Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:55, 10 December 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Holodomor article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20Auto-archiving period: 2 months

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

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

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

Template:Vital article

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ukraine Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Soviet Union: Russia / History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Russia (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Holodomor article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Template:WP1.0

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on November 24, 2007, November 22, 2008, November 28, 2009, and November 27, 2010.

What is a Birth Deficit?

Hi. What does "6.1 million birth deficit" mean? What is a birth deficit? You cannot possibly mean births that did not occur because of the famine, can you? Please be serious in your reply. Stevenmitchell (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• If that, in fact, is what is meant by a "birth deficit", than regardless of what is quoted in an article, it needs to be rephrased and couched in terms and in a context of meaning that is actually a reportable figure. Otherwise, the current global economic slowdown would equally have to be described as a global genocide because of the population reductions it is causing, particularly in Western nations; and that seems unwarranted as a valid description, since you cannot really count as a loss something that never really occurred... It is a potential, not an actuality. Stevenmitchell (talk) 08:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

"Birth deficit" is widely used in academic sources as a "term of art". And is widely used to provide figures relating to incidents which appear to be reflected in a pronounced lack of births over a period of time in many places. Where a term is so widely used, it is not up to use to reword it unless the sources reword it. Collect (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is indeed in the source, but help us out by telling us what you, or the sources, mean in this context: does it mean miscarriages because pregnant women were starving, or something less direct, like parents deciding not to conceive or being infertile because of starvation. There is a difference. cwmacdougall 13:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It is as well established as, say, "Gross National Product" and the idea that it "counts miscarriages" is not going to be a productive argument here. We use what the sources say and that is that. If you wish to start an encyclopedia where words mean what you wish them to mean, then do so. It is the difference between the expected number of births in a specified demographic group and the actual number of births in that group. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

So it does have the broad definition including lack of births due to people deciding not to have children? cwmacdougall 21:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Any references from reliable sources that the starving people simply did not choose to have children? While choosing not to have children is currently one cited reason for NRRs being less than 1 internationally, I did not find that given as a reason in the reliable sources cited for this article. Might you furnish your reliable source for that claim vide this article? Collect (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I was not claiming anything; you were. You said that "birth deficit" means lower than expected births, which surely must mean people choosing not to have children as well as miscarriages. I would expect that in the 30s, in famine areas, there were significant numbers of people feeling it was not a good time to have children, so the "6.1 million" must include some of them, mustn't it? The Holodomor was horrible enough without exaggerating numbers... cwmacdougall 23:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Please find any reliable source, heck even a tabloid useless source, which makes the apparent claim you feel might be apt. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I repeat: I am not claiming anything; I'm just trying to understand what you and the source are claiming. If you don't know, then say you don't know. cwmacdougall 13:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It means that fewer children were born during the famine for whatever reason. The deficit is the number of births required to maintain a constant population less the number of actual births. This information is required to calculate how many people died as a result of the famine. So if you know the total drop in population you can subtract the birth deficit to determine the number of deaths attributable to the famine. TFD (talk) 10:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me, but both the source and the article count "birth deficit" deaths in the total of people who died as a result of the famine. I think logically from your definition that "birth deficit" would include births that didn't happen because the potential parents decided it wasn't a good time to have children. I don't think that is what most people understand to be "deaths attributable to the famine", and it would explain some of the differences with lower estimates. Perhaps our text should make this more clear? cwmacdougall 14:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot of reasons for different estimates. A Russian source can severely reduce the numbers, or claim it never happened at all, which Ukrainians claim is Russians whitewashing the Soviet famine. While a Ukrainian source is more likely to cite higher numbers which Russians then claim is a result of far right nationalists trying to put out bad propaganda on Mother Russia. As to your attempt to explain the difference, there's a 3.2mil difference in actual casualties to start with which the birth deficit doesn't change. With the birth deficit itself, while there likely were some people who chose not to have children, we have no way of knowing how many people did that and how it changes the number. Any attempts to estimate numbers on Wiki without even a blog or tabloid source is original research and not permitted on Wiki. Chrissd21 (talk) 03:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The number of deaths due to the famine is the decrease in population minus the birth deficit. TFD (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit war by 173.76.253.77

Please, stop your edit war. You try to remove correct improvements. The current statement that besides Ukrainians only Cossack lands were concerned is not the whole truth. The famine spread to all agricultural parts of the Soviet Union, including the Lower Volga, Northern Kazakhstan and Southern Urals. Regions like Saratov, Tambov, Orenburg were among the most harmed by the famine. It's completely unjustified to hide that Holodomor war part of a much broader famine in the whole agricultural belt of the USSR. Even in the Ukrainian SSR, other ethnicities became victims proportionally to their population share: Russians, Jews, Poles, Bulgarians, Greeks etc. The denial of these facts and the attempt to portray Ukrainians as the single and exclusive victims is against the principle encyclopaedic accurateness and is politically-motivated. --Shervinsky (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

You started this war by changing the long-run, stable version of the article with you agenda, and also inserting statements that only few countries recognize this event as a genocide. I don't agree with your edits, and therefore I am simply reverting to the long-run version of the article, and yet you keep pushing your POV edits, without even discussing them. First of all, only Ukrainians and Cossacks (who are mostly of Ukrainian descent) refer to the Famine as the Holodomor! The Russians refer to this famine as the Soviet Famine, they don't use the word Holodomor. The non-Ukrainian portion of the Famine is called the Soviet Famine. There are two separate articles in Wikipeadia dealing with the famine -- the Holodomor and the Soviet Famine. If you want to write about other ethnicities perhaps you could just edit the Soviet Famine version, which deals with the broader notion of the famine of 1932-1933. Second, going back to your claims that Russians were also targeted by the famine, the "Russians" who died in the lower Volga region, Don region, Orenburg, Ural (Yaik) regions of Kazakhstan are the Cossacks, not Russians. Also ethnic Germans were the ones mostly targeted in the Saratov region (just check their numbers in the census before and after the famine). If you insist on other ethnicities, you should NAME who they are: Ukrainians, Cossacks, ethnic Germans, Russians. Don't hide the victims behind "other ethnicities". In his letters to Sholokhov, Stalin called this famine against the Cossacks "the war of attrition". This was a cold, pre-meditated murder by starvation, disproportionately targeting certain ethnic groups. In now way this was an oversight. This was a pure, calculated genocide.173.76.253.77 (talk) 05:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I was right, only some countries (about 20 out of 200) recognized Holodomor as some kind of ethnic genocide. My formulation is more precise than yours which suggests that it is recognized everywhere. Holodomor was part of a broader famine and it's more than legitimate to mention this fact. If you claim, that the Soviet Union had two simultaneous and differently-motivated famies that had nothing to do with each other you have to prove it. Cossacks are only partly descendants of Ukrainians. Kuban Cossacks are predominantly of Ukrainian descent, Don Cossacks, Volga Cossacks, Ural Cossacks are only marginally Ukrainian. Your attempt to portray everything as a deliberate act against ethnic Ukrainians (including Russian lands), is dubious and obscure. BTW, most Don Cossacks, Ural Cossacks, Volga Cossacks considered themselves as a subgroup of Russians. --Shervinsky (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. You have to provide the reliable references supporting your suggestions. --Andrux (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Trivial things don't need to be proved. Misplaced Pages rules exclude trivialities because it offers a broad field for vandals who try to disturb constructive work. The fact is that the famine covered all agricultural areas of the Soviet Union and if you claim that Holodomor had no connection to it and don't even agree to mention it, YOU need to provide proofs. --Shervinsky (talk) 10:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

We are talking about non-trivial issues here. Holodomor was tightly concentrated within certain (but not all) parts of the black soil agricultural regions. The parts seem to perfectly coincide with the borders of Ukraine, the former Don, Kuban, Terek, Ural, and Orenburg Cossack Hosts. Also Saratov region was affected, but back then it was called the Volga German (Autonomous Socialist) Republic. The estimates of life loss during Holodomor were calculated by Robert Conquest and others, and they tell us a rather striking picture of human losses from starvation: up to 5 million in Ukraine, 1 million in Don, Kuban, Terek, and 1 million in "other areas" (Saratov, Ural, Orenburg). The picture is very clear -- it is very clear which socio-ethnic groups were the primary target of the Holodomor. We have to name them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ViktorC (talk • contribs) 16:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. What we HAVE TO mention is that Holodomor was part of a broader famine and aimed no only at Ukrainians. It aimed against different ethnicities, including many Russians who lived in the Lower Volga and South Urals regions (even if we assume that Cossacks are not a subgroup of Russians). Even in the Don and Kuban area the Russians made up big parts of the populations and lived along with Cossacks. There is no proof that the famine (including Holodomor) had primarily an ethnic background instead of a social background (peasants of whatever ethnicity). --Shervinsky (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

