Talk:Holodomor/Archive 5

message: No genocide, no democide. Nothing. What happend? Another "plot of the Russians editors" or just inadvertence of administrators?--133.41.4.46 15:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of suspecting an existence of a "plot" and being deluded that a [category:genocide] makes or breaks Holodomor as such, consider getting a wikipedia account, then pick a section in the Holodomor article and contribute towards an wp:npov version.  If you think that the Holodomor was genocide then make sure the arguments for it being so are reflected in the main article and cited with scholarly citations.  As you can probably see from the reference section, currently this article heavily cites a work by the Davies et. al., in effect Davies et. al. pov is heavily reflected.  --Riurik (discuss) 19:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Alex Kov, having to deal with you is very annoying. You continue to refuse to sign in. You do not engage in talk page discussions, you insist on unreferenced or poorly referenced changes. Such attitutde is widely considered trollish. --Irpen 18:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have returned democide. I think it is appropriate Alex Bakharev 00:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cats 

message: POV fork or a very bad title for a subarticle.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was just created today by some user... What would you advise, Piotrus? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spin-off: [[Was the Holodomor genocide?]]

message: Again, you can coin a marketing slogan, but not "genocide"- putting it as simply as humanly possible. Truthseeker 85.5 22:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not familiar with Lemkin's statements on whether H was Genocide. We know two things. Lemkin was first to define what a G is, the term belongs to him. He spoke at the meeting. The article says exactly this. --Irpen 22:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are absolutely right Irpen, thanks for fixing. I retract my objections. Truthseeker 85.5 22:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lemkin line 

message: Currently, there are two methods for references that are used in this article plus a separate section for notes, and this has no logical organization.  Am I wrong?  I'd like to get all the sources cited in one way to ease verification and standardize.  --Riurik (discuss) 15:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's worse than that.  The way the refs set up there are references with numbers like [42] and linked to nowhere.  The last sentence of Politicization of the famine section is redundant anyhow.  Mhym 12:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question regarding refs 

message: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6193266.stm UKRAINE RULES IT IS GENOCIDE, DEBATE IS OVER! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewuoft (talk • contribs) 
: Wow, what an art of persuasion, I'm impressed. You study Cicero, don't you? Or Demosthenes, maybe... Slightly more seriously, Turks still do not recognize Armenian genocide. So for you, it means it does not exists... Hmm... So next time, please refrain from such posts.
: Oh, and new posts go to the bottom of the page, not top. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jacob Peters, you repeat the troll's mistakes by refusing to acknowledge what has been explained to you multiple times. 1.5 millions is as bogus as 10 millions. The real number is in between. It has been shown at the talk and in the article why the 1.5 mln number is impossible. Please be serious if you want your input to be respected. Don't approach the article with the political agenda to push like some here. --Irpen 23:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Accusation in lying is a personal attack. 7-10 million is unsubtsantiated indeed. 1.5 million is unrealistic either as Soviet archives are self-contradictory. Recorded excess deaths are indeed 1.5 million. However recorded death statistics does not add up to the census data. Demographs concider these two censuses to be accurate. As such, the data derived from the census is more reliable and gives 4.5 million. This has been explained at this very page to you and others (now in archives) as well as in the article. Sources are provided. --Irpen 02:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:RS pls. --Irpen 07:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate is over 

