Talk:Holodomor denial/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

No consensus

If "there is no international consensus among scholars or governments on whether the Soviet policies that caused the famine fall under the legal definition of genocide", it makes no sense to have an article about "denial of the Holodomor". Besides, the article is heavily biased, under an "American red scared" quasi-McCarthyist line of thought. Dornicke (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

That logic does not hold water. Facts people deny do not have be genocides. People also deny moon landings, viruses, and climate change.

And citing serious history works is vastly different from McCarthyism. I suspect you are WP:NOTHERE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

That's not the point. If there's no consensus about Holodomor being a genocide, there's no point in talking about denial. There's no "denialism" of things that are not consensual. There's debate. Denialism is when people do not accept something which is considered a consensus. And I suspect I don't care about your "suspect". Dornicke (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

If there's no consensus about Holodomor being a genocide, there's no point in talking about denial This is called Chewbacca defense.

The article is about denial of the Holodomor, not about denial of the answer "yes" to the Holodomor genocide question.

The article even explicitly says "For the question of whether the Holodomor constituted genocide, see Holodomor genocide question."

There is a consensus that the Holodomor happened. Calling it a genocide or not is a different question, the article about which is a different one: Holodomor genocide question.

Do I have to link the article Holodomor genocide question once more, or do you get it now? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

"There is a consensus that the Holodomor happened" - No, there isn't. There's a consensus that the FAMINE existed. Even the authors called "deniers" in this article admit the famine existed. "Holodomor" is the name given to the thesis that Stalin intentionally wanted to kill Ukrainians by the means of an architected starvation. That's the subject of this article. And this is not a consensus. Dornicke (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

From the article: "Official Soviet propaganda denied the famine and suppressed information about it from its very beginning until the 1980s." As you say, there is a consensus that the famine existed, and there was denial of the famine. What more do you need?

Maybe you should have taken an actual look at the article before you formed an opinion about it? At least look how often and in which contexts the word "genocide" appears. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

From the article: "he [Douglas Tottle] asserts that claims the Holodomor was an intentional genocide are "fraudulent", and "a creation of Nazi propagandists"." Tottle book does not claim the famine didn't exist. It clearly says the famine was real, but not intentional. Why is Tottle being present as a "denialist" in this article if this is about denial of the famine - and he doesn't deny the famine? Maybe you should read the article before you formed an opinion about it? Because, clearly, any person who has read it probably understand what's the point i'm raising, but you are struggling so much... Dornicke (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

"any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda"

"Prominent writers from Ireland and Britain who visited the Soviet Union in 1934, such as George Bernard Shaw and H. G. Wells, are also on record as denying the existence of the famine in Ukraine"

"Russian state media ran several articles denying the severity and causes of the Ukrainian famine"

Those quotes are about denying the famine. The article is about denying the famine. Of course, other aspects are mentioned too, but that does not mean that the article is about something else, as you claim.

The article does not say whether Tottle's book denies the famine, so no amount of reading the article by me would have told me that he does not. Given your stout denial of the fact that people did deny the famine, I do not trust your claim that Tottle does not deny the famine - it could very well be that you are as blind when reading him as when reading the article.

Stop your reality-denying bullshit. Nobody is falling for it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Holodomor is not a synonym of Soviet famine of 1932–33. That's the reason why we have two different articles. Holodomor is the name given to the thesis that Stalin PLANNED to kill Ukrainians by starvation - it's the thesis that the Soviet Famine of 1932-33 was a genocide. That's Holodomor. Authors who do not claim this shouldn't be here. Or the article should have another name. I won't stop anything. If you are not willing to talk about the subject, ignore it. Nobody is forcing you to take part in this discussion. I won't stop just because you think you own this article. Dornicke (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

You are changing the subject to the famine in other parts of the Soviet Union, you make a claim that contradicts our article Holodomor, you are trying to shoo me away for disagreeing with your opinion. These are red herrings, and you use them because you do not have a real answer to what I said: "Those quotes are about denying the famine". I am used to how other proponents of fringe theories argue, and you are no different. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I think there are some valid points here. Indeed, Holodomor genocide question is a separate page and mostly a separate subject. The discussion if it was a genocide probably does not belong to this page. This is mostly about denying it even happened and about diminishing its importance. As about Tottle, he was a marginally notable denialst. One could ague he does not belong to this page or any other pages. At the same time, his book "Fraud, Famine, and Fascism: the Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard" is clearly a denial because it tells "Myth" about the actually documented event. My very best wishes (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

If you think that the article is biased, then feel free to correct the record with your own credible sources instead of just accusing everybody else of being propagandists. --2001:56A:F90F:A400:90C8:84B:A4DA:2166 (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Glome

Well, I do think there are propagandists in this project using it for political reasons. Dornicke (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Please don’t conjure up some shadowy enemy (or Phantom Menace). If you have an accusation of wrongdoing or bad will by actual editors, please name names and take it to WP:ANI. And for goodness’ sake don’t quote Tottle’s foul slander to support an argument. Its main argument was that Ukrainians are all Nazis, and where it referred to facts, its kettle logic was as sound as Duranty’s “there is no actual starvation or deaths from starvation, but there is widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition.”

“"Holodomor" is the name given to the thesis . . . .” No it’s not. The Holodomor “was a famine in Soviet Ukraine from 1932 to 1933 that killed millions of Ukrainians.” —Michael Z. 21:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll add to this discussion that the term 'Holodomor' is not a neutral one. The term was created specifically to evoke a comparison to the Holocaust, in order to highlight the allegedly genocidal nature of it. In my research for this I've read criticism from a number of sources claiming that this was done intentionally by fascists to downplay the Holocaust itself, as part of the "Hitler did some bad things, but he had nothing on Stalin" line of rhetoric. So the term "Holodomor" is not separable from the question of whether the famine was a genocide. Idk what implications that has for the article, but I think it's important context for this conversation.unsigned comment added by 73.33.168.206 (talk • contribs)

There are some absolutely bizarre editorial decisions on this page. For one, the choice to devote an entire paragraph to lightly sourced character assassination of Walter Duranty. It isn't relevant to whether Mr. Duranty's views are accurate to extensively describe how another journalist insulted him in an interview. I think this is characteristic of the broader issue of bias that others are alleging. It's not simply a question of what sources are used, but how they're used.

The structure of this page is to bring up a particular source denying the Holodomor, then follow that up with sources denouncing that source, without ever even clarifying what claims are being made in the initial source. One could just as easily construct this page in reverse order, starting with vague references to the sources that defend the existence of the Holodomor and then following them with other sources claiming that those sources are based on lies, propaganda, and debunked rumors. That structure would lead the reader to the opposite conclusion that the Holodomor likely did not happen, despite using the exact same sources. I'm not sure what the solution here is, but falsely insisting that this page is objective is not productive.

To give a concrete example of this structural issue, let's look at the section about Douglass Tottle. It is not clear, from this section, what Tottle actually said. The only information given about his claims are the title of his book. Even this is only mentioned as an excuse to publish the bizarre claim that "Ukrainian fascism never existed". This is absolutely wild and is not supported by reality. There's a rather cowardly attempt to frame this lie as a quote from a Kyiv publisher as part of the broader character assassination of Mr. Tottle, but it clearly adds nothing to the article, and is framed in such a way that the reader is meant to conclude that there really was never any fascism in Ukraine. I can only imagine that a Ukrainian fascist wrote that.

After this oblique reference to Mr. Tottle's research, there are several paragraphs of denunciations of Mr. Tottle. The reader does not learn what Mr. Tottle said, but they do learn that a certain Professor Sundberg accused him without evidence of having been in the employ of the Russian government.

Another obvious problem is the section about the French Prime Minister. This paragraph makes the rather extreme allegation that during the Prime Minister's visit to Ukraine, the Soviets made Potemkin Villages to hide the famine. This is a very serious allegation which, if true, proves beyond a doubt that the Soviets were actively covering up great atrocities. You'd expect such a major allegation to be well-sourced, but it is not. There are two sources. The first is incomplete. That entire reference is "Reflections, pg 122". It isn't clear whose reflections it's meant to refer to, or how any of us could confirm that it's even a real book. The second reference refers to the "James Mace Memorial Panel", and kindly provides a link to a PDF. However, the link does not work. Based on my googling, the James Mace Memorial Panel was a real event sponsored by the Ukrainian government in 2005. The reference appears to refer to a real paper published during this event, which does make the claim of Potemkin Villages. Its only substantiation for this claim is a reference to an alleged statement by American Trade Unionist named Harry Lang, as recorded in a book by his wife, Lucy Lang. This book, called Tomorrow Is Beautiful, was published in 1948 in the United States. I was able to track down this book, and one chapter does describe visiting the Soviet Union in 1933 and seeing a famine, and it also describes the Soviets downplaying this famine, but it does not describe the creation of entire Potemkin Villages. Lang's actual criticism would be comparable to someone today criticizing the US for giving foreigners tours of Washington, D.C. that only show famous spots and do not show the slums of that very poor city.

It's very notable that the only actual source for this claim is an American book published during the height of the Second Red Scare, when anti-Soviet literature was actively being promoted by the US government and trade Unionists were under great pressure to make a public show of denouncing communism. One would expect direct Ukrainian sources to exist.

Perhaps it's appropriate for this allegation to be mentioned, but it should not be be stated as an objective, undisputed fact with such thin sourcing. That section should either be dramatically restated, better sourced, or simply deleted.

Again, these problems are not isolated. They speak to a broad issue with this page.

I should note that I initially came to this page because I had seen claims online that the Holodomor didn't happen and was just fascist propaganda, and I wanted to assure myself that this was untrue. It is deeply frustrating to me that this page has too many problems for me to develop an understanding of this issue. I continue to assume that this event happened, because that seems to be the more reasonable assumption than believing that there was a vast cold war conspiracy to manufacture it, but I'm actually less confident about that than I was before I went down this rabbit hole.

