocide against the nation of Ukraine is has been advanced in mainstream media, internet, and historical forums. There are also the Western scholars I keep citing who view the famine as an outcome of collectivization rather than an intentional policy of genocide. We cannot pick sides in a debate between historians that is still raging because of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. 172 23:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not just the term "genocide", but the term "genocide" related to the Holodomor. And also, there is more than enough space in this article given to any possible revisionist version of the Holodomor. More than necessary in my opinion. You, however, would like to advance your view even further and strike out the mainstream name "genocide" used all over the mainstream accounts as another name the Holodomor. This is not acceptable since now you are censoring what is widely accepted.--Andrew Alexander 15:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are using the term "mainstream" in a biased and loaded way. Western historians still debate whether or not the famine was an intentional policy of genocide against the nation of Ukraine. An interpretation defended in respected peer reviewed academic journals is going to be within the "mainstream" academic discourse on the subject. 172 22:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But this is irrelevant to this discussion because the notion of the Holodomor, or Ukrainian Genocide, has long left the exclusive domain of historical journals and moved long time ago into the "mainstream" public domain, i.e. politics, media, history textbooks, Internet. A few revisionist articles do not even closely compare in numbers with the amount of witness data, media articles, books, films. Yet you wish to undo the public awareness of the Holodomor through Wikipedia and remove "Ukrainian Genocide" words from this article? This is not what Wikipedia is about!--Andrew Alexander 01:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Genocide

message: Today, the governments or parliaments of 26 countries including Ukraine, Argentina, Australia, Canada, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, United States, and Vatican City recognized the 1932-1933 famine as an act of genocide.
source? see discussion on russian wiki Ilya K 14:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What discussion ? I'm sure there are many. --Lysytalk 17:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Ilya, as each country was added to that list, there was a reference provided in the edit history. It should still be available.--Andrew Alexander 22:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: the title of discussion is "29  countries that  recognized the 1932-1933 famine as an act of genocide is DIRECT and OBVIOUS LIE!" Ilya K 10:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  26 countries 

message: I don't consider listing a common name for the Holodomor as "blatant POV pushing". The current Google results are:
Holodomor - 47,100 
Ukrainian Genocide - 384,000 
Genocide Ukraine OR Ukrainian - 1,030,000 
Famine-Genocide - 31,700 
Based on the above results it's quite safe to say that Ukrainian Genocide is a common name for the Holodomor.--Andrew Alexander 04:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Google results should be used in some circumstances in WP but not to substitute the scholarly data. It was demonstrated to you above that the scholars do not consider the terms universally interchangeable. This is not the dispute about the article title, when the common usage in English is an important factor and the google test is an important criterion to derive English usage. The issue here is whether Holodomor was Genocide or not. For this we go to the literature written by specialists rather than to google. --Irpen 05:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Andrew, I just have to add that what Irpen points out above has been already explained to you many times over the past few days by both Irpen and me. Please do not revert to that non-neutral old version again. 172 08:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain. Where did you get the idea that "scholars" (in this specific case Mark Tauger and a few of his supporters) get to decide on the name of a certain historic event? What Wikipedia rule or policy did you use for this conclusion? Where can I find that rule? I will stop using the common name published on millions of web sites as soon as you provide the source.--Andrew Alexander 20:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For one the term "Ukrainian Genocide" is not neutral because not all historians agree that the famine was genocide. Moreover, "Ukrainian Genocide" is not even the common name. Of course the term generates many Google hits because the term is used by those promoting the thesis arguing that the famine was genocide. Still, in published accounts by academic historians-- even Conquest-- the subject is found in indexes under the name "famine, 1932-34" or a similar variant thereof. These accounts are more representative of terms that tend to be used in encyclopedias than the random selection generated by a Google search. 172 23:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Conquest wrote in his book, "It certainly appears that a charge of genocide lies against the Soviet Union for its actions in the Ukraine. Such, at least, was the view of Professor Raphael Lemkin who drafted the Convention." Ukrainian Genocide seems a more common name than the name Holodomor from the search results above. Of course, one may claim that the Holodomor itself is published by those who wish to promote the fact that the famine happened. Historians (Mark Tauger particularly) may disagree on the fact itself. Yet please explain from the Wikipedia perspective why it must restrict using a common name.--Andrew Alexander 05:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The topic nevertheless comes up under "famine" in Conquest's indexes, though he is the main historian associated with the genocide thesis. "Ukrainian Genocide" is not the common name but rather a term associated with a particular side in a controversial debate. 172 06:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately the simple numbers above contradict this statement. And still no answer regarding WP policies. As expected.--Andrew Alexander 06:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your numbers are based on Google searches, which tell us nothing more than how many Google hits those particular searches generate. You no that historians disagree with on whether or not the famine was genocide. Please start editing in good faith. 172 07:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The number of web pages found as well as the web pages themseves are provided. Please stop talking nonsense. And please answer the question.--Andrew Alexander 07:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your Google search numbers show evidence that the term is used; and that's it. I reject the usage of Google searches in place of real research. Still, it is intersting that even if one accepts your argument that Google searches can be used in place of real research, your point is still wrong in that the neutral term-- "Ukrainian famine" gets a far greater number of hits than "Ukrainian genocide." 172 07:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the problem is that a few historians cannot deny a common name. They argue whether the name is correct. And this argument has been presented. Requesting a censorship of a common name is against Wikipedia policies. Also, "Ukrainan famine" returns 252,000 results . Make sure to compare with the results above before making false statements. You chose to delete both related terms from the article. You also chose to ignore direct questions and assume bad faith.--Andrew Alexander 08:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not incorrect. Put the terms in quotations when doing searches in order to restrict results to the exact phrase. "Ukrainian famine" gets 47,800 results.  "Ukrainian genocide" gets 14,000 results.  Even by your own standard (Google searches), which I consider flawed, "Ukrainian famine" comes up as the more common term. 172 08:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After catching you over a primitive vandalism it's hard to take your arguments seriously. Of course quotation marks will give fewer results. Because many people said "famine-genocide", "genocide in Ukraine", "Ukrainian people genocide", "genocide of Ukrainians", etc. Neither changes the meaning. Unless you try to doctor the link to jerry-rig the argument in your favor.--Andrew Alexander 08:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not commit a "primitive vandalism." If I modified your comment it was by accident, or one of the common page history glitches. When comparing the number of search results it is necessary to both the two entries being compared in quotations. Otherwise you are not searching for the exact phase but rather any page that happens to have all of the words in the search anywhere in the article. BTW, note Irpen's comment below. The salient point regarding your Google searches is mentioned by Irpen in his comment below. 172 08:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Basically this doesn't answer the question of why a common name has to be ignored. Implying is not quite sufficient for erasing something that is written all over the Internet. Suggest another common name. But don't simply erase based on some personal feelings. And answer the question why such feelings constitute a neutral point of view as opposed to the facts discovered above.--Andrew Alexander 08:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Irpen explained to you why your method of Google searches is insufficient way of providing evidence that "Ukrainian genocide" is the "common name" for the subject. Further, as I said earlier, "Ukrainian famine" is a more common prase online than "Ukrainian genocide." Searches for "Ukrainian genocide" without the quotations, by the way, are likely inflated given that articles on the Holocuast will often include both the words "Ukrainian" and "genocide" somewhere or another. 172 08:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Back to the name