message: Most modern scholars agree that the famine was caused by the policies of the government of the Soviet Union under Stalin, rather than by natural reasons
:Bullshit above is manifest. Whereas we are told that "most modern scholars" agree the famine was caused by the government, yet half of the sources listed were published before the Soviet archives were declassified. The source by Davies and Wheatcroft is blatantly misrepresented as they do not agree that the famine was caused by the government. They as well as Mark Tauger extensively document natural factors that crashed the harvest. Jacob Peters
::False. Scholars agree or disagree on the idea Soviet gov's plotted to inflict hunger on Ukrainians, but there is no dispute that the grain was collected ny the gov to filfill quotas, the result was the Famine, the aid effort was delayed and botched. As such, the famine was preventable but was not prevented due to the Soviet policies. It is the gov policies that caused it and not weather. Tauger and Davies confirm that as they go lengths on discussing the aid effort and collection. --Irpen 02:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say I'm puzzled by Jacob Peters' scatological derision, since, as I recall, Stalin sent in a young Nikita Krushchev to shoot the Ukrainians when they weren't starving to death quickly enough—the last step in a deliberate, premeditated policy to starve the Ukraine into submission, since Stalin didn't have a spot big enough to deport them all.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * And you've been banned, too! ¡Qué lástima!  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extraordinarily POV Intro 

message: This nonesense has to end. The major scholarly sources devoted specifically to this famine such as "Years of Hunger" by Davies and Wheatcroft and writings by Mark Tauger refer to this period simply as the Soviet famine rather than some propagandistic nationalist term like "Golodomor". The fact that famine was not limited to Ukraine and that the Soviet government tried to assist regions struck by famine totally discredits an intent or an insinuation of national exclusivity. 
Major recent writings published on this famine include:
Natural Disaster and Human Actions in the Soviet Famine of 1931-1933, Tauger
Stalin, Grain Stocks and the Famine of 1932-1933", Davies, Wheatcroft, and Tauger in Slavic Review
Notice the total absence of the term "Golodomor"
Jacob Peters
Bravo Jacob Peters, my stalinist genius! In your brilliant opinion, historians like James Mace, Hubert Laszkiewicz, Andrea Graziosi, Yuriy Shapoval, Gerhard Simon, Orest Subtelny, Mauro Martini, Nicolas Werth, Stephane Courtois, Roman Serbyn, Ferdinando Adornato, Federigo Argentieri, Ettore Cinnella, Massimo De Angelis, Gabriele De Rosa, Renzo Foa, Oxana Pachlovska, Vittorio Strada, Victor Zaslavski, Alain Besançon, Francesco Perfetti, Lucio Vilari, Rudolf Mark, Egbert Jahn, Wilfried Jilge, Dmytro Zlepko, Wolodomyr Kosyk, Daniel Beauvois, Jean-Lois Panné, Etienne Thevenin, they are ignorant! 
BRAVO BRAVO BRAVO BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
LuisMatosRibeiro 00:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to strongly condemn the unproposed article moves that were made. Soviet famine would be a legit article as well and, besides, a broader article already exists. Famines in Russia and USSR. The article on the specifically Ukrainian famine has every right to exist. So, the move to Soviet Famine (1932-1933) is out of question. The move to the Ukrainian Famine may be discussed but first propsoed and dicussed and then decided, not the other way around. --Irpen 02:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title Change 

message: Maybe this page should be locked. It looks like a few editors are determined to keep moving and blanking the page. User:Sebbeng 00:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will look into this after dinner, and will protect if it seems needed. While I am cooking and eating, you can speed up my job by providing diff's for the last few days of vandalism. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Here are a few of them     User:Sebbeng 02:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This is alot more indepth than I thought,you should go to WP:RFP. I have not done much in the area of protection yet. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protect? 

message: I would like to note that Ultramarine's edits use the falsified reference data. The Davies ref (5.5-6.5 mln) he added speaks about the number of famine victims Soviet-wide, not in UA only. Please start the article Soviet Famine (1932-1933) for that.
Ellman's 8+ mln number is the total number of victims of Soviet repressions, including executed, died in Gulags, etc., and also from famine. Please note, that this number is also Soviet-wide, not Ukraine only. --Irpen 05:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it should be very clearly stated that the numbers in the article does not count all who died of famine and does  not include all victims of repression during this period.Ultramarine 05:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The paragraph in question did not state that the numbers refered only to famine victimis only in Ukraine. Obviously this should be clearly pointed out, otherwise there will be misunderstanding.Ultramarine 06:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, that paragraph does not state that the numbers refered only to famine victimis only in Ukraine. Most people use Holodmor to refer to general famine and repression during this period. Ultramarine 06:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: falsifying refs

message: I think that the heading Was the Holodomor genocide? is a neutral heading showing that there it is an open dispute and presenting the arguments of both sides. On the other hand the Denial and recognition clearly intended to show that it is universally accepted as genocide and just a small group of denialists refuses to recognize this. I think it is POV and factually incorrect (see the section itself). Please do not reintroduce the biased heading until some sot of a consensus is formed on the talk page. Alex Bakharev 00:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section Heading: "Was the Holodomor genocide?" 