In other words, even if you're a Ukrainian nationalist whose goal is to prove to people that this horrible famine really did occur, it is in your interest to fix this article. The level of problems it currently has are significant enough that it is plainly untrustworthy.

Based on the tone of the rest of this Talk Page, I have no doubt that replies to this will accuse me of partisanship and call me disingenuous and a liar. My reply to that is that the issues I'm raising are self-evidently serious, even if you choose to believe that I have bad intentions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:b114:4fe9:3c32:9552:16bb:7626 (talk)

Reflections is a title in the “Further reading” section, Robert Conquest (2000), Reflections on a Ravaged Century. I have clarified the citation. The link to the James Mace Memorial Panel PDF is working for me now.

Some comments about “Ukrainian nationalists” and the “Red Scare” are not constructive; please stick to the subject. By the way, it was a communist official, not a “Ukrainian fascist,” that rejected the offensive title for the offensive Tottle book. —Michael Z. 21:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. I wasn't saying that the title was rejected by Ukrainian fascists, I was saying that I suspect that whoever wrote that section of the Wiki article had Ukrainian fascist sympathies, because it's completely incomprehensible otherwise. The decisions that were made on what to include and what not to include are simply bizarre, unless one considers that possible explanation.

And I'm sorry, but if it's not relevant that the only source we're using to support the very serious and unsubstantiated allegation of Potemkin Villages is a paragraph from a single American memoir written during the height of the Red Scare, then editorializing that the Tottle book is "offensive" is also not relevant.

I'm not an experienced editor, although I'm working on learning, so I'm hesitant to make any changes on my own. At the very least, I'll wait to see whether others agree with my criticisms before I start thinking about how I would resolve them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.33.168.206 (talk • contribs)

Mjazac, I'm sorry for calling that editor a "fascist sympathizer", you were right to temporarily ban me, that was out of line. I'm somewhat emotional about the issue because I come from a family of Ukrainian Jews who fled Ukraine in the 1910s to avoid violence from Ukrainian fascists, and the parts of my family that stayed behind were killed during pograms by Ukrainian fascists during the 1920s. I hope you can understand why the claim that "Ukrainian fascists never existed" is profoundly offensive and outrageous to me. If there's no objection, I'm just going to remove that phrase. It doesn't add anything to the article, and it's literally Holocaust Denial under the definition of "Holocaust Denial" that we have here on Wikipedia, which includes: "In some former Eastern Bloc countries, Holocaust deniers do not deny the mass murder of Jews, but deny the participation of their own nationals in the Holocaust"

Or maybe it would be better to leave it and add in the context that the claim is incorrect and is Holocaust denial. What do you think?

And is there any reason not to add details about what Tottle actually claimed in his book?

I will also reframe the passage about Potemkin Villages to clarify that some authors have alleged that they were created, rather than the false implication that it's an undisputed and objective fact. As I said in my very long critique, I followed the sources on that and it just isn't corroborated. It's true that certain people have alleged it, and that should be included, but frankly I don't find the citations convincing and I think the article is biased too far in their favor.

I'm sorry if I'm going a bit overboard, but I've gotten very into this project. I want to make this page better, and I'm willing to put in the research — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.33.168.206 (talk • contribs)

The People who deny that the famine in USSR in 1930ties took place are all Neo-Stalinists of different national and ethnic backgrounds. There are for example German Neo-Stalinists who deny it while for example the official position of Russia is that the famine was artifical but not a Genocide.--88.66.132.56 (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

If you have names and sources for those German neo-Stalinists, and they aren't already on the page, could you provide them? Might make for a useful addition to the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:b109:7aa2:8e8d:3d1b:3b3e:16f1 (talk • contribs)

Is there any particular reason for the George Orwell section to remain? Orwell wasn't himself a Holodomor denialist, he just made fun of them in an interview. Idk why that's relevant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.33.168.206 (talk • contribs)

Continuing my proposals for changes, I think we're citing Robert Conquest too heavily. He seems to be widely considered biased when it comes to the Soviet Union, and he literally worked as a "counter-propagandist" for the British Foreign Office. I'm not saying we should remove all references to him, he was certainly well respected in some circles, just that he's currently the main source for the entire article and that might be too much emphasis on someone whose objectivity is questioned.

I'm also going to start going through the various unsourced claims in the article and trying to validate them. If I can't validate a particular claim I'll just remove it, unless someone would prefer that I list everything I plan to remove in here, for approval, first. 73.33.168.206 (talk • contribs)

While I agree that this article relies on Conquest too much you have had some pretty strong opinions on this talk page that are not in line with the bulk of scholarship on this topic. Discussion of what you plan to remove would is warranted as at least some of it probably has better sources, for example this article really should cite Anne Applebaum and Timothy Snyder—blindlynx (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I've tried my best to avoid giving any actually opinions about what I think happened. In truth, I have no idea. It's hard to separate fact from cold war propaganda, on all sides. I've attempted to only express the technical problems I see in the article. And Anne Applebaum is herself a fairly controversial figure, is she not? Overciting professional anti-communists is undeniably a kind of bias, although excluding them would also be bias. There's a reason we aren't citing many Russian or USSR state authorities or official historians in an uncritical way. We should probably be similarly careful about the American side of the global war of words, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.33.168.206 (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not active on this page, but this title is very problematic. As other editors have noted, the genocide question is very much a matter a debate. I'm unable to find another encyclopedia with an article titled "Denial of the Holodomor", nor can I find articles titled as such in any American or UK newspaper. This page has more than a whiff of WP:SYNTHESIS. Also without secondary coverage of this specific topic, this really isn't notable ([WP:SIGCOV]]). Stix1776 (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Google books returns 265 results for "Holodomor denial" OR "Holodomor denier" -Wikipedia. Google Scholar returns 50 results. I'm sure you can find more with other search strings. I think the topic likely meets WP:NOTABILITY. —Michael Z. 14:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a very disengenuous deflection from my comment. Are there any independent, significant, secondary sources covering this topic in any detail, as required by WP:NOTABILITY? I can do a Google book search for "wet monkeys" and get 300+ results [1]. Nor does WP:NOTABILITY mention anything about Google search results. I say "disengenuous" because anyone clicking on your link can see that "Holodomor Denial" is barely mentioned in these articles, as it's just a keyword search.Stix1776 (talk) 10:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

No, don’t be disingenuous. “"wet monkeys" -Wikipedia” only returns 95 English-language results.  —Michael Z. 03:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Gosh, you're right it was singular "wet monkey". Check the original link I posted. You're still not going to talk about secondary articles and WP:NOTABILITY, are you?? You're going to stick to Google searches even though it's not part of Wikipedia policy.Stix1776 (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The Library of Congress Subject Headings include Holodomor denial since 2009, defined as “the diminution of the scale and significance of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 or the assertion that it did not occur,” and Holodomor denial literature, to classify denialist works. —Michael Z. 14:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTABILITY mentions secondary, independent, significant coverage. It says nothing about a Library of Congress subject heading. Stix1776 (talk) 10:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Look, we have this discussion, and the article has a long list of references, plus a further reading section. If you’re telling us there’s not enough coverage of the subject in there, then summarize the sources and show it. If you think there’s already consensus for your view, then go ahead and file a formal deletion request. Otherwise, please let us know what is the goal of this discussion. —Michael Z. 16:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I would like you to give me an example of an independent, secondary source covering this topic in some depth. That you're failing to do so speaks volumes. Stix1776 (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Applebaum’s Red Famine has a chapter on “The Cover-up” and one on “The Holodomor in History and Memory,” which cover the subject well. Of course, no good source on the famine can not talk about denial, since it was integral to the crime from the beginning and continues today. —Michael Z. 03:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm reading those chapters this minute. Not once does the author have a special heading for denial. Nor does he ever use the terms "Denial of the Holodomor" or "Holodomor Denial" as this article does.Stix1776 (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I can’t tell if you’re so incredibly literal-minded that you honestly don’t believe that a five-decade cover-up of the causes of millions of deaths is not “denial,” or if you’re simply not arguing in good faith. In either case, I disagree with you completely. —Michael Z. 16:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter what I believe, but rather what the sources say. Your effort to change the subject away from the sources and make it personal seems quite telling. Stix1776 (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The sources are full of information about denial, but you, personally, refuse to believe it because you haven’t found a source with an identical title. Anyway, you haven’t proposed anything, so this is just chatter. If you do, then consensus on interpreting the sources is what will matter. —Michael Z. 02:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

If the sources are full of it, then cite them. That no source states "Denial of the Holodomor" or such is very telling. Anyhow, I'm reading through the citations. At some point I'll add an OR tag and make a talk page post justifying it. Forgive me if I need to understand the sources enough before I start editing. Stix1776 (talk) 05:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Hunger is a shortage of food. The USSR has NEVER denied the famine of the early 30s, on the contrary - it is described in detail even in school textbooks, and of course in historical literature.

• Comment Do you have a source for this? Stix1776 (talk) 11:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Holodomor is not a synonym for "famine".

And "Holodomor" is a term artificially invented by Ukrainian nationalists, which denotes the deliberate genocide of Ukrainians by the Soviet government.

If you call the article "Denial of the famine of 1932 in the USSR" - this is a denial of the very fact of famine, but no one denies it.

They deny the fact of the deliberate creation of this famine, and the fact that it was a purposeful act of genocide are two different things.