@Shervinsky ... and no, Don Cossacks do not consider themselves of Russian ethnicity. In the 2002 and 2010 population census, they listed themselves as "Kazaki". The Census officials however listed "Kazaki" as a sub-ethnic group of Russian, which is not what people were writing when filling out the census forms. See http://kazaki-narod.jimdo.com/ on this. ViktorC (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Shervinsky, this is not a trivial issue, and Misplaced Pages is not a blog. Please, read the rules and provide the information according to Misplaced Pages regulations. There was a famine in USSR, and there is an article about Soviet famine of 1932–33 at Wiki. Holodomor was organized specifically in Ukraine, and can not be considered as "part" of USSR famine. The food was withdrawn by the orders from communists and population was blocked in the area they were leaving without being able to escape. --Andrux (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It's completely unlogical. If Holodomor is only about Ukrainian SSR then you have to excluse any Cossacks of the RSFSR. But you insist to take them in, despite the fact that most of them were on the territory of the Russian SFSR. Also the arguing with their relationship to Holodomor because of their "Ukrainian" origin is complete non-sense, because the most of them (Don Cossacks, Ural Cossacks) had only a marginal "Ukrainian" connection. So far you are not able to draw clear limitations what was Holodomor and what was the rest of the Soviet famine. You even claim that there is no connection between Holodomor and the broader Soviet famine which is againt the common sense and has no proofs. --Shervinsky (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Clearly the famine affected Russians and other groups as well as Ukrainians, and this broader famine was caused by bad weather, collectivisation, food requisition, and travel bans, so to exclude from the article mention of people other than Ukrainians, or even Ukrainians and Cossacks, is to lose context. Some argue that within this horror, Ukrainians were particularly targeted as an ethnic group. Could be, but that is a matter for further discussion after this broader context is established. I agree with Shervinsky. cwmacdougall 1:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. There are many sources that convincingly show that Holodomor was a part of a broader Soviet famine, for example the famous book of Douglas Tottle. --Shervinsky (talk) 07:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Be careful, as discussed before, the infamous book by Tottle is pure Communist propaganda, not an academic work, and not remotely acceptable as a source. cwmacdougall 11:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like, by describing Tottle's work favorably, Shervinsky has given himself away.Faustian (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Wishful thinking, boy. There are enough other sources that prove that. --Shervinsky (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Holodomor was part of general famine in Soviet Union in 1932-33

Articles of wikipedia should be based on reliable sources, preferable by secondary or tertiary in it's origin. So, such expert in Holodomor as Stanislav Kulchitsky, whom is "secondary sorce" in orgin, acts as tertiary sorce in his study of historiography of the issue. So, in his fundamental study of Holodomor he states (I repeat, as tertiary source): " В. Данилов и И. Зеленин опубликовали в журнале «Отечественная история» (2004, № 5) программную статью «Организованный голод. К 70-летию общекрестьянской трагедии». В ней остро осуждалась хлебозаготовительная политика Кремля, которая стала причиной рукотворного голода во многих регионах СССР. Однако историки не нашли в этой трагедии ни убедительных признаков геноцида, ни принципиальных различий между украинским и общесоюзным голодом... Советологи и русисты в странах Запада тоже рассматривают бOльшей частью украинский голод в контексте общесоюзного..." (Кульчицкий С. В. Можно ли отделить Голодомор в Украине от общесоюзного голода 1932–1933 годов? // Почему он нас уничтожал? Сталин и украинский голодомор. — 1-е. — Киев: Украинская пресс-группа, 2007. — 207 с. — ISBN 978-966-8152-11-5) (everybody on this page speak Russian, so translate in English (if needed) yourself and stop making sence, denaying simple for proving and understanding things). So, the mainsteam is that Holodomor was part of general famine. There are some other marginal theories about uniquity of holodomor, but wikipedia should not be tool for spreading marginal theories. HOBOPOCC (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Who are В. Данилов and И. Зеленин? I have read the publication of prof. Kulchitskii ((Кульчицкий С. В. Можно ли отделить Голодомор в Украине от общесоюзного голода 1932–1933 годов?), and he has not mentioned Holodomor as a "part" of other famines. There are no reliable sources supporting your hypothesis--Andrux (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

As Summary of his book Stanislav Kulchitsky wrote: Thus, the Soviet Union famine of 1932-1933 very easily separated from the Ukrainian Holodomor. Famine was observed almost everywhere, including, of course, and in Ukraine. But caused by the confiscation of all existing food, the Holodomor was special only for Ukraine. (Кульчицкий С. В. Можно ли отделить Голодомор в Украине от общесоюзного голода 1932–1933 годов? // Почему он нас уничтожал? Сталин и украинский голодомор. — 1-е. — Киев: Украинская пресс-группа, 2007. — 207 с. — ISBN 978-966-8152-11-5) Geohem (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

We need reliable sources, and usually Soviet history falls into the 'revisionist/alternate' history category so we have to be careful with what is included that hasn't been peer reviewed and vetted.--Львівське (говорити) 15:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• Excuse me, but I do not understand your post above. Are you trying to categorize Kulchitsky's book, published in 2007, as «Soviet history», or do you want to say that topic of this wiki-article applys to «Soviet history» category and that's why we need to be very carefull with RS? Please clarify. HOBOPOCC (talk) 08:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

I think we must somehow link the lede of the article to the Soviet famine of 1932–33. Hundreds of thousand (probably more than a million) died of hunger outside the Ukrainian-speaking areas at the Holodomor time. I, personally, quite happy with the clause that Holodomor was a part of the general famine, but I noticed that many people do not like it. AFAIK, there are two reasons (correct me if I wrong):

1. Stating that Holodomor is a part of something bigger may look like trivializing of the tragedy;
2. It contradicts the theory that Holodomor was mainly an ethnic genocide of Ukrainians. The rest of the victims died because of class and social policies of Soviet Government, not the ethnic policies.

I have noticed that in all the estimations of the numbers of victims there we have separation between the whole of the Soviet Union and Ukraine the number of victims in Ukraine varies from a half to two thirds of the total. So, can we say instead of Holodomor being a part of the general famine, that the number of victims of Holodomor constitutes the majority of the death from the Soviet famine of 1932–33. This statement gives a relative scale of the two events. It provides the reference to the general famine but does not imply that they have the same causes, etc. Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

This seems like a fine suggestion. I do think however that Cossacks should be mentioned in the article as well, since (a) the Holodomor hit Kuban and Don area very hard, cf. Robert Conquest's studies, (b) like Ukrainians, Cossacks refer to the famine in their lands as the Holodomor (while other ethnic groups, e.g., Russians, don't even accept the term Holodomor), and (c) it is clear that the Cossacks -- who formed the core of the White Army as well as independent from Russia republics in 1918-1920 -- were targeted as enemies of the Bolshevik State in what Stalin called a "war of holodomor" (in Russian, "война на измор"). Ukrainians and Cossacks are related to each other through a tight historical and blood bond.173.76.253.77 (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Alex Bakharev, I have no objections for such a suggestion.--Andrux (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Cossacks are a class, not an ethnic group, though the ones in the Kuban would likely fall into the Ukrainian category. They were targeted in the same manner as kulaks were. There's a reason Ukrainian national anthem says "we are of the cossack nation" --Львівське (говорити) 05:38,29 November 2013 (UTC)