message: I must question the necessity of the last three paragraphs of this section. Do we plan to keep adding sections on remembrances each year, or what? Biruitorul 04:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree.  I've removed the "news" items, leaving only the decree paragraph as it seems to be more informative and applicable to the section than the others.--Riurik (discuss) 05:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Next November is a long way off; by then, it will hopefully have become clearer how we deal with future commemorations. Biruitorul 06:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: One more point: "the NKVD (and later KGB) archives on the Holodomor period opened very slowly" - wouldn't these have opened very quickly, say 1991-3? Or were documents being released under communism as well? Biruitorul 06:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I would also like to caution users to make sure to check the references if provided. Recent falcification by Ultramarine who somehow decided to get interested in the topic again, illustrates the problem well. I can guarantee the inline refs added by myself. I checked many, but not all yet, refs to Davies. After several warnings, I removed refs to the book where the page number is ommitted. Also, please pay attention to how academic the ref is. Publications in popular press may be acceptable if written  by the authors who established their names in the peer-reviewed publications. We can be fairly certain about articles from the Zerkalo's history section as well as the Den series. However, we should exercise caution not to refer historic facts to the political declarations and publications written by non-scholars. Political declarations have to be presented as such rather than the undeniable truth. --Irpen 06:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remembrance

message: Folks, would you please sign in when discussing on the talk page? It's really hard to follow a conversation when it looks like two or three different people are responding to each other's posts. Thank you. User:Sebbeng 22:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please sign in 

message: Snyder writes (here and on related pages) about how Holodomor was the final blow to Polish supported pro-Petliura's reistance. This should likely be noted in our text, too.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poland and Ukrainian resistance 

message: No serious scholar finds that this was a famine limited to Ukraine.  The term Holodomor is only used by certain sectors of Ukrainian politics. It is not a well-known term either in English or in any other language other than Ukrainian. Refer to for example:
Mark Tauger: "The 1932 Harvest and the Famine of 1933"
"Natural Disaster and Human Actions in the Soviet Famine of 1931-1933." 
"Stalin, Grain Stocks and the Famine of 1932-1933"  
Jacob Peters
* Yes, cutting the topic down to Ukraine only is quite hypocratic action. Hundreds of thousands people in Volga region, south of Central Russia and North Caucasia starved to death during 1932-33 due to same reasons that effected Holodomor. First of all - seizing almost all the yield in most productive areas as a result of bolsheviks' idea to collect as much grain for export as possible. All side effects of that were ignored by Soviet authorities, both in Moscow and in Kiev. And besides all, there were no great interest in victims' nationality. But according current version of the article it was the genocide that killed people in Ukraine and it were some other reasons that killed people in Russia. And genocide denial is "drought version" only that is quite clear being trifle. Perfecty! Respect from Ukranian nationalists.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.235.1 (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved to Soviet Famine of 1932-33 

message: Dear Jacob Peters:
No serious ukrainian scholar finds that this was a famine limited to Ukraine!!!!
Most ukrainian scholarly works on the subject address famine in the context of the entire USSR!!!
It is a well-known term in English and many languages. 
Refer to for example:
1) Mussolini and Ukraine, 1933-1941
Outline of the paper presented by Federigo Argentieri, Ph. D. John Cabot University, Rome, VI Conference of MAU, Donetsk, 29 June 2005
http://colley.co.uk/garethjones/ukraine2005/Mussolini%20and%20Ukraine.pdf
2) Andrea Graziosi
Les famines soviétiques de 1931-1933 et le Holodomor ukrainien. Une nouvelle interprétation est-elle possible et quelles en seraient les conséquences ?, Cahiers du monde russe, 46/3 , 2005 
http://monderusse.revues.org/document2818.html 
 