To make it even clearer to you - as a result of the actions of the British government and Winston Churchill personally in 1942, several million people died in India - from hunger. This is a fact, people have died, no one denies it. But - some say that Churchill deliberately killed these people by starvation, while others deny that Churchill acted intentionally, and say that this is just a coincidence. I think this is an absolutely accurate example. Akardo~ruwiki (talk) 11:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Honestly your thoughts of the Holodomor aren't very useful if you don't source them. Stix1776 (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Tottle

The tottle section is completely uncited, i added back that soviet authorities helped him because it does appear in literature, but neither of the citations support the claim that soviet authorities wanted to have the book renamed to deny the existence of racism in ukraine. I'm not clear on the value the mention of the holocaust either It seems to be hinting that tottle and soviet authorities more generally wanted to deny both genocies???—blindlynx (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

The context there- and the fact that this isn't clear from the article is an example of the problems with this article- is that Tottle's basic claim is that the narrative of a genocide-famine was originally developed by Ukrainian ultranationalists as part of a broader Ukrainian nationalist movement that involved horrific anti-Semitic pograms, and that morphed into Nazism in WWII. Many of the Ukrainian Nationalists that Tottle alleges were involved in this became leaders of the Ukrainian SS. This subject is extremely controversial within Ukraine, as well as within the Ukrainian diaspora, and there is a lot of denial of the fact that Ukrainians played any role in the Holocaust. From the phrasing, it appears that the Ukrainian authorities objected to Tottle using language that failed to avoid implicating the Ukrainian people in the Holocaust. If there are actually sources that say that, anyway — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B10A:53AB:D177:34A9:1FB4:2443 (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Sources for your claims would be nice. I'm not gonna lie, IP edits on a talk page aren't very valuable. Stix1776 (talk) 14:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Pointless article, this subject is covered poorly

I think it's funny that Wikipedia has articles on "holodomor", "denial of the holodomor" "holodomor genocide question", and "Soviet famine of 1932–1933".

The Soviet famine of 1932–1933 and the Holodomor are literally the same event. The only difference between the two ideas is that "Holodomor" is the conspiracy theory that the famine was an attempt to do genocide to the Ukrainians. Likewise, a "Holodomor denier" is a person who does not believe that conspiracy.

Overall this is a mess. Wikipedia, it seems, cannot decide which historical narrative is the correct one. It cannot even decide if it can be questioned legitimately, or if doing so makes you parallel to a holocaust denier.

Imagine for a moment if the reader was presented with articles titled "CIA thermite demolition of world trade center", "denial of CIA doing 9/11", "Bush did 9/11 question" and then finally "September 11 attacks".

It would be utterly silly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A442:581E:1:135A:2130:D641:6009 (talk • contribs)

Without commenting on the rest, I'll say that in my opinion this article would make more sense in the context of the other articles if it actually explained what Holodomor denial is and what its proponents believe, rather than being an extended character assassination, bordering on a rant, about how horrible the Holodomor deniers are.

If that purpose (character assassination, I mean) is what we really want the discussion of denial of the Holodomor to subsist of, it probably doesn't make sense as an independent article. "Some people believe this didn't happen, and those people are all pieces of ****" is generally just a section in the parent article on the subject, at least in my experience. Having it be an article implies that the ideas are actually deserving of explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B10A:53AB:D177:34A9:1FB4:2443 (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I saw recently an article on that hero-editor who specialises in removing nazi fan fiction from wiki articles. given discussion of banderist fanwank being used as a source, maybe this article should get her treatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A442:581E:1:2CC3:90C1:74E1:F76A (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Using opinion pieces from "fascist apologist" citing politicians definitely breaks WP:RS

Regarding this undo [2], this source literally says opinion [3]. The author has been heavily criticized for trying to rehabilitate his Nazi grandfather [4].

An opinion piece from an ideologue might be more critical of a non scholarly study done by a politician. Has anyone looked at this web page, the Ukrainian Echo? Compare their take on Stepan Bandera [5] to Wikipedia's page Bandera. The site is not fact based and independent. Stix1776 (talk) 01:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, on further reading I'm finding that Ukrainian Echo is tied to OUN [6]. Stix1776 (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Niki 24: @Niki 24: gosh how do you ping someone with a space in their username Stix1776 (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Also apparently Ukrainian Echo was founded by the League for the Liberation of Ukraine [7]. Stix1776 (talk) 10:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Stix1776 - I my opinion we have a serious situation with Niki 24 edits here. This should probably be brought to administrative attention - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: You think so? You're definitely the more experienced editor, so you'd likely know better. This dif I noticed has a really worrying use of the f-slur [8]. There's an admin who has this page on his watchlist. Hi @Mzajac:, can we please trouble you to warn this maybe newish editor? He's struggling with WP:RS and offensive slurs. Thank you 😄 Stix1776 (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Stix1776 - yes I do. Please examine prior sources selection on other articles. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: I guess these sources look bad [9] but I could be wrong. Sorry but it's hard to see what the issue is without a diff. Stix1776 (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

How was Bandera a nazi? He fought against the nazis and went to concentration camp after.

here is the official statement concerning "droughts" by Kravchuk, which is used in the source, on his official website , will add it to the refs rn. Niki 24 (talk) 11:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

References

@Niki 24 who is Stephen Bandera you are referencing to here --> [10]? - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Niki 24 - Are you using an opinion of the grandson[11] of Stepan Bandera who was responsible for the deaths of thousands of people as a source!?[12] Am I reading that correctly? Could you please confirm? - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Stepan Bandera was responsible for death of one person, a Polish diplomat, for which he was sentenced and jailed. What you are likely talking about is likely a popular narrative invented by Soviet and Russian state media that Bandera was leading the Volhynia massacre ethnic cleansing, but the weak part in that narrative is the fact that Bandera spent much of the World War II in a German concentration camp and there is no evidence that he not only was managing OUN-B but even had any contact with the perpetrators. To the contrary, there is evidence of his disagreements with Mykola Lebed who led the organisation in his absence. Cloud200 (talk) 06:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I posted 7 sources, and you posted zero. Also you're contradicting the sourced and the consensus of the Wikipedia page. Stix1776 (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella the original edit wasnt done by me, i only undid deletion by @stix1776. I didnt use source made by Banderas grandson, it was already used in the page. Niki 24 (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: the original edit wasnt done by me, i only undid deletion by @stix1776. I didnt use source made by Banderas grandson, it was already used in the page. (didnt ping properly) Niki 24 (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Niki 24 even if you restored the source you are still responsible for that edit --> [13]. Do you still believe Bandera as a source is suitable? If not, I suggest to self revert.. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: This source was used here only for quotation of president Kravchuks words and wasnt used for an opinion of an author, so yes i do find this ref suitable here. Niki 24 (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Niki 24 (the same way TASS, state sponsored media, is used for quatations of diplomats words in other articles) Niki 24 (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Niki 24: Now you're adding self published work as a source, which is still a no no. Maybe you're newish to Wikipedia, but please can we be careful of what sources to add and follow Wikipedia's reliable source rules. Stix1776 (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

You are confusing WP:RSSELF (aka medium.com ) with WP:PRIMARY source. Leonid Kravchuk is former head of state and this website is a WP:PRIMARY for "Leonid Kravchuk said" type of statements. Otherwise we would need to delete all Putin's statements sourced by kremlin.ru. Cloud200 (talk) 06:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not a government page, it's a dot com personal page of the ex president.Stix1776 (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Not so fast, in this[14] discussion King wanted to delete Russian Duma admission of responsibility for Katyn massacre because, wait for it, "the Russian government is not a reliable source" (leaving aside that Duma is not government but lawmakers). So theoretically, even kremlin.ru could suddenly become "no longer reliable source" if Putin hypothetically openly admitted military intervention in Donbass, at least per some editors here. Cloud200 (talk) 13:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It's the personal website of the ex president and therefore self published. What you're saying is irrelevant.Stix1776 (talk) 15:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Issues

I was invited to join that discussion by [[User:GizzyCatBella]. I see the dispute seems to be resolved, so my participation is not necessary. However, I noticed serious problems in that article. It seems it is trying to mirror the style of the Holocaust denial article. That is not acceptable, because it is the Holocaust trivialization. For the beginning, I removed this. The reason is obvious: in contrast to the Holocaust, the scale of Holodomor, it significance, and even the very question if it was genocide or not is a subject of scholarly debates. That makes a situation totally different. I am going to check other article's problems, and if necessary put the POV template or discuss a possibility of article's deletion (if it is not fixable). So far, the topic does not look too notable, especially taking into account that some sources in this list are Wikipedia mirrors.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I've already mentioned the same notable issues in a previous thread. I agree and share your concerns. Stix1776 (talk) 09:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Everyone should be aware that the article Mass killings under communist regimes‎ that User:Paul Siebert has largely rewritten to suit his personal and rather niche belief that any mention of mass killings in communist states is a "Holocaust denial" is now subject to a Dispute Resolution process. The user has been also actively involved in denial of the Katyn massacre. In that part we observed an attempt to dispute the Russian government's 90's apology for Katyn based on argument that "Russian government is not a reliable source", so what we are seeing here is an organized campaign to rewrite the history of 20th century totalitarian regimes by a few well organized editors. Cloud200 (talk) 06:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Your accusations are absolutely false, and they may be interpreted as personal attacks. You misinterpreted my words absolutely blatantly, and my only hope is that is a result of a good faith and sincere misunderstanding. If that is the case, I can, once again, explain my position, provided, but only provided that you are ready to listen. However, if you don't want to listen and are going to continue in the same vein (accusations of others of disruptive editing, POV pushing, and canvassing), I will report you. I see you have been duly notified that you are working in the area covered by WP:ARBEE, which means I may resort to WP:AE. Paul Siebert (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Everyone should be aware that Cloud200 blatantely canvassed for that same dispute resolution, which lacks any context, is misleading, and includes many inaccuracies, and that I have been falsely accused here of wanting to rewrite this article, even though whatever edits I have made here were copy editing and did not involve any rewriting (e.g. the most recent example), though I do agree with Siebert's comment above. Finally, as yet another inaccuracy, Siebert did not "largely rewritten" that article, I did that, and apart from reverts from a few IPs who did not show any commitment to dialogue or understanding, it has been pretty stable (e.g. being reverted to my version by at least two other editors; before any further false accusation, I did not contact them to do that, neither on their talk pages or privately, nor they are some sockpuppets of mine) and factual. More importantly, Siebert did not actually deny anything and those are serious and false accusations that should not be taken lightly. This is the proper context, and it was a dispute on the fact that original wording was closer to what The New York Times reported, while they insisted on using a wording that was deemed undue by secondary reliable sources but reported by the Russian government and in the official Russian text (primary sources). I am honestly astonished at the resorting of such inacurracies and false accuses (it is not the first time from this user) rather than actually responding to Siebert's comment, which is factual and nuanced. Davide King (talk) 10:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The basis for these objections makes no sense to me. It seems it is trying to mirror the style of the Holocaust denial article. That is not acceptable: dubious premise and conclusion with no basis. it is the Holocaust trivialization: it is not. For the beginning, I removed this. The reason is obvious: in contrast to the Holocaust, the scale of Holodomor, it significance, and even the very question if it was genocide or not is a subject of scholarly debates. That makes a situation totally different.: completely false and counterfactual rationale, and if it were so, it has no bearing on this definition, obvious or otherwise.