In view of many people, Cossacks are an ethnicity, just like Ruthenians. The amalgamation of Ruthenians and Cossacks created the Ukrainian nation and the Ukrainian ethnicity. (The name Ukraine is old, but the concept of the Ukrainian ethnicity/identity is rather young; the Cossack and Ruthenian identity predate the Ukrainian identity). Russia's 2002 and 2010 censuses list Cossacks as an ethnic group (a subethnic group, to be more precise). In 1918 Cossacks formed independent states -- the Don Republic and the Kuban's People Republic -- and there were plans to make a federation of three republics – together with the Ukrainian State. Denikin destroyed these plans. The constitution of the Don Republic listed Cossacks as a major ethnic group of the republic. The Kuban Cossacks are tightly connected to Dnieper Ukraine, while Don Cossacks are tightly connected to the Eastern Ukraine (the area around Donets river). In 1708 Peter the 1st of Russia, also known as Peter the Crazy, waged a war against Kondraty Bulavin and destroyed the eastern part of the Don Cossack Host in the Eastern Ukraine, annihilating over 30 townlets (stanitsas).173.76.253.77 (talk) 06:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Ruthenian is just another word for Ukrainian. Cossacks were Ruthenians, and then Ukrainians. The Russian census is a different matter, as Russian cossacks have virtually always identified as Russians. They are cossack by class, and those who still follow the cossack traditions choose to check off 'cossack' as 'nationality' on the census as a matter of pride. You could say that sub-groups of cossacks form their own sub-ethnic groups, like Kuban Cossacks being their own thing with their own dialect/language, traditions, etc., but cossacks on the whole are not an ethnic group in of themselves.--Львівське (говорити) 16:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I suppose I will respectfully disagree on the equivalence of the terms Ruthenian and Ukrainian. There is no such thing as Russian Cossacks-- there are Kuban Cossacks, Don Cossacks, Ural Cossackcs, etc. all sharing a unique common culture. Cossacks -- the descendands of Cossacks -- do not identify themselves as Russians. The "checking off" as "nationality" is not a matter of pride, it is about the truth. You can perhaps read this http://kazaki-narod.jimdo.com/, which is a petition to the President of the Russian Federation regarding the census. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.253.77 (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Well the term Ukrainian supplanted 'Ruthene' in the 20th century, most but not all adopted the new nomenclature. It's literally a synonym...I don't know what else to tell you. As for cossacks, Kuban, Don, Ural, etc. are geographic indicators, but each host has it's own ways. Yes they share a common culture, but that's just as any military family shares a common culture, for example. Further, cossacks do self identify as Russian...just as Ukrainian cossacks in Ukraine identify as Ukrainians. I don't know how to go further than that. Regarding the census, Russians also checked off 'Siberian' instead of Russian, so there's that. I read the link and in my opinion this appears to be a recent phenomenon as there's been a bit of a cossack revival of sorts in post-Soviet Russia. While what you say is illustrated here exactly as you said...that doesn't necessarily carry over to cossacks in the 1930s in Ukraine and the Kuban, we would have to find a historical text to confirm self determination apart from Ukrainian/Ruthenians in this period. Especially since it's only a few years after the revolution (with their monarchy falling and repressions beginning, they could be galvanized as separate from Russians more so today than in the 30s) --Львівське (говорити) 00:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is the link http://forum.kazakia.info/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=2115 to the book "Geography of the Russian Empire" published in 1843. It lists Cossacks as one of the peoples in the Russian Empire, along with people called Rossiyane (which, according to the author, include Malorossy, Belorossy, Velikorossy). It says the Cossacks share with Rossiyane the religion and the language, but otherwise are completely different. So they are not even included in the category "Rossiyane" (Btw, Rossia is a Greek-based spelling of Ruthenia). Ukraina is a term that once apllied strictly to areas used to describe the territories controlled by Zaporozhian and Don Cossacks. (see the map in wiki article on Cossacks). Take care. 173.76.253.77 (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe 'Rossiyane' is a reference to the three 'Russian peoples'. Rossia is the Russian spelling of Russia, not Greek... I think the easier way of remembering it is you have the Rusyns (who align with historical Rus) and the Rossians (who align with the new state to the north, Russia/Rossiya). Historical Rus (Ruthenia in Latin) covers Ukraine and it's people continued with the 'Rus' based ethnonym, but in the 20th century a national upheaval began and they identified with the region of Ukraine to set them apart more distinctly from Russians, who also laid claim to Rus. The whole cossack thing is very interesting; I still think it's class based (thinking their society is separate and distinct from the simple peasants). In the Ukrainian case cossack culture is extremely intertwined with the Ukrainian identity, all of Ukraine's historically great statemen were cossacks (You couldn't say Khmelnitsky or Mazepa were cossacks and not Ukrainian, for example) so in that case I don't think it's separate. In the Russian Cossack case, they are outside of the geographic area of Ukraine, so it wouldn't make sense to identify as 'Ukrainian' or 'Ruthenian', so they identify with their own pockets. You also have a history of cossack rebellion towards the Russian state, from Razin to the Don Cossacks during the time of Peter, so I can see why they would want to be separate from the forces of Russian nobility.--Львівське (говорити) 21:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, just want to point out that pre-Soviet Ukraine was ruled by a (cossack) Hetman (in this case, Skoropodsky), and during the civil war the Kuban Host joined Ukraine more on that here, and this article argues to the Ukrainian origins of the Don Cossacks (not Kuban, but they're mentioned) so I think targetting Ukrainians and Cossacks kind of goes hand in hand since the two are so related.--Львівське (говорити) 22:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

About «Cossacks». Let me remind you, that articles of wikipedia should be created based on RS. So, if anybody would present any RS on Holodomor, saying that «Cossacks» were among victims of Holodomor — why not to mention them in the wiki-article? But not before that.HOBOPOCC (talk) 08:51, 29

You obviously have zero familiarity with RS on the Famine.

There are thousands of documents like this http://www.bibliotekar.ru/golodomor/33.htm and www.slavakubani.ru/read.php?id=1453 that portray the Famine in stanitsas across Kuban and Don regions. 173.76.253.77 (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Will you be so kind not to discuss my skills (WP:PERSONAL)? As about so called «RS» you gave above — text on http://www.bibliotekar.ru/golodomor/33.htm doesn't have any mentions of «Cossacks», same thing about the second link you provided — www.slavakubani.ru/read.php?id=1453 And you know what? — I'm not surprised, as history of cossacs finished long before 1932 — immediatly after Civil War in Russia bolshevists evaporated all cossacks. You should read this article — ru:Расказачивание. There is, surely, similar article in English — Decossackization, but it's not so reliable by facts and far behind it's Russian sister by it's content. HOBOPOCC (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

You have not read the links I have sent you, haven't you. The articles do mention both Cossacks and stanitsas (Cossacks lived in stanitsas, organized in yurts, headed by elected atamans, and non-Cossacks lived in villages (selo, derevnya), organized in volosti, headed by starostas. This is a rather relevant detail, no?). The links I posted mention the citizens of stanitsas, not selas or derevnyas, starved to death. The majority of those citizens were Cossacks. Regarding the history of Cossacks being finished 1932, how do you explain http://ru.wikisource.org/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%A6%D0%98%D0%9A_%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%A0_%D0%BE%D1%82_20.04.1936_%D0%BE_%D1%81%D0%BD%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D1%81_%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%BF%D0%BE_%D1%81%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B1%D0%B5_%D0%B2_%D0%A0%D0%9A%D0%9A%D0%90 , which is a 1936 decree of the Soviet government lifting the ban on the service of the Cossacks in the Red Army. And how do you explain that more than 100 Cossack regiments in the Red Army were formed during the World War II? And thank you very much for pointing me to "Decossackization" and "Raskazachivanie" articles. Incidentally, I have contributed to both articles at various points in time.173.76.253.77 (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

* In this case it will be a kind of original research. Geohem (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• I gave you a quotes of top-ranked ukrainian historian of Holodomor Stanislav Kul'chitsky, who wrote (you here everybody speaks Russian, so you understand what he wrote, but if you by some reasons can't read my cyrillic alphabit above (AGF, AGF) — I'm happy to translate it for you into English); «russian (in the name of top scholars Zelenin and Danilov) and western scholars threat ukrainian famine as part of general soviet famine of the time». This is statement of the person, who's name mentioned 16 (!!!) times in the wiki-article! And you started war edits against this statement! This is tertiary RS by it's nature and should be added to the wiki article without any doubts. HOBOPOCC (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

* Just distortion of a meaning. And in this book he wrote: Thus, the Soviet Union famine of 1932-1933 very easily separated from the Ukrainian Holodomor. Famine was observed almost everywhere, including, of course, and in Ukraine. But caused by the confiscation of all existing food, the Holodomor was special only for Ukraine. Geohem (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