3) Holodomor/ Ucraina, l’Olocausto sconosciuto. Morirono oltre 7 milioni di contadini 
http://canali.libero.it/affaritaliani/politica/olocaustosconosciutoucraina2411.html?pg=1
   
4) STALIN, LE CARESTIE SOVIETICHE E IL HOLODOMOR UCRAINO (1931-1933)
http://www.gramsci.it/attivita05.htm
5) La morte della terra. La grande “carestia” in Ucraina nel 1932-33. Atti del convegno, Vicenza, 16-18 ottobre 2003
http://www.viella.it/Edizioni/Media/Media_02.htm
6) Ucraina. Storia di un genocidio
http://www.liberalfondazione.it/ucraina.htm
7) Holodomor - Per non dimenticare
http://www.aisu.it/convegni/firenze.htm
8) Le tabou de l' "Holodomor" ukrainien
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3214,36-838243,0.html
9) La grande famine ukrainienne au grand jour
http://www.liberation.fr/actualite/monde/219211.FR.php
10) Proposition de résolution relative à la reconnaissance en tant que génocide du "Holodomor" ou famine organisée dont fut victime la population ukrainienne en URSS.
http://www.lachambre.be/kvvcr/showpage.cfm?section=flwb&language=fr&rightmenu=right&cfm=flwbn.cfm?lang=F&legislat=51&dossierID=2531
11) La Gouverneure générale représentera le Canada lors d’une inauguration historique en Ukraine
http://www.gg.ca/media/doc.asp?lang=f&DocID=4355
12) Vernichtung durch Hunger. Der Holodomor in der Ukraine und der UdSSR
http://osteuropa.dgo-online.org/83.0.html
13) Letter dated 7 November 2003 from the PermanentRepresentative of Ukraine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General
http://www.un.int/ukraine/Ukr-UN/GenAs/social-human-cultur/2003/AC3589.pdf
14) Genocídio conta a nação ucraniana
http://ucrania-mozambique.blogspot.com/2006/11/genocdio-conta-nao-ucraniana.html
15) Den store hungersnød i Ukraine.
http://www.danskukrainsk.dk/artikler.htm
Please, don´t be so IGNORANT and so Stalin Lover...
However, I wish you a Merry Cristmas and a Happy New Year! 
82.155.58.206 12:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been moved before, and moved back before. I'm not going to comment on which title is better, but there should definitely be a discussion on the talk page before moves like this are made (and made again, and made again.) Please don't move it again until this has been discussed. Picaroon 04:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HOLODOMOR 

message: has recently changed the Holodomor article from a long standing version to his version, removing pictures as "emotional propaganda", removing remembrance section, and what not. It has also been move protected because of his moving of the article to Soviet Famine of 1932-33 without discussion. I am running out of time now, but would someone please see how to deal with this? —dima/s-ko/ 05:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reported him but sadly, the administrator decided it was "too complex" and moved it to the Administrator Noticeboard, which has a month long backlog. User:Sebbeng 21:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Please avoid personal attacks. And for a indefblock user, Mr. Ribero, I would recommend you behaviour should be a bit less offensive. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits by User:Jacob Peters