In fact, the scale and significance of the Holodomor was a topic of research and debate for at least five decades, and remains a focus of its denial today. The genocide question has always, and continues to be, a subject for many researchers, and perhaps currently the focus of denial. Quotations from Andriewsky 2015, an excellent overview of Holodomor historiography:

• Regarding “Was it a genocide?”: “Here, as Andrea Graziosi notes, the ‘scale of both punishment and terror reached extreme dimensions... thus growing into a qualitatively different phenomenon.’”
• Re “The Impact on Ukrainian History,”: “For many historians of Ukraine, the significance of the Holodomor is measured in terms of the number of lives lost, in the size and scale of the demographic catastrophe.”
• Re “Contested history,” about different views of the Holodomor, one is exemplified with “For Soldatenko, however, the debate is really about the significance of what happened—no small issue, by any means.”
• “For the past two decades, this scholarship has largely been dominated by the debate about whether the Holodomor constitutes genocide.”
• Two entire sections of the paper discuss the importance and centrality of just these issues to the field of Holodomor studies: “1. Demographic losses. How many people died as a result of the Holodomor in Ukraine?,” “4. Was it genocide?”

I find user:Paul Siebert’s complaints remarkable in how detached they are from the facts of studies and public discussion of the Holodomor, and his logic applied to his views incomprehensible. The argument is completely spurious. —Michael Z. 15:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you agree that a discussion of the question if the Holocaust was genocide is not possible now, because it is a clear and unequivocal Holocaust denial? I believe, yes.

However, it IS possible to find a calm and rational discussion of the question if Holodomor was genocide. Thus, the whole issue of Contemporary European History (27, 3 (2018)) is devoted to that subject, and some authors agreed that Holodomor was genocide, whereas others did not. It is not possible to find similar discussion of the Holocaust in non-fringe sources. Moreover, Holodomor genocide question article does not call the discussion of that issue "Holodomor denial". And, similarly, I am 100% sure the article Holocaust genocide question would be speedy deleted and salted.

To me, all of that is completely clear. The Holocaust was a program aimed at complete and final destruction of all Jews in the world, the topic has been studied in details, the scale of that tragedy is pretty well known, and its impact is well understood. The only remaining issues relate to minor details and local facts. Therefore, everybody who questions genocidal nature of the Holocaust, its scale and significance must be considered the Holocaust denier, and, like David Irving, should not be considered a reputable author.

A situation with Holodomor is quite different. What we know with a 100% certainty is: (i) there was Holodomor in Ukraine, (ii) it killed several million of people, (iii) it was (by and large) a man made famine. These are commonly accepted facts, and their denial should be treated in the same way as the Holocaust denial: a malevolent denial of a human tragedy that affected millions. However, other issues, such as (i) should Holodomor be considered a genocide? (Some authors, like Suny, conclude it shouldn't; some authors, like Ellman, conclude it was a genocide in some regions, and during a certain time period, but not as a whole; some authors describe it as a pure genocide. ALL those authors are quite reputable mainstream scholars, and those who question the genocidal nature of Holodomor are not engaged in Holodomor denial), (ii) what was the real number of victims? (It seems there is no universally accepted figure, and different reputable authors provide somewhat different figures. Those who propose lower figures are NOT Holodomor deniers), (iii) how Holodomor affected the Ukrainian nation? (Again, different interpretations are possible, and those who claim that it was less significant are not Holodomor deniers).

All of that demonstrates that, whereas some politicians, who pursue their egoistic goals, deny the fact that Holodomor occurred, OR claim it was a purely natural disaster, OR diminish its scale beyond any reasonable limits, are really engaged in the denial of Holodomor. In contrast, the scholars who discuss the genocidal nature of Holodomor, its scale and significance are not engaged in Holodomor denial.

Have I made my position clear now? Paul Siebert (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

1. Doesn’t invalidate the definition, which doesn’t touch on the genocide question. 2. You ignore that the definitions says “false claim.” —Michael Z. 17:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Clearly, the word false does not relate to "diminishing the scale and significance of the famine.". Indeed, from the point of view of grammar, the statement consists of two parts: Denial of the Holodomor is the false claim that the Holodomor did not occur and Denial of the Holodomor is diminishing the scale and significance of the famine. "False" refers to the first part only.

Actually, I see absolutely no problem with the words: Denial of the Holodomor is the false claim that the Holodomor, a large-scale, man-made famine in Soviet Ukraine from 1932–1933, did not occur. I objects only to the second part, which equates a discussion of the genocidal nature of Holodomor, intentionality, or its scale with its denial.

Paul Siebert (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, but the second part parallels the first, because it self-evidently means “diminishing the [known, actual, factual, established, or generally accepted] scale and significance of the famine.” I don’t understand your logic and I find 1. your insistence that this says anything about the “genocidal nature of Holodomor” at all, and 2. the notion that it relates to the Holocaust, to be bizarre. Can you cite any sources that say this, or is this your own WP:original research? —Michael Z. 20:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

If the scale/importance/genocidal nature is well known/factual/generally accepted, that is ok. However, the main problem is that it is not. There is no consensus on whether Holodomor was genocide (and even if it was fully intentional), what was the exact number of victims, and what is its significance. In contrast to the Holocaust, all of that is a subject of discussion, and the proposed description de facto equates participants of such a discussion with deniers. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Re your 1. If someone (e.g. Suny) questions the idea that Holodomor was genocide, which means, according to your definition, he may question its significance. Therefore, per this definition Sumy is a denier.

2. I refer to the Holocaust because the definition (and the article as whole) is trying to mimic the Holocaust denial topic. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

If your absolutely literalist definitions and logic were accepted, than anyone who makes an estimate of Holocaust victims would be a denier, because someone else somewhere makes a bigger estimate. Blatantly defies common sense, as we know since the 1980s most denial literature doesn’t actually deny the existence of the famine, but in fact makes false statements about causes and intention. Your argument is WP:SYNTH, since no reliable source appears to make this argument and reach the same conclusion. —Michael Z. 21:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, our current knowledge of the Holocaust allows us to call everybody who claims the number of victims was not 5.5 million, but, e.g. 5 a "Holocaust denier". The same is not true for Holodomor, because our knowledge is incomplete yet.

And, please, do not refer to NOR, because it relates to the article space only. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Here, Mzajac added those sources:

• "Holodomor denial". LC Linked Data Service: Authorities and Vocabularies (Library of Congress). Retrieved 2021-11-07.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• Dobczansky, Jurij (2009). "Affirmation and Denial: Holodomor-related Resources Recently Acquired by the Library of Congress". Holodomor Studies. 1 (2 [Summer-Autumn 2009]): 155–164.
• Fotiadis, Dylan (2018). "Undeniably Difficult: Extradition and Genocide Denial Laws". Washington University Global Studies Law Review. 17 (3): 680.

One of them is "a student-edited legal journal", which comments on the Library of Congress, while the other is the Holodomor Studies on which we have no article about it and is unclear what is its publisher, etc. Do they clarify what it means diminishing the scale and significance of the famine, which was removed by Paul Siebert as Holocaust trivialization? Are all respected scholars who do not consider the famine as genocide denialists in the sense they diminish the significance because they do not consider it to be a genocide?

Are those who, irrespective on whether they think it was genocide or not, say there is an Holocaust trivialization (e.g. "a competition among victims in constructing an 'Ukrainian Holocaust'", see Barkan, Elazar; Cole, Elizabeth A.; Struve, Kai (2007). Shared History, Divided Memory: Jews and Others in Soviet-Occupied Poland, 1939–1941. Leipziger Universitätsverlag. pp. 120–121.) denialists for diminishing its significance? It certainly does not help that of all sources that could be used in reference to a large-scale, man-made famine in Soviet Ukraine from 1932–1933, we have the outdated and Holocaust trivializing Execution by Hunger: The Hidden Holocaust (1985). In light of this, Siebert seemed to have a point here, and if that statement is to stay, we should at least clarify what it entails (e.g. if there are Holodomor denial laws, how do they define and what does it count as denialism? Other than saying the famine never happened, which is, of course, nonsense and pure denialism). Davide King (talk) 07:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Inviting user:Stix1776 to join: they just deleted part of the definition which is being discussed, with the edit summary “Of the three sources, the only one mentioning "diminishing" is the Library of Congress Subject Headings, which isn't considered a source in Wikipedia.” This is false.