HOBOPOCC, this is just one sentence taken by you without paying an attention to the conclusion part as cited by Geohem. Moreover, there are other references (e.g. this one) published in peer-review journals in English, suggesting Holodomor as separate from other famines event.--Andrux (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

* Stanislav Kulchitsky has his own valid oppinion. And this oppinion is that famine in Ukraine was differ to general famine in USSR of that year. And this is oppinion of respectfull scholar, i.e. «secondary sorce» in local terms. When scholar Stanislav Kulchitsky gave his review on historiography of Holodomor, he acts as «tertiary source». This is the difference between these two statements of Kulchitsky. His personal point of view may be added to the wiki-article with proper attribution (NPOV). Information, which is taken from reliable tertiary source must to be added to the wiki-article. And if we trust Kulchitsky on Holodomor issue - and we do trust him, as his works are used even in the artice — intentions to reject his review on historiography of Holodomor are not fair. HOBOPOCC (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'm glad that no any further objections to my proposal to add statements of Stanislav Kul'chitsky on current historiography of Holodomor, which is tertiary source in it's origin, should be added to wiki-article without any doubts. My proposed adding is here in bold: «The Holodomor... was a man-made famine in the Ukrainian SSR in 1932 and 1933...and a part of a general Soviet famine of 1932–33.<ref>Кульчицкий С. В. Можно ли отделить Голодомор в Украине от общесоюзного голода 1932–1933 годов? // Почему он нас уничтожал? Сталин и украинский голодомор. — 1-е. — Киев: Украинская пресс-группа, 2007. — 207 с. — ISBN 978-966-8152-11-5</ref>»HOBOPOCC (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Such statement is incorrect. It is not in agreement with the summary of prof. Kulchitskiy review work: Thus, the Soviet Union famine of 1932-1933 very easily separated from the Ukrainian Holodomor. Famine was observed almost everywhere, including, of course, and in Ukraine. But caused by the confiscation of all existing food, the Holodomor was special only for Ukraine. There are other sources to support the uniqueness of Holodomor, as compared to feline in USSR, please see the discussion above.--Andrux (talk) 11:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

You are doing WP:NOTPOINTy now. I already explained why and how personal point of view of professor Kulchitsky («secondary sorce») to be separated from review of professor Kulchitsky on historyography of Holodomor («tertiary source»). And I gave you direct citacion of professor Kulchitsky: «...историки не нашли в этой трагедии ни убедительных признаков геноцида, ни принципиальных различий между украинским и общесоюзным голодом... Советологи и русисты в странах Запада тоже рассматривают бOльшей частью украинский голод в контексте общесоюзного» and I make translation of the text for our non-Russian speaking editors: «...historians (of Russian school Kulchitsky ment) didn't find in this tragedy convincing signs of genocide, as well as basic distinctions between the Ukrainian and general soviet hunger... bigger part of sovietologists and russists in the West alsow consider the Ukrainian famine in a context of the all-union famine...». Yes, professor Kul'chitsky personelly disagree with such position of world scholars, but he honestly declare present scientific approach to the Holodomor, even it's not according to his theory. If you denay such simple for understanding fact — I have nothing to do, but to rise this discussion to higher level. HOBOPOCC (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Kulchitsky didn't write about "Russian school". He has written about two of them: Danilov's and Zelin's point of view. By the way other researcher Kondrashyn has written that in the West and in Ukraine consider the Holodomor as an exclusively Ukrainian phenomenon <ref>http://www.idd.mid.ru/inf/inf_05.html</ref>. Geohem (talk) 13:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

You are providing wrong information about professor Kondrashyn. He declares that there are two schools in Ukrainian and Western scholarship - one traditional - that famine in Ukraine is part of general soviet man-made famine and another alternative school - declaring that Ukrainian famine was an unique one. His opinion doesn't make any conflict with review of professor Kulchitsky, as Kulchitsky says that bigger part of Western scholars stays on the grounds that Ukrainian famine is part of general soviet famine. HOBOPOCC (talk) 13:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Where does Kulchytsky state that the majority of western scholars support the Soviet view?--Львівське (говорити) 17:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know anything about «Soviet view» and Kulchitsky's view on it (такой вот каламбур получился). I think you mix up «russian view» and «soviet view». Soviet view on everything was over in 1991, Soviet system does not exist from that time, lucky we are. And what Kulchitsky actualy said in his book of 2007, I posted on this page already three times and now I make it for forth time and speciall for you: "...В. Данилов и И. Зеленин опубликовали в журнале «Отечественная история» (2004, № 5) программную статью «Организованный голод. К 70-летию общекрестьянской трагедии». В ней остро осуждалась хлебозаготовительная политика Кремля, которая стала причиной рукотворного голода во многих регионах СССР. Однако историки не нашли в этой трагедии ни убедительных признаков геноцида, ни принципиальных различий между украинским и общесоюзным голодом... Советологи и русисты в странах Запада тоже рассматривают бOльшей частью украинский голод в контексте общесоюзного..." (Кульчицкий С. В. Можно ли отделить Голодомор в Украине от общесоюзного голода 1932–1933 годов? // Почему он нас уничтожал? Сталин и украинский голодомор. — 1-е. — Киев: Украинская пресс-группа, 2007. — 207 с. — ISBN 978-966-8152-11-5) HOBOPOCC (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't speak Russian, but Google translate says he said, "Sovietologists and Russians in Western countries are also considering a large part of the Ukrainian famine in the context of the entire USSR"...--Львівське (говорити) 19:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I was confused by your «User talk:Lvivske|говорити». Anyway, I already translated this text above, but no problem, I would do it for you again: «...historians (of Russian school — Kulchitsky ment) didn't find in this tragedy convincing signs of genocide, as well as basic distinctions between the Ukrainian and general soviet famine... bigger part of sovietologists and russists in the West alsow consider the Ukrainian famine in a context of the all-Soviet-Union famine...»HOBOPOCC (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to the suggestion of 173.76.253.77 (why not register like most of us?), I don't think you can say 'Stalin called a "war of holodomor"' That is not really a good translation of the Russian, "война на измор". cwmacdougall 11:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could give a better translation? The word "izmor" has a very clear message, which is to kill by hunger. Too bad "izmor" is not a common English word, but perhaps it would be on day, like Holodomor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.253.77 (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

How about "War of attrition"? "izmor" is usually translated as "attrition", which is different, plus "Holodomor" has a host of connotations, at least now; Stalin didn't call it that. cwmacdougall 2:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Why not simply translate it literally? It doesn't have to be confined to predefined idiomatic jargon. It means "War of starvation" or "War by starvation". Rhetoric such as, "Enemy of the people" et al didn't mean anything in the English language until its usage became familiar within the context in which it was intended. Keep it succinct. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

figures

I reverted the figure range and some of the text int the intro back to about a year ago, which I think was the consensus variation from when we had the cabal and mediation problems. Hope there's no issue? Haven't stayed up to date really since then, but I thought we had a pretty stable intro for a while. Obviously right now some POV pushers with new accounts are trying to war on the page without using the talk...--Львівське (говорити) 15:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not think it was ever good. The issue obviously attracts political controversy, but the article should explain what happened, rather than be a tug of war between two points of view. TFD (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Explain what happened regarding which point? A lot is obviously covered in the body, the intro is...just an intro and should summarize.--Львівське (говорити) 17:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Holodomor as part of general famine in USSR of that period

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

Group of non-neutral editors in Holodomor atticle rejects information that mainstream in historyography of Holdomor treats it in context of all-Soviet Union famine of 1932-1933. Examples of reverts of such information: ,. Proper discussion on talk page of the article was opened in ample time (). My oponents were not able to provide any reasons why this information not to be added to the article, but deleating this information anyway. It's imposible to find consensus with them, as they simply ignoring my arguments. HOBOPOCC (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Your POV has been disputed countless times and has never reached consensus. If you read the talk page history, you would find many instances of similar proposals which were all shot down. Just because you made some half winded argument and nobody responded for a couple days, doesn't give you consensus by yourself. You're being incredibly impatient and just because your POV isn't being included in the lede of the article, doesn't make others "non-neutral". Your assumption of bad faith editing is the result of you not liking the result. Also, we've already seen one instance of you misquoting sources, so perhaps readers see it as a waste of time to engage in this fruitless discussion if you're not going to work on a level playing field.--Львівське (говорити) 19:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