message: The following piece strangely pasted to the "Elimination of Ukrainian cultural elite" section is moved here:
:"The Holodomor also marked the end of pro-Petliura Polish based Ukrainian resistance.Timothy Snyder, Covert Polish missions across the Soviet Ukrainian border, 1928-1933 (p.77, in Cofini, Silvia Salvatici (a cura di), Rubbettino, 2005)"
It simply does not belong where it was pasted. Either integrate it into the article's structure or change the structure to fit this piece. Or leave it here until others check the refs and do it for you. Arbitrary pasting passages into well-structured articles is unacceptable. --Irpen 22:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Piotrus added that a while ago. TheQuandry 22:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think I need a Wikibreak too. :-) TheQuandry 23:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I object to the sentence being pasted to a randomly picked placed in the article. I do not object to the referenced information being properly integrated within the text flow. --Irpen 08:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe. When I would have had some time, I would have checked the sentence against the provided reference and tried to figure out how this info could best be integrated into the text flow. In the original form it was merely a disconnected sentence pasted into the section where it had no relevance and disrupted the article's flow. I do not object if anyone does it better than how it was done originally. I removed the text because it simply did not belong in its form to the place it was added and I do not have time to work on that now. If others are up to this task, I would certainly not object. Had I considered this just bullshit, I would have simply deleted it rather than moved to talk. --Irpen 08:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I tried to integrate it more smoothly. if still no good, feel free to revert and I'll see if I can rephrase it or find a better spot. It's added to Causes and Outcomes, end of 11th paragraph. TheQuandry 17:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prometheism?

message: My interest is really only from having some Ukrainian friends and checking what it was, exactly, that Irpen had reverted that was mentioned elsewhere. So just visiting. That said, I'm having an awfully tough time navigating (as I am sure anyone else is) with all the Jacob Peters litter throughout. Has anyone given some thought to archiving to get back to a pertinent discussion?
    I would only note that even if the famine was larger than the Ukraine, we still have Stalin sending in Krushchev to kill the Ukrainians (specifically as I recall) because they were not dying fast enough--which would certainly point toward a clear intent directed at the Ukrainians which would then substantiate the label of Genocide. Unfortunately, I don't recall where I read the Krushchev reference, that was at least several years ago.
    Requires more research of Stalin references, not mechanics of crop failure affecting populace. My two kopiyok.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Irpen has already started removing some older sections. I think rubbish produced by a blocked Stalinist (Jacob Peters), who was using Wikipedia as a soapbox, should be deleted mercilessly. Other old threads may be archived at any time as well.Constanz - Talk 16:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up Talk Page?

message: Unfortunately, this article is an endless and shameful chaos: contradictory, confused, incoherent, partial, ambiguous, aestheticly and graphically very poor; etc, etc, etc.
Look the Ukrainian, Portuguese, Polish, Croatian and even the French articles.
The Holodomor victims deserve much better!
Case closed...
Piruca 16:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that the article needs much improvement. The reason of it somewhat chaotic state is its being subject to occasional fierce attacks from two sides of POV-pushers: the Stalinist apologists, who try to make it look like the Famine was fictitious or accidental and Ukrainian nationalists who try to make it look like a Russia's attempt to exterminate the Ukrainians. As usually, the truth is with neither of the extremists sides but if we could devote more time to improving the structure and content rather than fending off the attacks, we could have been much more ahead from where we are. Still, the article is not so bad. At least it is well sourced. The structure, style and repetitions are its main problems now. --Irpen 19:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion: When? How? If?

message: Dear Irpen:
Actually, the resolution called "An Act To authorize the Government of Ukraine to establish a memorial on Federal land in the District of Columbia to honor the victims of the manmade famine that occurred in Ukraine in 1932–1933." is a congressional resolution. The full text is here: 
~
The position of the US and UK representative at the United Nations reflects always the official position of the Executive Power not the position of the Legislative Power:
Some examples:
USA
President: 
Senate: 
UK
Government: 
House of Commons: or 
About the international recognition of the Ukraine genocide, look this excellent wiki-article in portuguese: 
But, in many cases, is the same thing with others genocides, like the Holocaust or the Armenian genocide: ambiguity and contradiction between the State powers of the same country...
Some examples:
French President-Armenian Genocide:;
French Senate-Armenian Genocide: 
US President-Armenian Genocide: 
;
US Congress-Armenian Genocide: 
.
All the best!
Piruca 12:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who Recognize?