• Fotiadis 2018, p 680, note 16, directly quotes the LOCSH definition to support a survey of examples of what it calls “the phenomenon of post-genocide denialism,” and “denialism of atrocities”: “Holodomor Denial, Library of Congress Subject Headings 8 (2012), (the ‘Holodomor denial‘ literature includes works that ‘diminish the scale and significance ofthe Ukrainian famine of 1932-1933 or assert that it did not occur‘).”
• Dobczansky 2009, pp 159–160 closely paraphrases the LOCSH definition in defining and describing denialist literature, which is half of the article’s subject: “Most recently, on July 1, 2009 the Policy and Standards Division of the Library of Congress approved two new subject headings: Holodomor denial literature (for works that diminish the scale and significance ofthe Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 or assert that it did not occur) and Holodomor denial (for works that discuss the diminution of the scale and significance of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 or the assertion that it did not occur).”
• Who determined the LOC Subject Headings is not a reliable source? It is a secondary source defining the world’s biggest system of classifying sources of all types. If we were to consider it a primary source, it is still helpful to quote it in support of the two other secondary sources that rely on it.

As this is under discussion and I find Stix1776 misread the sources, I am reverting the change, again. —Michael Z. 20:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Fotiadis - it's literally just a quote of the LOC definition, inside an actual footnote, which as User:Paul Siebert has said, the LOC just cites Wikidata.Stix1776 (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Dobczansky - this just quotes the LOC definition. Again, back to the LOC.Stix1776 (talk) 03:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Who determined that LOC Subject Headings are reliable? They're not referenced at all in WP:RS. You have multiple editors disagreeing with you on them. The onus is on you to justify them, not us to refute them.Stix1776 (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: this was a problematic edit by Mzajac: [15]. The first source's page number was not provided (but according to others it did not support the statement; the second source did not cover the topic of Holodomor minimization; and the LOC subject heading is not even a source. I support the edit's removal. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  IMO, LOC is more like an empty box that is anticipated to be filled with some content. However, maybe, it make sense to discuss that question on WP:SOURCES talk page. Maybe, some explanations should be added to guidelines. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit waring and skipping WP:BOLD to keep bad and questionable sources

I've already pinged User:Mzajac here [16] and he avoided the discussion entirely. He reverted to keep in edits [17] with a bad source. Can we please keep with the spirit of Wp:BOLD. If your edits are reverted, bring them to the talk page. It's not the responsibility of the reviewing editor to have to fight ever every questionable edit. It's the editor who's adding information who is supposed to bring it to the talk page.

In regards to Mzajac's edit, yes Kravchuk's comment is not a valid self source WP:SELFSOURCE as it does involve claims about third-parties, it's self serving, and this topic isn't about him personally. Regardless, this is an issue that should be discussed in the talk page, not fought over in edits.

Please don't bring this kind of editing here. Can we please just try to use reliable sources and reference them honestly.Stix1776 (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I also want to make a request for editors of this to add *one good source*, with a page number if the document is several pages long. Adding 3 questionable sources that no one has the time to read seems to be the normal way that editors here like to pass controversial original research through. It's hard not to wonder that this isn't intentional Stix1776 (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Stix1776, I’m sorry I wasn’t able to deal with another editor’s inappropriate edit summary, but you don’t get to demand services from WP:volunteers. Bringing that and an unrelated matter into this content dispute is not WP:assuming good faith and borderline WP:casting aspersions. I do not want to defend myself against all the complaints you’re piling up here. Please take a breath and try again, or take your complaints to an administrator.

The wording has been in the lead for six years.[18] There’s an active discussion and no consensus to change it. This is WP:BRD working. —Michael Z. 17:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Literally requesting that editors add one good source instead of multiple weak sources is hardly "demanding services". I really want to assume good faith, and this would start by working with high quality, secondary, scholarly sources.

The other editor removed unsourced content, which is the appropriate thing to do. It's your additions of the LOC sources that's the new edit. I get that this is a borderline situation, but adding the LOC, against a revision, is definitely a hill that should be discussed out in the talk page before adding the page.Stix1776 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Stix1776, The complaint you linked says nothing about sources. And I’d like you to please delete or strike your irrelevant link to an unrelated enforcement against me. This is a very inappropriate way to start a conversation. Or maybe you ought to list off the complaints against you at WP:ANI and on your talk page about combative editing and edit warring, including on this very article. You are intentionally creating a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Let’s nip this in the bud so we can get back to editing.

The initial edit we’re discussing is the removal of a sourced statement. By removing it again, and removing additional sources, you are ignoring WP:BRD. Can we go back to square one, or shall we see what an uninvolved administrator thinks? —Michael Z. 19:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment I removed the personal stuff. Although, um, you're getting very personal with Paul. Do you really want to "assume good faith"? In regards to me pinging you, there were two poor sources being discussed [19][20]. You're not required to get involved, I realize. There wasn't a source for the "diminishing" section until you added the LOC section. I'm OK if you want to invite an admin.Stix1776 (talk) 07:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Michael, I agree that that user seems redundantly aggressive, and you both should take a break. We have a more important issue to discuss. It seems "Denial of Holodomor" is just a card in political games played by right nationalists and antisemits. We need to think how all of that should be presented in this article. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

And you seem to have a problem with this article’s subject, a strong, seemingly ideological, opinion not supported by reliable sources. If you intend to recast it as a concept serving “right nationalists and antisemits,” or are labelling editors who don’t agree with you with the pejoratives “right nationalists and antisemits,” then I suggest you might be setting out to WP:RIGHT GREAT WRONGS and not be prepared to edit this objectively at all. —Michael Z. 23:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

If you want me to treat you seriously, please, read my posts carefully. I never said that Holodomor is denied only by Ukrainian nationalists. My claim (actually, not my claim, but the claim of one Ukrainian scholar) is that the attempts to create the "denial of Holodomor" concept by mirroring the "Holocaust denial" concept is a political game with quite clear goals.

Ok, I can explain it again, in different words. The fact that some officials and even some state deny the very fact that Holodomor occurred is well known, it can and should be discussed in this article. However, this discussion should not pretend to mirror the Holocaust denial topic: these two events were totally different, they are seen differently by majority of authors. Thus, as I already demonstrated the very definition of "denial of Holodomor" is hard to find, and I strongly suspect that no commonly accepted definition exists (in contrast to Holocaust). It is also necessary to note that "denial of Holodomor" concept is a tool that is being used by Ukrainian nationalists in their political struggle. In contrast to the Holocaust, this topic should also be covered in this article.

In other words, (i) the information about Russian authorities or officials who, in attempts to deny the obvious, are trying to pretend no Holodomor ever occurred can and should be presented in the article, but (ii) the information about Ukrainian nationalists, who, in attempts to capitalize on the tragedy of Ukrainian people, play Holodomor cards and present it as "another Holocaust", should also be discussed here.

That is what I discovered by a very brief search, and I am surprised that you are not familiar with that. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

That is a personal essay citing no sources. Not a useful contribution. —Michael Z. 17:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert seems to be focused on the sources and research. user:Mzajac, why can't you focus discussion on the sources? See my thread below. We're not seeing "Holodomor Denial" defined. Do you want to comment on that instead of worrying about his ideology?Stix1776 (talk) 08:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert hasn’t mentioned any sources, only his theory. Without backing of reliable sources or consensus, it appears to be fringe. One should desist from editing Wikipedia articles based on fringe theories.

The Library of Congress Subject Headings is an authoritative, professional, reliable secondary source of a definition statement; it aggregates information and it cites its sources. It also classifies other sources in its “Subject of Works” sidebar. It is in turn cited by other sources. Since you refuse to revert the deletion while we discuss it, I will get someone else involved shortly. —Michael Z. 17:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

If you scroll down this talk page, you may find the More on sources subsection. Do me a favor, read it, please. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Article lead is blatant OR and Synth

The article lead states "Denial of the Holodomor (Ukrainian: Заперечення Голодомору, Russian: Отрицание Голодомора) is the false claim that the Holodomor, a large-scale, man-made famine in Soviet Ukraine from 1932–1933 did not occur". There were 5 sources used in that sentence, yet none of them say what this sentence states and try to define the phrase "Denial of the Holodomor", which I'm going to show.

• Reference #1 : The Hidden Holocaust By Miron Dolot

The famine of 1932-33 in the Soviet Union has been an entirely ignored, neglected, misinterpreted, and distorted event. To this day even though Soviet dignitaries themselves matter-of-factly discuss it, some "experts" on the Soviet Union ("Sovietologists") here in the United States persistently adhere to the original Soviet denial of its existence. This probably explains why no thorough study of this famine has ever been made in the USA. Americans have had difficulty in accepting a story so unbelievably inhuman.

• Reference #2 : The Black Book of Communism by Stéphane Courtois etc

Unlike the famine of 1921-22, which the Soviet authorities acknowledged and even sought to redress with help from the international community, the famine of 1932-33 was always denied by the regime. The few voices abroad that attempted to draw attention to the tragedy were silenced by Soviet propaganda. The Soviet authorities were assisted by statements such as that made by Edouard Herriot, the French senator and leader of the Radical Party, who traveled through Ukraine in 1933. Upon his return he told the world that Ukraine was full of "admirably irrigated and cultivated fields and collective farms" resulting in "magnificent harvests."...

• Reference #3 : Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime by Richard Pipes

Duranty had the good fortune to choose Stalin early as Lenin’s most likely successor (he later boasted that he had picked “the right horse on which to bet in the Russian race”247), which greatly helped his career after Lenin’s death. His eulogies of Stalin became ever more exorbitant and his mendaciousness ever more brazen. In the 1930s he praised collectivization and in 1932–34 denied the Ukrainian famine. To lure investments to Soviet Russia, he spread false stories about the great profits allegedly made by American businessmen there, especially his friend Armand Hammer.