HOBOPOCC, you have been tried to add the controversial information to the article without providing a strong evidence of your POV.--Andrux (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

My «POV» is just your imagination. I provided RS - Stanislav Kul'chtsky, who gave review on historiography of Holodomor. Please discuss not my «POV» but this RS, if you have anything to comment on it. It seems to me that you do not have any arguments on against RS, that's why you are telling stories about my so called «POV» now. HOBOPOCC (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

HOBOPOCC, I would suggest that you read up on the specifics of consensus building and how consensus can be deemed to have been reached before you make unilateral decisions and insert your proposed content into the article. The fact that you proposed a change which was met with silence (other than a couple of comments clearly stating that it is believed that your POV is heavily weighted and no one actually wishes to engage in further discussions) and no "support" or "oppose" responses are to be found is read as "oppose". I'm not clear as to where this 48 hour cooling off period came from. Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out where this exists in Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

HOBOPOCC, how can your point of view (POV) be "my imagination"? We've discussed the citation (RS) you provided, please see the topics above. As I can see you just do not ike the result--Andrux (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that following the mediation cabal, which was a long time ago but still, where we left off with that was kind of the consensus stable version. I've not touched this article much since then, but seeing as we couldnt make much headway for drastic changes then with many parties involved, I really doubt radical changes to the lede should be implemented now, much less with limited involvement and potentially shady non-English sources (when we have like, a million english sources to work with on this topic, no need to worry about context or mistranslating). We already know how this will play out, NOVOROSS will create an RfC somewhere else, they will tell him to get consensus for his changes, he'll say he couldn't reach consensus because we're stubborn POV pushers, and an edit war will break out. Let's just avoid that altogether, k? (I realize I'm being rather crass, so be it)--Львівське (говорити) 21:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm interpreting 'crass' as being good sense, although I have doubts as to NEWRUSS having any intention of being as neutral as is possible with regards to the content of the article and leaving well enough alone. My only interest in this matter is in documenting dramatic rises in activity on the article (edit warring having run its course long, long ago with no one 'winning' anything) and on the talk page. As my final statement on this resurgence of POV interest, I'd like to point out to NEWRUSS that English Misplaced Pages has, for good reason, developed a zero-tolerance attitude towards politically sensitive areas such as Central and Eastern European issues. If anyone wishes to push the envelope, that is their prerogative however 'Be bold' does carry a serious hazard warning: "... but please be careful!" (sic). Signing out (but watching). Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• NOVOROSS, there were enough reason against your opinion, but you continue to try POV pushing, listen only yourself. It some kind of destructive behaviour.Geohem (talk) 07:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• COMMENT - For the benefit of those new to the discussion (I am one of those "randomly selected" editors volunteering to be invited to participate in an RfC) could NEWRUSS and his opponents please give us a summary of why NEWRUSS edits are or are not wikipedia appropriate (WP:RS, etc.)? --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Strange RfC considering that the discussions in the past on this article have uniformly rejected the "it was part of a general Soviet famine" as the sources do not back that particular position up much at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Since HOBOPOCC's RfC relies on a passage isn't even in English, and insisted "everybody on this page speak Russian, so translate in English (if needed) yourself", and having doubted that everyone here and on wikipedia actually speaks Russian, I guess let's examine it via google translate (I'll paraphrase and grammar things up):

"In the journal National History (2004), Danilov and Zelenin's article "Organized Hunger" sharply condemned the grain procurement policy of the Kremlin, which caused the man-made famine in many regions of the USSR. However, (some? these?) historians have not found convincing signs of genocide in this tragedy, or fundamental differences between the Ukrainian and Soviet famine. Sovietologists and (Russian historians?) in Western countries are also examing the Ukrainian famine in the context of the USSR"

Now, just based on this, I have a few points: a) HOBOPOCC is misleading the argument, he keeps saying Kulchitsky is an esteemed source and we have to use his work, but Kuly is actually just commenting on a journal article by Danilov and Zelinin, b) the credentials of the latter are in question, are they even historians? Andrux brought this up above and was ignored, c) What were their findings? How did they find no fundamental differences when most historians find many differences in how the policy was carried out (quarantine, procuring all food, border closure, etc.) --Львівське (говорити) 16:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• * So, as about «giving the summary»: we have top ranked Ukrainian historian Stanislav Kulchitsky, who is one of the best scholar of Holodomor. And he wrotes in his book: «...historians (of Russian school — Kulchitsky ment) didn't find in this tragedy convincing signs of genocide, as well as basic distinctions between the Ukrainian and general soviet famine... bigger part of sovietologists and russists in the West alsow consider the Ukrainian famine in a context of the all-Soviet-Union famine...» Кульчицкий С. В. Можно ли отделить Голодомор в Украине от общесоюзного голода 1932–1933 годов? // Почему он нас уничтожал? Сталин и украинский голодомор. — 1-е. — Киев: Украинская пресс-группа, 2007. — 207 с. — ISBN 978-966-8152-11-5. I already posted before, that Kul'citsky in this speech of his acting as «tertiary source» — he is making review on historiography. His personal opinion — «secondary source» as an scholar — that famine in Ukraine had unique roots/ At least he is honest to declare that historiography treats famine in Ukraine in context of all-Soviet-Union famine. What is more important for the lead of an wiki-articel: «secondary source» or «tertiary source»? This is ritorical question, as everybody understands that leads to be based on tertiary sources, as leads should give brief and most mainstream trands on the subject. All details, alternative and marginal POVs may be given in the body of the article. HOBOPOCC (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC) P. S. Lvivske gave wrong translation of Russian text and I pointed out him on that: «русисты» in Russian are not «Russians». Русисты in Russian are «Russian studies scholras». The way Lvivske acts (ignoring my ansers and repeating his lies) show not fair aproach to this discussion non-neutral group of my oponents, he belongs to. HOBOPOCC (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Repeating my "lies" by saying 'Russian historians' (in parenthesis with a question mark, as I was clearly not sure) instead of 'Russian studies scholars'? You're pushing it...regarding your argument on tertiary sources, he seemingly makes no claim to the legitimacy of this branch of the historiography, acknowledgement of fringe theory doesn't make it mainstream. Just because scholars are "examining" something doesn't mean it absolutely happened. Your edits which you are arguing for aren't for inserting into the article a note that this stream of study is being examined, or that there is debate, but rather that this branch (which the historian you're citing with such high regard completely dismisses!) is absolutely 100% is correct. This is silly.--Львівське (говорити) 18:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

So far your group on non-neutral ukrainian editos can't provide any alternative review on historiography of the issue. The only your group's anwer was that Kul'chitsky's personal opinion is that Holodomor was unique. No doubts. Official Ukrainian historiography (and Kul'chitskym — former communist party historian — is a brilliant illustration of polititian corrupted scientist) now stays on princip that Holodomor was genocide and that famine had an unique roots in all Soviet Union. Sorry, guyes, mainstream in the scholarship is diffeerent so far. You are simply blocking any attempts to add information about actual balance into the English wikipedia. HOBOPOCC (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

If you can't backup your assertion that your view is mainstream outside of a Russian journal article that even a notable historian doesn't agree with (your own words), then this isn't going anywhere. I don't think anyone here has been non-neutral outside of yourself. You seem to be getting rattled because of the homework assignment we've given you. --Львівське (говорити) 18:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Nothing new. I already posted before: «group on non-neutral ukrainian editos can't provide any alternative review on historiography of the issue». So, at same position you stay. Any new RS? And who is Mr. Kulchitsky you may find yourself here: . You shpould read schintific books, instead of pop-nationalsm propaganda. HOBOPOCC (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