• Reference #4 : Stalin: The First In-depth Biography by Edvard Radzinsky

He had achieved the impossible: he had silenced all talk of hunger. Any mention of “famine in the countryside” he condemned as “counterrevolutionary agitation.”

-Note: This source doesn't even once mention the "Holodomor". As far as I can see, "denial" or "deny" isn't mentioned either.

• Reference #5 : Reflections on a Ravaged Century by Robert Conquest

It was already an offense carrying five years in labor camp to refer to the famine in any way, even in the villages affected: while to blame it on the authorities led to a death sentence. An American congressman's queries, passed to the Soviet Foreign Commissariat, were answered by the claim that talk of famine was "lies circulated by counterrevolutionary organisations"; while Soviet President Mikhail Kalinin responded to offers of food from the West by saying that "only the most decadent classes are capable of producing such cynical elements." After the economic disaster of collectivization there were two possibilities: to admit failure and change policy, even to relinquish total power; or to pretend that success had been achieved. The latter course was chosen. In fact, the idea, contradicted by reality, coped with reality by denying it. As a result, for the whole of the rest of the Soviet epoch the country lived a double existence — an official world of fantasy, of happiness, grand achievements, wonderful statistics, liberty and democracy, and a reality of gloom, suffering, terror, denunciation and apparatchik degeneration.

-Note: I'm not seeing the word "Holodomor" in this book either, although maybe I'm missing it.

Where is "Denial of the Holodomor" defined anywhere in these texts? The word "deny" or "denial" was literally once in sentences, but a formal "denial of the Holodomor" was never given a definition.Stix1776 (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

"Holodomor" is a part of the Soviet Famine of 1932-33, and different sources use these two terms interchangeably, so the absence of that word is not a big problem.

However, I agree that, unless additional quotes will be provided from the same source, it is not possible to use it to support the current version of the lead. They support the claim that the fact that Holodomor occurred is/was denied by some authors and/or state officials, or its scale was understated. That is the only statement that we can make per WP:NOR. Paul Siebert (talk) 08:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The definition issue is something I pointed out above, and the first source proved Siebert's statement of it being Holocaust obfuscation correct, then at least other three sources are from the anti-communist side of historiography (Conquest, Courtois, and Pipes). It does not mean they cannot be used but why not actually cite experts like Ellman, Rosefielde, Snyder, Suny, Wheatcroft, and the like? I'd prefer citing the most neutral sources, so that they cannot be considered to be anti-communist by those who are in fact pro-Communist, and they are by no means pro-Communist either; they are just, if not more, as reliable, are more neutral, and some of those are even better reliable sources in regards to the Holodomor. I have to confirm my agreement with Siebert's earlier comment that this article tries to mirror Holocaust denial but in practice the body has more to do with Soviet and other authors denial of the famine in the 1930s and during the Cold War, so which is the main topic? Davide King (talk) 10:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm OK with letting famine and holodomor be used interchangeably if other editors think it's ok. No I needn't be strict about their use. I'm also very happy to use more scholarly, less political authors. I'm seeing books like Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got It Wrong... and The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History used as sources, which are clearly hard-right polemics.

As I mentioned in another thread, I'm not seeing really any scholarly work treat "Holodomor Denial" as its own topic. I'm unsure where to go from here. Does this get a tag? A rewrite? A deletion request? Honestly I'm a newish editor and I humbly ask for the insights of experienced editors here. Stix1776 (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

More on sources

Anticipating a possible accusation of a bias, I would like to explain that the below post is based on a very brief research that took literally 10 minutes. That can be easily checked by repeating all my actions that are totally uncontroversial and are based on some very trivial assumptions. First, to check my previous assertion that this article is trying to mimic the Holocaust denial topic, I decided to do a simple test.

• I performed this search, which yielded a number of sources, and the second source in the list (Yehuda Bauer's article), contains a definition of the Holocaust denial (by International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance), which is pretty close to what Wikipedia says. Therefore, everything is ok with the Holocaust denial article. In addition, it is clear from those sources that the Holocaust denial is a crime in many countries, and that is not a surptize its definition is clear and unequivocal.
• Similar search made for Holodomor yielded the following results. None of the sources at the top of the list provided a clear definition of the Holodomor denial. Interestingly, one of the sources makes the following statement.

"Sometimes the formula “Holodomor and/versus Holocaust”manifests itself in an attempt to “balance”these two events. For instance, the 2008 student competition called “Lessons of the War and Holocaust –Lessons of Tolerance,”which was initiated by Tkuma and judged by the officials of the Ministry of Education and Sciences several times. Initially, it spoke about the “lessons of the Holocaust,”whilst the subsequent draft envisioned the “study of the history of the Holocaust and holodomors, ”and the final version noted a “support for the study of Ukrainian history: the holodomors in Ukraine, the events of the Second World War, and the Holocaust.”

Perhaps the most telling example of the copying of commemorative practices of the Holocaust is the criminalization of “Holodomor denial.”All thirteen attempts to introduce civil or criminal responsibility for denial of Holodomor as such or as a genocide referred to the “Western”practices of the persecution of the “Holocaust denial.”As in many other cases, the experience of commemorating the Holocaust was used primarily to promote the genocidal version of Holodomor."

The author clearly says that issue is a part of political games:

"The Holodomor-Holocaust pair re-emerged in the political games of 2014. MPs from the nationalist “Svoboda” party submitted a draft law proposing the introduction of criminal sanctions “for the denial of the Holodomor as a fact of genocide of the Ukrainian people and the Holocaust as a fact of genocide of the Jewish people. ”The Holocaust rhetoric was routinely used as a stand-in for the idea of criminalizing the “denial of the Holodomor”(this use of the Holocaust by the members of a party with notoriously anti-Semitic leadership was like a bad joke). Notably, the “denial of Holocaust as a fact of genocide” disappeared from the next submissions of the same draft law, then devoted to the criminalization of the denial of Holodomor as a genocide ratified by Svoboda in November 2017 and September 2020. Poroshenko also did not avoid the temptation of using the Holodomor-Holocaust formula. In a speech devoted to the anniversary of the Great Famine of 1932–33 he stated, that “not recognizing Holodomor is as immoral as not recognizing Holocaust” and proposed sanctions for Holodomor and Holocaust denial.

After 2014, the Ukrainian ruling class have also become more consistent in following the Eastern European model of memory in equating Communism and Nazism (within the “double victim”model of historical memory). This has added a new nuance to the comparison of the Holodomor and Holocaust and it is now possible to hear media outlets professing the ethnocentric narrative that Stalin destroyed millions of Ukrainians just as Hitler exterminated millions of Jews."

I am not too interested in that topic, and I am not pretending to be an expert in it. However, I am surprized that my initial assertion appeared to be so easy to confirm by means of a totally neutral search procedure. Interestingly, the author (who seems to be affiliated with Institute of the History of Ukraine, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine) goes even further in his conclusions, and clearly says that implicit equating of Holodomor with the Holocaust is the part of the agenda of right Ukrainian nationalists, and equating of Nazism and Communism is the part of the modern Eastern European political model.

I think all said above is a serious argument in favour of a major rewriting of the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I do agree with your conclusion that "Holodomor Denial" isn't treated very seriously in the sources. Can you suggest a path? I'm still a newbie with Wikipedia.Stix1776 (talk) 08:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Probably, merge this article with Holodomor in modern politics. I think a discussion of Holodomor denial (which is really occurs in some countries) should be placed in a proper context, and "Holodomor in modern politics" creates that context. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

That's a good idea, and I'll definitely get the ball rolling with that. I did want some response from the *other side* of this debate, so at least I can see that I'm not misquoting or misreading those sources. I added that tag to get more feedback. If you two (or another uninvolved editor) disagrees, than I can take the tag down.Stix1776 (talk) 11:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Stix1776: Sorry for delay, I support it. Next time, if you need my feedback, please, ping me. Paul Siebert (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry @Paul Siebert:, I just finished a big project at work. Now I have a bit of time to look at this.Stix1776 (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I have reproduced your fully objective and transparent methodology by, as you suggested, "repeating your actions". Surprisingly, I have found the following definitions, which must have obviously missed in a completely random slip of keyboard as they clearly appear not only in the search results of your fully objective and transparent search query, but, incidentally, even in the same documents you quoted!

The Great Famine of 1932–33 (called Holodomor or “murder by hunger”) and the Holocaust both occurred on the territory of contemporary Ukraine in the 1930s–40s. Both events were objects of deliberate or even forced amnesia and became suppressed memories in Soviet times. (...) On 28 March 2007, Yushchenko submitted a draft law “On Introducing Modifications into the Ukrainian Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure (On Responsibility for Denial of Holodomor of 1932–33 as a Genocide of Ukrainian People and Denial of Holocaust as a Fact of Genocide).” He proposed the introduction of criminal responsibility for “the denial of the Holodomor of 1932–33 as the genocide of the Ukrainian people and the Holocaust as the genocide of Jewish people.”[21]

Above we have the first definition of "Holodomor denial": the legal one as proposed in Ukrainian legislation. Another article by Joey Meyer, interestingly published as part of a historians conference in Russia (!) in 2012:

Soviet revisionist history and the general veil of secrecy surrounding official policies kept the Holodomor out of the international spotlight until the fall of the USSR in 1991. (...) There has been a relatively large Holodomor denial movement ever since the Great Famine, initially launched by Soviet authorities and then carried on my Soviet sympathizers across the world. The modern Russian government has refused to recognize the Holodomor as genocide against the Ukrainian people, stating that there is “no historical evidence that he famine was organized on ethnic grounds” (Russian Foreign Ministry Information and Press Department, 2008) The government instead chose to point out that Stalin’s regime committed crimes against all peoples of the Soviet Union; qualifying more as democide or politicide.[22]

We have three further definitions of "Holodomor denial": first, the Soviet denial of any state responsibility, the Soviet ban on any debate on that subject, and Holodomor denial plus justifications, as practicised by Soviet fellow travellers.

We have more or less covered the 70 years of Holodomor denial, let's now move to the modern history:

In the past five years, the issue of the Holodomor, that is, the man-made Famine of 1932-33, has occupied a much more prominent position in Ukrainian politics and society than it was ever accorded during the 1990s, let alone in the previous decades when the issue was effectively silenced by the Soviet authorities, and any references to Holodomor were criminalized. (...) The main divide, however, shifted from a rather crude ideological controversy over Holodomor recognition versus Holodomor denial towards a more sophisticated controversy over interpretations of the Holodomor as either genocide against Ukrainian people or a Stalinist crime against humanity, which targeted both Ukrainian and Russian, Kazakh and other Soviet peasants.[23]

What the above source confirms is one hardly deniable fact: Holodomor denial in its most outright form, denial of it happening and ban on any discussion on the state responsibility, existed for over 70 years in the Soviet Union. And it was only after USSR collapsed when the topic became subject of open academic research, academic and political debate, and yes, unavoidably political games. Yet, it is wrong and unacceptable to frame the whole 70 years of hard Soviet denial to just the last element.

And in another article published in the UK by a British academic we even have a comparison of Holodomor and Holocaust denials, including their justification (I highlight it, as some of us are obsessed with an idea that this is only done by Eastern Europeans for their nefarious purposes):

Holodomor denial, much like denial of the Holocaust, is almost universally justified by specious or invalid evidence which exists only to obstruct what has been deemed to be an event of historical truth. Indeed, much of the denial of the Holodomor centres on the supposed complete lack of evidence of Stalin outright stating his plan to attack Ukraine and its inhabitants, but it should be noted that explicit statements of plans to attack are rarely made.[24]

A digression, this fragment would also make a great source for Mass killings under communist regimes:

The Holodomor serves as a reminder that governments can be responsible for millions of deaths without actively exterminating their populations. Although the Holodomor was not an attempt to exterminate the Ukrainian people, it was a crime against humanity and a result of unrealistic industrialization policy goals.[25]

Hope this helps. I do encourage everyone to "trust but verify" the sources and especially quotes supplied by people participating in the discussion because, as you can see, even the most objective source search can miss key fragments. Cloud200 (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cloud200: First, I would be grateful if next time you pinged me when you discussing my posts, otherwise I may not notice your response.

Second, I am not sure what point you try to debunk.

Let me explain that one more time.

• The fact that Holodomor was denied in the past by Soviet authorities is absolutely indosputable.
• The fact that some modern politicians and writers, mostly marginal ones, deny Holodomor is also totally obvious.
• However, there is no commonly accepted definition of the term "Holodomor denial", similar to "The Holocaust denial". One important reason is that these two events are of different nature: the Holocaust is universally recognized as genocide, the number of its victims is pretty well known, and there is nearly a universal consensus about it. Therefore, even a discussion of the number of victims ("not 5.5. millions, but only 4 millions") or a claim that some local nationalists did not killed Jews is tantamount to the Holocaust denial. In contrast, Holodomor is currently a subject of debates: there is even no agreement on whether it was genocide or not. If some definition of "Holodomor denial" will be proposed (similar to the Holocaust denial), neutral scholars who study Holodomor may be accused of denial (which would be ridiculous).
• Finally, some politicians who are pushing the idea of "Holodomor denial" are in reality political successors of Nazi collaborators who actively participated in the Holocaust (UPA). And it is hardly our goal to help them play Holodomor card.

In connection to that, I see not much contradiction between my point of view and the sources presented by you.

With regard to your last source, yes, Holodomor was a man-made famine. As well as all other XX century famines, per Amartya Sen. And, therefore, your source correctly says that Holodomor is a reminder about governments (not "Communist governments") may be responsible for for millions of deaths, but that does not refer specifically to Communism.

By the way one of your sources perfectly demonstrates my point. It says " Although the Holodomor was not an attempt to exterminate the Ukrainian people...", and you must agree that that is a good, reliable and respectable source. Can you imagine a source saying " Although the Holocaust was not an attempt to exterminate Jews..."? Obviously, a very discussion of the question if the Holocaust was an attempt to exterminate Jews is denialism (which is criminalised in many countries). And the attempts to create the concept of Holodomor denial that mimics the Holocaust denial is, de facto, a kind of the Holocaust trivialisation.

Finally, as you can see from my previous posts, I am almost always provide links to my sources, thereby encouraging other users to "trust, but verify" my words. Therefore, your last statement is somewhat offencive, because it implies that I am a liar or cheater. You should to stop that. It is disruptive.

 Paul Siebert (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: "The fact that Holodomor was denied in the past by Soviet authorities is absolutely indosputable." - excellent, so finally we have at least one definition of Holocaust denial that we agree on! That was precisely my point. Nobody can't argue "there is no definition of Holodomor denial" if its denial by Soviet authorities for 70 years is, as you said, "indisputable". Cloud200 (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: "Holodomor is currently a subject of debates" - have you ever wondered why exactly it's subject of debates currently, in 2000's, rather than in 1940's? Well, to me it's kind of obvious, and it's supported by "indisputable" sources, that the only reason why it's a hot topic today is that Soviet Union denied it and prevented research or debate for 70 years (opening of Ukrainian NKVD archives only happened after 2014, after it became truly independent of Russia), and Soviet Union never had its Nurnberg trial. Cloud200 (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: "it is hardly our goal to help them play Holodomor card" - our goal is neither to help or prevent anyone from playing any card, our job is to objectively report on the facts. The fact of Holodomor denial for 70 years is "indisputable". The fact that Soviet policies intentionally and artificially turned a lower-than-average harvest into a famine is an "indisputable" fact". Whether it was genocide or democide, is disputed. Whether there were 5 or 6 millions victims is disputed, because the perpetrator efficiently covered his tracks. That there were a few millions of victims is indisputable. Our job here is to document both the indisputable facts, and the presence and causes for the dispute on the disputable ones. Cloud200 (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cloud200: I am not sure how that helps us with a definition. Denial of Holodomor by Soviet authorities is a fact, but does any definition follow from that?

For example, if I somebody claims that I, Paul Siebert deny the fact that little green men exist, is it sufficient for proposing a definition of some "Denial of LGM"?

Please, understand me correctly, this article may have a right to exist or it must be merged with its mother article - I have no strong opinion on that. However, I object to presenting "Denial of Holodomor" as some phenomenon that has some specific definition. This article tells about separate instances of denial of Holodomor by some officials, but that is not something that is universally seen as a phenomenon with a concrete definition.

WRT, "The fact that Soviet policies intentionally and artificially turned a lower-than-average harvest into a famine is an "indisputable" fact"" No. Different sources have different opinia. You should read more on this topic. Holodomor was a part of greater Soviet famine, which was not created intentionally. It was more a result of strategic blunders. I find more convincing the views of some scholars like M Ellman, who concluded that Holodomor (but not the Soviet famine as a whole), during some concrete period of time and in some concrete region had some traits of intentionality and there were some genocidal intents. However, Ellman concluded that it never was planned, and the decision to use famine as a weapon against some category of peasants in some regions of Ukraine and North Caucasus was made by "team Stalin" ad hoc, when the famine already started.

WRT "genocide vs democide", you misunderstand that. "Democide" sounds scary, but it means nothing: it means any death that is linked, directly or indirectly to some state's act of commission or omission. When literally everything is democide, nothing is democide. In contrast, "genocide" is a legal category (a crime). Paul Siebert (talk) 19:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cloud200:, posting unpublished articles titled "HOLODOMOR ESSAY PRIZE 2021: SECOND PLACE"[26] isn't really helpful.Can we please stop the use of unreliable sources or changing the obvious meaning of sources. The rest of your sources don't go into much detail on "Holodomor Denial" or give it much space. So why should Wikipedia?Stix1776 (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Stix1776: Please direct your complaints to Paul Siebert because this source was found using his ultimately "objectively and transparent methodology", which he has been using since September to push his POV under the guise of NPOV. As noted above, I merely reproduced his steps on Google Scholar and got this source on first page of results. So either the source must be trusted, or his "objective and transparent" methodology is rubbish (which I and other people has been explaining for the last 4 months). Cloud200 (talk)

@Cloud200: Keep in mind WP:CIR. Before claiming that you used my procedure, you must provide evidences. The evidence includes a link to you search (we need to see what keywords you used, the position of your source in the search results list, and the number of citations). Second, I never claimed that every source in the google.scholar search list is good: sometimes, it returns master theses or similar questionable sources. I never claimed we may treat every source found via google.scholar as 100% reliable. If you don't understand that, then you need to learn more how to use my approach. Please, ask me, and I'll explain.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cloud200: You (or I, or anybody else) cannot just claim "I found this source using a transparent and neutral procedure". A correct claim is like this:

• "I selected these keywords "Holodomor denial" and performed a google scholar search. The first source in the list obtained is the article by M Riabchuk from Colimbia University web site. The article was cited 23 times, mostly by peer-reviewed publications, and it seems there was no serious criticism of author's statements. Therefore, I found this source reliable and relevant to the topic"
• If I (or somebody else) wanted to check you, we can always do the same operations as you did, and we either confirm, that yes, Cloud200's search is reproducible and non biased, or we may see that our results are different. In the former case, everything is ok, in the latter case, after some brief consultations, we may jointly do the search that will resolve misunderstanding, and, again, everything will be ok. That is what I call a transparent procedure: everybody can see how you obtained your source, and if your procedure has no mistakes or flaws, every good faith user must agree with your decision to use this concrete source.
• However, some user may disagree with your choice of keywords, or they may argue that your source was insufficiently cited, or that its publisher is not reputable, or that the author is not an expert, etc. All of that is verifiable and falsifiable, so, after a brief discussion you and that user will inevitably come to some consensus.