BoogaLouie, NOVOROSS insists that Holodomor was “part of general famine in USSR in 1932-33”. I and other editors provided arguments opposite his POV. To prove his POV, NOVOROSS has found one sentence in the monograph published by prof. Kulchitskiy, who is distinguished professor in topic of Holodomor. Prof. Kulchitrskiy discussed the issue, whether the Holodomor can be considered in the context of general famine in USSR or not. In that sentence Kulchitskiy wrote about two Russian scientists and western scholars who consider Holodomor “…mainly in the context of general famine in USSR”. However, the summary of this work showed completely opposite figure: Thus, the Soviet Union famine of 1932-1933 very easily separated from the Ukrainian Holodomor. Famine was observed almost everywhere, including, of course, and in Ukraine. But caused by the confiscation of all existing food, the Holodomor was special only for Ukraine'. I must admit that summary is based on the ALL findings of prof. Kulchitskiy, not just a few Russians and some western scholars. I and some other editors have pointed this out several times to NOVOROSS. Moreover, I have provided another RS, which is review article (diff.) published in peer-review journal where Holodomor was not showed in connection to other famines in USSR. --Andrux (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I can attest to the veracity of Andrux's reading of the article in its entirety, BoogaLouie. HOBOPOCC has indulged in serious cherry picking (and careful redaction of the excerpt taken in itself) in order to assert RS 'proof' of that which suits his/her POV interpretation. What has been derived by HOBOPOCC in taking the allusion out of context runs contrary to the position actually taken in this highly comprehensive article. The two Russian academics are mentioned in passing as being representative of a reticence to analyse the facts properly or acknowledge Holodomor as genocide. Given the context, HOBOPOCC has misrepresented how and why they were mentioned (as are the Sovietologists and russists who posit the idea of Holodomor as being part of the general Soviet famine). In no manner, shape or form can the appearance of their names be construed to be an acknowledgement of their being deigned to be scholars of any standing or merit. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• OK, guyes, I noticed that you do not like to deal with pure scince. You do not like Kulchitsky, he is not enoght reliable for you. May be you would be more pleased with politians& Let me remind you about European Union. Parlamentary Assambley. Resolution 1723 (2010 year) Commemorating the victims of the Great Famine (Holodomor) in the former USSR: One of the most tragic pages in the history of the peoples of the former Soviet Union was the mass famine in grain-growing areas of the country which started in the late 1920s and culminated in 1932-33. Millions of innocent people in Belarus, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine, which were parts of the Soviet Union, lost their lives as a result of mass starvation caused by the cruel and deliberate actions and policies of the Soviet regime. In Ukraine, which suffered the most,...these events may have had particularities in various regions, the results were the same everywhere: millions of human lives were mercilessly sacrificed to the fulfilment of the policies and plans of the Stalinist regime. You should eagily belive to polititians, don't you? So, can you read same as I? Famine in Ukraine was part of famine in USSR. Ukraine sufferec the most, that's true, but this do not cancel fact that famine in Ukraine was part of famine of USSR. HOBOPOCC (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

If you can't be civil then my prophecy is going to come true. Stop making things up, nobody said anything negative about Kulchitsky, you're using him as a source in bad faith at this point and ignoring all points made to your argument. --Львівське (говорити) 19:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Bad Faith note: In your quote above, you conveniently redacted after "Ukraine, which suffered the most" - here is what the rest of the text says:

the peasantry was particularly hit by the Great Famine and millions of individual farmers and members of their families died of hunger following forced “collectivisation”, a ban on departures from the affected areas and confiscation of grain and other food. These tragic events are referred to as Holodomor (politically-motivated famine) and are recognised by Ukrainian law as an act of genocide against Ukrainians.

You can't cherry pick quotes and take out things that hurt your own argument. What the rest of the statement says about Russia and Kazakhstan clearly demonstrates different reasons for death, with Ukraine they gave a list of what set it apart. Don't play innocent and pull stunts like this. --Львівське (говорити) 19:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• I think a good way to resolve this without sources and just logic, is that the Soviet famine on the whole included the Ukrainian famine in that they were concurrent, but the Holodomor was not part of the general Soviet famine. This is similar to how the Eastern Front of WW2 included the Holocaust, but Jews were not simply a casualty of war. Similarly, Soviet historiography (with no irony) also treats the Holocaust as a non-unique event that was simply a byproduct of the 'Great Patriotic War' on the whole. This, of course, would be treated as Holocaust denial and fringe theory by most.--Львівське (говорити) 19:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, Lvivske, but your stories, which are product of your personal imagination, are not valid in this project. You should refer to RS. So far you can't provide any RS, proving your POV. I provided already two conclusions (one of leading historian of Holodomor and one of highest European institution) that famine in Ukraine was in context of all Soviet-Union famine. Can anybody provide any valid objections (proved by RS) to this statement?HOBOPOCC (talk) 09:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• It was said above, that your opinion divide with Kulchitsky's opinion, which said: Thus, the Soviet Union famine of 1932-1933 very easily separated from the Ukrainian Holodomor. Famine was observed almost everywhere, including, of course, and in Ukraine. But caused by the confiscation of all existing food, the Holodomor was special only for Ukraine. and Kondrashyn's opinion, which said that in the West and in Ukraine consider the Holodomor as an exclusively Ukrainian phenomenon. Geohem (talk) 10:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

the onus isn't on me to provide sources, it's on you, hobopocc. so far, you've falsified two sources, so who is actually just using their imagination here?--Львівське (говорити) 15:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You wrote: «you've falsified two sources» — how can you wrote such thing? I posted complete and full citation. The way you act is not fair way. You can't ignore documents I quoted, so you decided to put your criticism on me, saying that I «falsified» quoted documents! Unbelivable! For bouth RS I provided URLs. How can you say that I «falsified» them? Everybody can check by it's own that I quoted same text, as in original documents. HOBOPOCC (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps говорити just disagrees with your interpretation of the sources, rather than the actual text, in which case the word «falsified» would be too strong. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support Delete - Have to agree the sources provided support position of Львівське, Geohem, et. al.--BoogaLouie (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

RSes, proving that Ukrainian famine was part of general famine in the Soviet Union

Well, my dear oponents, you are pretending you do not understand what RS are writting. OK, I'm arranging this section, where I would simply accumulate all RS of the high ranked historians, stating that famine in Ukraine was part of general famine in Soviet Union of 1932-1933. Sooner or later neutral (not-nationalists) editors would pay attention to this list and would say: «hey, stop making sence, it was a part of all-Soviet-Union famiune!». So, here we go:

1. (N. B. This RS should be treated as tertiary source, as author making review on historiography of Holodomor) Author: historian Stanislav Kulchitsky ...В. Данилов и И. Зеленин опубликовали в журнале «Отечественная история» (2004, № 5) программную статью «Организованный голод. К 70-летию общекрестьянской трагедии». В ней остро осуждалась хлебозаготовительная политика Кремля, которая стала причиной рукотворного голода во многих регионах СССР. Однако историки не нашли в этой трагедии ни убедительных признаков геноцида, ни принципиальных различий между украинским и общесоюзным голодом... Советологи и русисты в странах Запада тоже рассматривают бOльшей частью украинский голод в контексте общесоюзного... Translation into English of his essential: «...historians (of Russian school — Kulchitsky ment) didn't find in this tragedy convincing signs of genocide, as well as basic distinctions between the Ukrainian and general soviet famine... bigger part of sovietologists and russists in the West alsow consider the Ukrainian famine in a context of the all-Soviet-Union famine...» Кульчицкий С. В. Можно ли отделить Голодомор в Украине от общесоюзного голода 1932–1933 годов? // Почему он нас уничтожал? Сталин и украинский голодомор. — 1-е. — Киев: Украинская пресс-группа, 2007. — 207 с. — ISBN 978-966-8152-11-5
2. European Union. Parlamentary Assambley. Resolution 1723 (2010 year) Commemorating the victims of the Great Famine (Holodomor) in the former USSR: One of the most tragic pages in the history of the peoples of the former Soviet Union was the mass famine in grain-growing areas of the country which started in the late 1920s and culminated in 1932-33. Millions of innocent people in Belarus, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine, which were parts of the Soviet Union, lost their lives as a result of mass starvation caused by the cruel and deliberate actions and policies of the Soviet regime. In Ukraine, which suffered the most,...these events may have had particularities in various regions, the results were the same everywhere: millions of human lives were mercilessly sacrificed to the fulfilment of the policies and plans of the Stalinist regime.
3. Author: historian Kirill Alexandrov, whos professional interest is anty-communism struggle in Soviet Union in XX century: 80 лет назад в Советском Союзе умерли миллионы людей...Численность населения СССР упала с отметки в 162 902 тыс. человек (на 1 января 1933-го) до 156 797 тыс. (на 1 января 1934-го). Число жертв Голодомора оценивается примерно в 6—6,5 млн человек. Из них около 4 млн погибли в Украине...Сегодня наиболее популярны две точки зрения на причины трагедии 1933 года. Первая — мор не имел искусственного происхождения, а стал результатом совокупности отрицательных факторов: неблагоприятных климатических условий, слабой урожайности и проблем в связи с форсированной индустриализацией в годы первой пятилетки. Вторая — массовый мор был репрессивной акцией русских коммунистов против свободолюбивых украинцев. Оба тезиса ошибочны...Зимой 1933 г. на Дону, Кубани, Украине, в Поволжье, Казахской АССР и в некоторых других регионах СССР начался повальный мор. Без войн и стихийных бедствий в стране голодали 25—30 млн человек. 22 января 1933 г. Сталин подписал директиву ЦК, запрещавшую выезд населения из районов, пораженных голодом...Голодомор 1933 г. был беспрецедентным преступлением, совершенным не по национальному, а по социальному признаку. Translation into English: «Million people died 80 years ago in the Soviet Union... Population of the USSR dropped down from 162 902 thousand people (for January 1st of the 1933-rd) to 156 797 thousand (for January 1st of the 1934-th). The number of victims of the Holodomor is estimated approximately at 6 — 6,5 million people. From them about 4 million were lost in Ukraine... There are two points of view on causes of the tragedy of 1933 are most popular today. The first one: the famine had no artificial origin, and became result of set of natural negative factors: negative climatic conditions, weak productivity and problems in connection with the forced industrialization in days of the first five-years period. The second one — the famine was a repressive action of the Russian communists against freedom-loving Ukrainians. Both points of view are wrong...In the winter of 1933 on Don, Kuban, Ukraine, in the Volga region, Kazakh SSR and in some other regions of the USSR began a general famine. About 25 — 30 million people starved hunger without war or natural disaster. January 22, 1933. Stalin signed the directive of the Central Committee forbidding departure of the population from areas, struck with famine... Famine-Genocide of 1933 was the unprecedented crime made not on national, and on a social sign.» «Голодные сытым не товарищи», Novaya gazeta publishing, 2013-08-14
4. (N. B. This RS should be treated as tertiary source, as author making review on historiography of Holodomor) Author: historian Victor Kondrashin, one of the leading Russian historian of russian village in XX century: ...суть подхода российских и зарубежных ученых, не поддерживающих концепцию "геноцида голодомором" Украины, к проблеме голода 1932-1933 годов в CCCP: 1. Данный голод - результат антикрестьянской политики сталинского режима в годы первой пятилетки, ее просчетов и антигуманных, преступных мер по отношению к крестьянству, приведших к развалу сельского хозяйства страны и голоду. 2. Голод никто не планировал заранее, но им воспользовался сталинский режим, чтобы заставить крестьян работать в колхозах и утвердить избранный им политический курс. 3. Голод имел региональные особенности, определившие его масштабы и последствия. Прежде всего, он ударил по зонам сплошной коллективизации, где власть столкнулась с активным крестьянским сопротивлением хлебозаготовкам и угрозой окончательного развала сельского хозяйства. 4. Голод не выбирал народы. Геноцида отдельно взятого украинского народа не было, была общая трагедия украинцев, русских и других народов нашей страны по вине тогдашнего руководства СССР. Голод 1932 - 1933 годов - трагедия всей советской деревни... Translation into English: «...essence of approach of the Russian and foreign scholars, who does not support the theory of genocide-famine-against-Ukrainian-nation, towards famine in Soviet Union are: 1. This famine is result of anti-peasant's policy of a Stalin's regime in days of the first five-year plan, it's miscalculations and anti-humane, criminal measures in relation to the peasantry, resulted in deterioration of agricaltural sector of the country and famine. 2. Famine was not planned in advance but Stalin regime indeed used happened famine in order to force peasants to work in collective farms and to approve the political policy chosen. 3. Famine had it's regional variations, which have defined it scales and consequences. First of all, it struck on zones of massive collectivization, where the power faced the active country resistance to grain-collections and threat of final disorder of agriculturral sector. 4. Famine hasn't chosen the nations and it was not genocide of specialy chosen Ukrainian nation. There was the general tragedy of Ukrainians, Russians and other people of our country because of the policy chosen by leaders of the USSR of that time. Famine of 1932 - 1933 - the tragedy of all Soviet village...» «Was famine in Ukraine of 1932-1933 genocide of Ukrainian nation? Answer to professor Stanislav Kul'chitsky» 2008
5. (N. B. This RS should be treated as tertiary source, as author making review on historiography of Holodomor) Author: David R. Marples, Professor History at the University of Alberta: The article discusses recent historiography on the Ukrainian famine of 1933, arguing that whereas there is today a consensus in Ukraine that it constituted an act of genocide by Stalin's government against Ukrainians, no such agreement exists in the West. Further, Western works, while they may offer valuable insights and their conclusions notwithstanding, have tended to neglect the national issue altogether. Ethnic Issues in the Famine of 1932–1933 in Ukraine. 09 Apr 2009

Re: Marples - you're not using Marples as a source, just the summary of the journal article without actually reading the article, much less providing a direct quote, citation, or even page number.--Львівське (говорити) 20:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The source for the statement above, Victor Kondrashin, is also a politician - a member of the regional parliament of Putin's United Russia Party. I'd view his credentials carefully.Faustian (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: Typical ad hominem comment. HOBOPOCC (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

For the benefit of other editors, and for documenting the discussion on the talk page, the remainder of the abstract redacted by HOBOPOCC reads as such:

"... The article demonstrates that national questions remained uppermost in the discussions of party officials about the failure of the 1932 harvest in Ukraine and argues that a more definitive study of the famine would be enhanced by discussion of the disparate views and further use of archival evidence." --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, I would like to know how HOBOPOCC distinguishes between RS's he considers should be "treated as tertiary sources". Marples is one of many (including Bilinsky) whose work in available through "Taylor & Francis Online". Please explain. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

HOBOPOCC (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC) UPD HOBOPOCC (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, HOBOPOCC. I strongly support your position based on serious sources and it was already supported by other editors, such as Cwmacdougall. Until the counter party can disprove it, instead of limiting itself on simple and empty phrases of protest, I strongly advocate the integration of the information into the article that Holodomor was part of a broader Soviet-wide famine.--Shervinsky (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

So you're strongly supporting disregarding consensus? For the record, Holodomor denial is covered in the article and the scholarly debate is covered in the 3rd paragraph of the introduction, to present the fringe Russian view as absolute fact is irresponsible in poor Encyclopedic taste.--Львівське (говорити) 20:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

As about question of Iryna Harpy posted at 06:02, 10 December 2013 — I want to pay her attention, that I answered similar questions on this page couple of times already in the past. When scholar is writting about some issue he is dealing with, he acts as a «secondary source». But when same scholar if giving review on historiography of the subject — he acts in such case as «tertiary source» — «As tertiary sources, encyclopedias and textbooks attempt to summarize and consolidate the source materials into an overview». Articles of wikipedia should be created based on secondary sources, as a rule, this for sure and no doubts. But in our case we are discussing the lead of the article, and leads, which are aiming to give the most summarized and general consensus information in view of majority of scholars, should be written using mainly tertiary sources. So, leads should contain «mainstreams» in historiography of the subject. All details, peculiarities and alternative theories may be given in the wiki-article's body, as per weights of each of such alternative theories. Do you understand now? Please let me know if you still have any questions. HOBOPOCC (talk) 08:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? I have asked you how it is that you've determined certain 'tertiary sources' to be over and above other 'tertiary sources'. Everything you have offered has been based on the most flimsy pretexts and reconstructions of the same material you have been offering throughout. Your sources have been read through and understood to be what they are: cherry picked, redacted constructs which are not actually supported by the source itself when it is read in its entirety. Presenting them anew does not suddenly make them credible, nor do they suddenly transmogrify into irrefutable tertiary sources because you've presented a ridiculous interpretation. Everything you have proposed is, essentially, a misrepresentation. I am getting fed up with having to waste ridiculous amounts of time in checking your "RSes, proving that Ukrainian famine was part of general famine in the Soviet Union". I am also getting extremely irate at having to repeat trojan, cherry picking, bad synthesis, bad everything. To add to that, your English is infuriatingly weak and it is difficult to establish what you are arguing. I shouldn't need to read what you've written several times in order to understand what you are attempting to convey. I have serious misgivings as to whether your capacity to understand English is causing you to misunderstand criticisms of your proposals. I have given up on trying to extract you 'the user' from you 'the content' because they have long been indistinguishable. Bang on as many doors as you wish and continue to demand justice for yourself. Your attempts at discussion are a parody of scholarship on any level. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: The issues with the Kulchytsky and EU statement have already been discussed here. Reread my comments about these sources above. In regard to the EU statement, you just repeated the same quote with crucially important parts redacted, which makes the paraphrased quote in of itself useless. Alexandrov advocates a third position - that it was not repressive and not natural, but then says a 'general famine' started in several areas of the USSR, and then points out the quarantine...so I have no clue what he's rambling about here, but it doesn't seem to apply to this discussion.--Львівське (говорити) 20:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