That is how my procedure works.

I believe there should be no misunderstanding on that account among us, but if something is still unclear, or you believe my procedure has some flaws, please, let me know. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: @Stix1776: Let me also add that I'm interpreting you quietly ignoring my comments from 20 December, rather than providing a five-page-long polemic, as a general agreement with these comments and admission that at least the 70-years-long Soviet denial of Holodomor is an indisputable fact that justifies the presence of the article regardless of any post-1990 debates. Cloud200 (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cloud200: Please, don't forget to ping me next time if you want me to respond to your posts.

With regard to the rest, let me explain my position again.

• The fact that Holodomor was denied by Soviet authorities is indisputable.
• Does it warrant a separate article, or that fact should be discussed in a separate section of Holodomor is a subject of discussion. Per WP:NPOV, All facts and significant points of view on a given subject should be treated in one article except in the case of a spinoff sub-article, and we need a separate discussion if creation of this article meets WP:SPINOFF criteria (I have no opinion yet, maybe yes, maybe no).
• The attempt to create a topic in the same style as Holocaust denial is unacceptable, because these two events, and our degree of knowledge about them are incomparable. In addition, the attempt to present "Holodomor denial" in the same style as Holocaust denial is a political game played by some Ukrainian nationalists who, at the same time, are engaged in the Holocaust obfuscation and denial.

Is my position clear to you now? Paul Siebert (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: Last time you complained there's no "widely accepted definition of the denial", so hopefully you have now acknowledged its existence. I read the fact that you've now moved to a much weaker argument "out of the 70 years of Holodomor denial a few marginal politicians used it for their purposes so let's not give them ammunition" as such acknowledgement. And I of course don't agree with it. The weight of the Soviet and Western pro-Soviet left denial is so overwhelming that it certainly justifies presence of such article. Cloud200 (talk) 19:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cloud200: See my post below. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: I did not provide a link to the search because I just clicked your search links and quite precisely described location of the results ("first page"). Cloud200 (talk) 07:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cloud200: Good. That means your agreed that my search was not tendentious. That is good. In future, if you believe my keyword choice was not adequate or biased, feel free to provide your own search results. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: Your choice of keywords was fine, only your choice of sources and quotes was not. Cloud200 (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cloud200: Can you please elaborate what exactly was wrong? Paul Siebert (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: Maybe if you spent more effort on reading other peoples' comments rather than writing your monologues that discussion would be more fruitful. So once again, repeating what I already wrote above: you made a far-fetching statement that "none of the sources at the top of the list provided a clear definition of the Holodomor denial" that you "proved" using an "objective" methodology. Your statement was trivially debunked using not only your own search query, but actually the same sources (Kasianov) which you quoted as allegedly not containing such definition. I can only attribute such omission to either extreme sloppiness or subconscious bias. Cloud200 (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cloud200: Ok, now I see what you mean. The sources that you quoted are Kasyanov and Belgorod University Proceedings, right? If that is what you mean, then the second source is hardly serious: it contains the articles authored by undergrads and grad students from some local Russian university. I am not sure this is really a RS.

Kasyanov is more serious source, and I saw it. However, this author proposes no definition of "Holodomor denial". He discusses a legal definituiion proposed by Ukrainian authorities. These are totally different things. This definition is suitable for the article about that Ukrainian law, not about the denial as a phenomenon.

In contrast, I didn't get an impression that the author (Kasyanov) shares the point of view of Ukrainian authorities. It seems that the whole article is not about denial of Holodomor, but about political games around that issue.

Therefore, my conclusion remains in force, and your arguments are unconvincing.

That does not mean no definition of "denial of Holodomor" exists, but we can tell for sure that our search so far failed to provide such a definition. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cloud200: For comparison, that a look at this. In two clicks I find the article that is specifically devoted to the Holocaust denial topic, and that speaks about the Holocaust denial movement, that has concrete goals and theses:

"There are two general rhetorical trends in the Holocaust denial movement: (1) the Negationists who claim that the Holocaust never occurred; and (2) the Revisionists who admit that something like the historical Holocaust occurred but make revisionist arguments about the scope of the crime, challenging things such as the official number of Jews murdered and whether gas chambers were used to carry out mass murder."

Can you find anything of that kind about "Holodomor denial"? Note, I found this source literally in one click.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Stix1776: "rest of your sources don't go into much detail on "Holodomor Denial" - are you seriously claiming that there are no sources that "go into much" detail about Soviet denial of Holodomor for 70 years? Cloud200 (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Indisputably man-made?

I don’t know enough about the subject to make an overall judgement, but it seems the only source cited to declare affirmatively it was an intentional and man-made crisis is one book from 1985? Happy to be corrected if wrong, but seems to be quite a problem, if not NPOV, then seriously under-cited 2600:1008:B14E:B0DE:3170:2558:F4A5:94BF (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

"Man-made" and intentional are two totally different things. Amartya Sen claims that virtually all XX century famines were man-made, so Holodomor is more a rule than an exception. Paul Siebert (talk) 05:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

That’s not true. Although the Soviets did politicize famine relief in other famines, the Holodomor was not the same as any others. See Andriewsky 2015 pp 26–27, the sixteen points quoted from Mace 1988, plus the fact that the Soviets attempted to completely deny the famine then explain it away for the next 55 years.

There has been significant debate over the last decades about whether it met the legal definition of genocide. But there is no academic debate over its artificiality, even among opponents of the genocide view. Andriewsky p 37:

“What is significant here—and a measure of how much the understanding of the Holodomor has changed—is the very narrowness of the debate that Soldatenko describes. Even the opponents of the concept of the Holodomor as genocide accept the basic outlines of what happened. Among historians, there is no significant argument over the number of people who died.There is a general agreement that they died as a result of the policies implemented by the Party leadership, the introduction of unrealistically high grain quotas, and the confiscation of grain resources and food. Historians of Ukraine are no longer debating whether the Famine was the result of natural causes. The academic debate appears to come down to the issue of intentions, to whether the special measures undertaken in Ukraine in the winter of 1932–33 that intensified starvation were aimed at Ukrainians as such. For Soldatenko, however, the debate is really about the significance of what happened—no small issue, by any means. For him and others, the Holodomor was the tragic price—a terribly steep but ultimately justifiable price—that was paid for ‘modernization.’”

 —Michael Z. 04:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Please, read carefully what I wrote, and take it literally: I said that the words "man-made" do not imply anything, for all XX century famines were man-made. That doesn't mean Holodomor was just an average famine, but it doesn't make it a usual famine either. "Man-made" means nothing specific.

My words referred to "mad-made" not to Holodomor. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think you get it, and you’ve ignored my references. The debate about intentionality is the question of whether there was an intention to commit genocide against Ukrainians. There is no debate that mass famine deaths resulted from intentional acts. Mass deaths were intentionally caused, not only by natural causes or accident, nor only by “man-made” necessity or incompetence, as some Holodomor deniers claim. Intentional actions were taken in the knowledge that mass deaths would result, and that determined who was to die. —Michael Z. 21:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

And I don't think you get what I say. I never denied the fact that Holodomor is a subject of debates. Yes, a significant fraction of authors emphasise intentionaity. I am not discussing that at all. I am just saying that it was "man-made" without any reservation, because ALL XX century famines were man-made. And that is why teh words "man-made" hardly carry any additional information about Holodomor. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

B.S. The phrase “man-made famine” is specifically used in books and in scholarly articles to denote aspects of the Holodomor, as well as of other specific events, that are different from other famines. —Michael Z. 20:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Google Scholar paints a different pictures than you claimed, and include the Bengal famine of 1943, and those in Sudan and Yemen, especially since 2017. Even your Google Books research should have alarmed you, as the first page is full of pre-1990s results and the second result was Mass Starvation: The History and Future of Famine (2017). The Holodomor is perhaps the most famous man-made famine but it was not the only one, and I think Siebert was correct. I ask you that you apologize to Siebert and recuse your "B.S." claim. Davide King (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, the first page of Google scholar has 9 sources that explicitly use such term in the title or snippet. 7 of them are about the Holodomor. Five include it in the title. All of them are about the Holodomor.. This is a confirmation that the term is mostly (although not exclusively) applied to the Ukrainian famine, exactly as Mzajac said. My very best wishes (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, it was indisputably man-made, just as many other famines. Was it intentional? Well, with NKVD troops preventing movement of people from affected areas (which did happen as a matter of historical fact), that was basically an execution. My very best wishes (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 26 May 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Denial of the Holodomor → Holodomor denial –  

Better fulfils the WP:CRITERIA:

• Naturalness: it’s arguably less awkward.
• Concision: it’s shorter.
• Consistency: with titles Genocide denial and every other article and subcategory of Category:Genocide denial.

WP:COMMONNAME asks us to use the most widely used name in WP:RS’s and this is it. For example, the the LOC subject headings used worldwide in English-language bibliographic cataloguing are Holodomor denial and Holodomor denial literature,[27][28] and Google Books Ngram shows that this term appears in sources, while the current title is below its threshold for inclusion.[29]  —Michael Z. 16:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. Naturalness, concision and WP:CONSISTENT with main title headers of other English Wikipedia articles that end with "denial", such as Armenian genocide denial, Bosnian genocide denial or Cambodian genocide denial, all as mentioned. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support per the above comments. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support for consistency. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.