  Im ignoring your posts now and I shall ignore them in future at list till the moment you stop pretending you do not understand what it's written in RSes. In case if you do not pretend you do not understand what it' s written in RSes, but really can't understand them, so it's even stronger reason not to discuss with you anything. Let's RSes talk, not anonymous editors of wikipedia. HOBOPOCC (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

You can ignore my posts all you want, but you don't decide consensus and policy. :) --Львівське (говорити) 21:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

All answer to you question, concerning what well known historians have to said about the famine in Ukraine is written here http://www.massviolence.org/The-1932-1933-Great-Famine-in-Ukraine and here http://www.massviolence.org/Mass-crimes-under-Stalin-1930-1953?artpage=2#outil_sommaire_2

And if you unsderstand it well, ther was not ONE famine but MANY differents famines, and the worst was in Ukraine ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.44.115.193 (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• thanks for the links! Please provide citation from linked book that «her was not ONE famine but MANY differents famines». Maybe it is simply your own false interpretation of author's story. Besides, it' absolutely clear that in every area famine has it's local peculiarities. But it's also clear, that famine in USSR, even happened in different areas, has same reasons and happened at same time, i. e. famine in Ukraine, in Kazakhstan, Volga delta and Belorussia - is one big famine, happened by policy of soviet regime, even in Ukraine famine took hardest «human harvest», and this, and, perhaps, some local differences, MAYBE makes Ukrainian famine unique, but nevertheless this very unique famine is anyhow just a part of famine, which happened that year in many different areas of Soviet Union.HOBOPOCC (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I can provide such citation. Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence says: "Famines in the Ukraine were different from other famines occurring in the Soviet Union between 1931 and 1933".--Andrux (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

who is author? Nicolas Werth? yes, he is very respectful scholar and this is his personal opinion. Need to admit, that at this point his opinion is different to mainstream, as I pointed out before. Besides, we can write in the wiki-article something like this: «Holodomor in Ukraine was part of general Soviet famine of 1932-1932, even it has some local signes which make it differ and unique comparing to other areas of hunger». HOBOPOCC (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

At this point you're just playing WP:IDONTLIKEIT and pretending your fringe view is mainstream, and mainstream is "just someones opinion". The train has come off the tracks.--Львівське (говорити) 22:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

"Personal opinion", really? Or maybe WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Such "personal opinion" was published at Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence, which is definitely reliable source. I disagree with the sentence you suggested, since it is not supported by reliable references.--Andrux (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

HOBOPOCC, I fail to see where you have brought anything new and of substance to the table. I could find countless resources for any contentious issue (Intelligent Design, conspiracy theories, et al) based on WP:FRINGE: by no means does it make it any the less fringe, just a lot more of it. Incidentally, you should tread talk pages with a little more care. Creating a section on a talk page asserting that you have absolute proof of the non-existence of Holodomor is not appreciated.

Shervinsky, this is not to be turned into a game of tag-team editing. Your 'support' of HOBOPOCC's incredible revelations backed by 'scientific' research is nothing short of transparent posturing as to the validity of the content. Please remember that you have already been warned off editing or involving yourself in this area of European history. Unless you have something constructive to add to the discussion, encouraging disruptive editing is something you should not engage in. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear, what a needlessly long and tedious discussion. Hoboross, I don't think you are serving your cause well by your style of argument, which I think is counter-productive to your viewpoint. I think there is a clear consensus that the famine or famines were man-made and spread across the Soviet Union. The disagreement is over whether the famine in Ukraine had sufficiently different characteristics from other Soviet famines to treat it as a separate event (I remain sceptical). I would suggest a long pause, and then a new section to concentrate on positive well sourced discussion of that issue. cwmacdougall 0:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the best course of action would be to first show what he wants to change in the article itself. Previously it was just stating flat out that it's part of the general Soviet famine, but his arguments have been more along "see, there's a dispute" - but the scholarly dispute is covered already. He needs to be more clear about what he's trying to prove, what he wants to change in the article specifically, his proposed change - and then work backwards and provide sources to back up his proposals to gain the consensus he desires.--Львівське (говорити) 01:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Given the name of this section, I believe HOBOPOCC has already made his/her position clear. In terms of an overview, the content changes he/she wishes to introduce are cherry picked excerpts redacted, interpreted for us (as if we are unable to draw our own conclusions from the excepts cited by reading them in context and in their entirety) and shoehorned in to support a POV rewrite of the article, full stop. I may be a simpleton but, "RSes, proving that Ukrainian famine was part of general famine in the Soviet Union" seems self-explanatory. My interpretation is that HOBOPOCC was not trying to find consensus for a few additional sources, but was trying to introduce a trojan or two. Having failed on that level, he/she appears to be jumping straight in with a coatrack on which to hang an entirely new article. Nevertheless, I would be prepared to evaluate a well structured proposal to be backed up by appropriate research. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I think your WP:TROJAN assessment is spot on. His plan, I believe, would be to show good sources saying in bare minimum that Ukraine suffeed from the Soviet-wide famine, which it did - and ignore all content about its unique nature. Then after establishing it was part of the Soviet famine, the goal would be to show that everyone accepts the Soviet famine happened, but the 'genocide' thing is just a POV theory in the west. Honestly, his condescending attitude, view that everyone is his opponent, lack of ability to communicate in basic English, and refusal to work towards consensus (i.e. he's "ignoring" me) says enough about what's going on here. I fear now that his next step will be to give up on getting consensus, and just start WP:CITEKILLing fringe Russian-language sources out of context to say, "omg they're deleting my RSs without providing proper reasoning!", he's already made up the "they ignored me for 48hrs so I can force it in now" rule...--Львівське (говорити) 05:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference 5 does not support the idea of one common famine at all. Author is discussing the ethnical and national issues related to Holodomor. WP:CITEKILLing does not really work. --Andrux (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This is all I see now. lol --Львівське (говорити) 23:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

How remarkably accurate! And here was I simply seeing more attempts at pulling a rabbit out of a hat a la HOBOPOHOCC. In general, however, I'm seeing yet more non-content from someone who is wasting inordinate amounts of time and energy which Wikipedians who actually contribute constructively on all manner of subject matter would rather dedicate to developing and maintaining verifiable, reliably sourced articles. This has become disruptive behaviour at its most irritating. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

(Temporary) rearrangement of article in order to sustain reader interest?

Content issues aside: 'Was editing this for mechanics, and the awfully dry history section, subsections "Scope and duration" and "Death toll" IMO seems calculated to put a person to sleep--so soon after the Introduction foretells of an interesting article. This is a horrific, compelling subject not only for Ukrainophiles. But the lengthy citing of IMO dry statistics devoid of any sense of human suffering or tragedy--seems to read like a page from the official Soviet statistical manual for 1932 or whatever--and IMO has the tendency to kill all but the most devoted scholar's attention. This IS a general readership encyclopoaeidia, right? QUERY: What would anyone think of moving the entire history section--INTACT--to a less prominent place further down the article pending development of the so far empty "Implementation and abuse" subsection and moving something more compelling and lifelike in its place? Any specific agreement with or objection to this idea? Paavo273 (talk) 02:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

What exactly do u want to change?--Andrux (talk) 11:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Ukraine articles
• Top-importance Ukraine articles
• WikiProject Ukraine articles
• B-Class Soviet Union articles
• High-importance Soviet Union articles
• B-Class Russia articles
• High-importance Russia articles
• High-importance B-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles
• B-Class Russia (history) articles
• History of Russia task force articles
• WikiProject Soviet Union articles
• C-Class Death articles
• High-importance Death articles
• B-Class Human rights articles
• High-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• Selected anniversaries (November 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (November 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (November 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (November 2010)
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment