→External links?: cmt |
The Last Angry Man (talk | contribs) →I quit: new section |
||
Line 196:
::::After discussing this, we have come to the conclusion that actual technical protection is probably not necessary for the articles. They are not edited all that frequently (aside from the Ukraine articles), and there haven't been any recent edit wars on them recently, so admins are not going to be rushing to protect them in any case. We did discuss implementing a "gentlemen's agreement" though, whereby there wouldn't be any technical protection, but where you would all agree not to edit the articles or sections which are affected by this mediation until the mediation ends. (I'm not sure if we have any ladies in this mediation, but if we do, please accept my apologies.) With this method there could be problems with new users, etc., changing the relevant content, but my feeling is that most of this can probably solved through normal processes, and that if in the unlikely event that other measures become necessary, we can consider them when the situation comes up. Let me know what you think about this. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♫]]</sup></b> 08:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
::::: If we've agreed to participate here, then ''mere courtesy'' dictates we should most certainly not be affecting the status quo in articles related to the Holodomor. Any changes, particularly if perceived as running against any developing consensus here or at said articles would lead to accusations of bad faith here and torpedo the mediation. That possibility has already been realized by Paul Siebert opening an AE request regarding activities involving other editors and himself at the [[Mass killings under Communist regimes]] article, which would be related to the Holodomor. [[User:Vecrumba|P<small>ЄTЄRS</small> <s>J</s> V]]<small> ►[[User_talk:Vecrumba|TALK]]</small> 14:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
== I quit ==
I am quite simply giving up on trying to edit wikipedia. Editors I have never come across are now calling me a sockpuppet, I get accused of conducting a smear campaign and called a troll and nothing is done about it. The atmosphere on this site is toxic, and I see no reason to suffer stress just because I wished to contribute. I`m going back to finish my book which I have neglected while being on this site. I should like to thank the mediators for all they did in getting permission for myself to take part here, but I am damned if I am going to put up with abuse from random strangers on the internet. [[User:The Last Angry Man|The Last Angry Man]] ([[User talk:The Last Angry Man|talk]]) 18:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
|
Revision as of 18:41, 4 November 2011
Observers
- Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Please alert me if I may help with this mediation. I have tried informally to mediate a couple previous disputes related to Ukraine; I sometimes revert vandals edits about Lviv---such as attempts to remove mention of one nationality/ethnicity/etc.
Sources
Staline wrote
The most important thing now is Ukraine. The current situation in Ukraine is terribly bad. It’s bad in the Party. They say that, in two regions in Ukraine (Kiev and Dnieprepetrovsk), some fifty district committees have spoken against the collection plan, declaring it unrealistic. Things are no better in the other district committees. What does it sound like? It’s no longer a party, it’s a parliament, a caricature of a parliament. Instead of leading, Kosior has been maneuvering between the directives of the Party Central Committee and the requests of the district committees: Now he’s squeezed into a corner. Things are bad with the soviets. Chubar is not a leader. The situation with the GPU is not good. Redens is not up to leading the struggle against the counter-revolution in a republic as large and particular as Ukraine. If we do not immediately take charge of straightening out the situation in Ukraine, we could lose Ukraine. Bear in mind that Pilsudski never rests, his espionage capabilities in Ukraine are much stronger than Redens and Kosior realize. And remember too that, in the Ukrainian Communist Party (500 000 members, ha ha !), we find no few (no, no few!) rotten types, conscious and unconscious ‘petliurites’, as well as direct agents of Pilsudski. As soon as things get worse, these elements will lose no time in opening up a front within (and outside) the Party, against the Party. The worst of it is that the Ukrainian leaders are oblivious to these dangers (Khlevniuk, 2001: 273-274). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.154.30.110 (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Werth's conclusion
Two fundamental issues need to be considered in defining the Ukrainian famine of 1932-33 as a genocide, along lines set by the December 1948 United Nations Convention: intention and the ethnic-national targeting of a group (Article II of the Convention recognizes only national, ethnic, racial, and religious groups, not social or political). In the case of Ukraine, sufficient evidence exists to demonstrate intention. A crucial document on this point is the resolution of January 22, 1933 signed by Stalin, ordering the blockade of Ukraine and the Kuban, a region of the Caucasus with a majority-Ukrainian population. The blockade intentionally worsened the famine in Ukrainian-populated areas and in these areas alone. On the question of target group, i.e. whether Stalin viewed the peasants of Ukraine and the Kuban as peasants or as Ukrainians, which is key to justifying use of the term genocide, scholars disagree. For some historians (Martin, Penner), the famine’s primary objective was to break peasant rather than national resistance. Others (Serbyn, Shapoval, Kulchytsky, Vasilev) argue that the peasants of Ukraine and the Kuban were targeted first as Ukrainians: For Stalin, the Ukrainian peasant question was “in essence, a national question, the peasants constituting the principal force of the national movement” (Stalin, 1954: 71). By crushing the peasantry, one was breaking the most powerful national movement capable of opposing the process of the construction of the USSR. As the famine decimated the Ukrainian peasantry, the regime condemned the entire policy of Ukrainization underway since the early 1920s: The Ukrainian elites were rounded up and arrested.
This specifically anti-Ukrainian assault makes it possible to define the totality of intentional political actions taken from late summer 1932 by the Stalinist regime against the Ukrainian peasantry as genocide. With hunger as its deadly arm, the regime sought to punish and terrorize the peasants, resulting in fatalities exceeding four million people in Ukraine and the northern Caucasus. That being said, the Holodomor was very different from the Holocaust. It did not seek to exterminate the Ukrainian nation in its entirety, and it did not involve the direct murder of its victims. The Holodomor was conceived and fashioned on the basis of political reasoning and not of ethnic or racial ideology. However, by the sheer number of its victims, the Holodomor, seen again in its historical context, is the only European event of the 20th century that can be compared to the two other genocides, the Armenian and the Holocaust.
taken from http://www.massviolence.org/The-1932-1933-Great-Famine-in-Ukraine?artpage=1#outil_sommaire_0
Man-made
@Volunteer Marek. If the dispute was about calling this famine "man-made" and "genocide", it would be easy to resolve. "Man-made" means simply "made by man" (confiscation of grain, preventing movement of people from the area of disaster, etc.), as opposed to "made by nature" (e.g. poor weather conditions). Some famines in history were obviously "made by nature". Others did not. All books I read about this tell that all famines in the USSR during this time (including Kazahstan and other areas) were mostly "made by man". The only difference of Holodomor is obvious: it has been recognized as a genocide by some historians and Ukrainian government. So what? Just tell it was recognized as genocide by such and such parties, but not other parties (and provide arguments by the parties). End of story. No need in definitive answer.Biophys (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- If the dispute was about calling this famine "man-made" and "genocide", it would be easy to resolve. - you would think!!! But things which it seems like "would be easy to resolve" are not, on Wikipedia. The dispute over this was a genocide or not is down the road - even getting folks to admit that it was "man-made" is a struggle. It's an old tactic in diplomacy; start an argument about something trivial, nonconsequential and even obvious, so that you don't have to discuss the real issue which you might loose. Volunteer Marek 02:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- As I already said to Stradivarius, this mediation is waste of time, just as most other mediations. This is for serious reasons. Collaborative writing is difficult, even for two authors who are good friends and know the subject. One of them must take a lead. Other(s) may prepare some parts of the text. Each chapter in scientific books is usually written by only one author. But the collaboration becomes impossible when people are writing about a political controversy and hold opposite ideological positions. That's assuming the willingness to negotiate and to respect the RS/NPOV rules by all parties, which is usually not the case. If one wants to contribute and do not have a lot of time, his best strategy is to avoid any talking and especially conflict resolution with editors who disagree with him for whatever reason. Biophys (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I mediated a tough case back in 2008, on Prem Rawat. It was hard work and took many months but progress was made. Don't be too quick to doubt our chances :) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 20:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hopefully if we're going to spend some time on this we can actually resolve some of the lingering major issues and not just the trivial points like 'man made'. Next will probably be back at whether the Kuban counts or if published primary sources count as RS...ugh..--Львівське (говорити) 07:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- If we still hope to achieve something, this can not be done along the lines proposed by Mr.Stradivarius [2]. We can not make choices between positions "a" or "b" because some sources tell "a" and others tell "b". Moreover, we should not make any choices, but simply describe positions "a" and "b" per RS, and most important, include arguments by historians in favor of positions "a" and "b". Biophys (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hopefully if we're going to spend some time on this we can actually resolve some of the lingering major issues and not just the trivial points like 'man made'. Next will probably be back at whether the Kuban counts or if published primary sources count as RS...ugh..--Львівське (говорити) 07:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- I mediated a tough case back in 2008, on Prem Rawat. It was hard work and took many months but progress was made. Don't be too quick to doubt our chances :) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 20:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Opening statements
Opening statements are here.
|
---|
Statement by Paul SiebertIn my opinion, the dispute is focused mostly on the following main points:
In my opinion, the article should make stress on "i"s, although the reservations should be made that significant amount of sources share the "ii"s viewpoints, and some sources advocate a point of view that is a synthesis of both points.
On TransporterMan's table. I am not sure the table summarises all possible viewpoints. The obvious omissions as as follows:
In summary, it is hard for me to formulate my position based on the table prepared by TransporterMan, because it does not take into account some important nuances.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Statement by VecrumbaI was writing my own assessment, which I can still complete and provide. However, for the purpose of framing the debate, I’ve responded in a manner which I hope will facilitate comparison and dialog.
If this might move along definition/resolution of positions (although how I became an apparent spokesperson is still unclear), to Paul Siebert's: "Accordingly, the famine in Ukraine, by the moment of its apex was directed against the Ukrainian, both because the major part of Ukrainian peasantry was ethnic Ukrainians, and because the resistance to collectivisation adopted national/nationalist forms." The meme presented is that "direction" was a confluence of circumstance outside intent with just the ever slightest whiff of victim blaming (Ukrainian nationalist resistance to collectivization). Since we appear to now at least have agreement that circumstances alone concentrated (as opposed to a willful direction) famine suffering upon the Ukrainians, the next step is, from my viewpoint, to establish the use and role of policy targeting Ukrainians (failure to request international aid in stark contrast to prior famine, confiscation of grain, confiscation of family food stores, restriction of movement, shooting children for stealing a handful of grain, etc.) to actively focus and amplify the famine beyond circumstances into a man-made catastrophe inflicted upon the Ukrainian nation—the elimination of whose nationalism had commenced in tandem with the launch of collectivization. A note on Conquest. As long as I have been involved in the article, there has been an activist movement to not just suppress but eliminate Conquest as obsolete and irrelevant, and more recently, to represent him as having changed his views, all of which are incorrect. In particular, Davies and Wheatcroft have been cited in the past as debunking Conquest, yet D&W in their seminal work on the famine explicitly state their recognition and acknowledgement of the value of Conquest's work and contributions—meaning Conquest continues to be pertinent(!). (I should mention I shelled out the $150 or so for whatever it was at the time for The Years of Hunger when I could tell just by editors' contentions it was being grossly misrepresented.) So, Conquest = good enough for D&W = good enough for the article. While I don't suggest editors respond to each editor per se, I think that if editors refine/expand their statements as more viewpoints come on board, that will present a more complete picture as we move to next steps. PЄTЄRS Statement by The Last Angry Man
Statement by GreyhoodHere are my answers for the questions.
Statement by Biophys
Statement by BesterRus
BesterRus (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Statement by Volunteer Marek
Volunteer Marek 22:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC) WAIT. Why is BesterRus part of this mediation? As far as I can tell he has not edited the Holodomor article, he has not participated in the discussion there, he just sort of jumped in here all of sudden (the fact that he somehow knew how to find this is a bit strange). Part of the reason why I agreed to this mediation is that I regard the people who disagree here with respect so I do have some hope of maybe achieving something. This is someone running in from the street, and if you're at all familiar with the history of this article or topic area, you should have a pretty good idea of why that is problematic. The user's statement above raises the eyebrows even further. Volunteer Marek 23:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Statement by GalassiUnder extreme duress - I largely second Biophys' sentiments here.--Galassi (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC) Statement by Lothar von RichthofenAnother short one; I haven't the time at the moment for a well-thought-out statement, but nevertheless wish to throw my hat in before the deadline. I was the editor who requested the full-protect, as that was the action that allowed us to resolve last year's dispute. Personally, I would align myself mostly with Biophys and Volunteer Marek. And like VM, I am apprehensive of BesterRus's entry into this process. While there are no rules against his entry, and I suppose that he is welcome to participate, I find it a bit concerning that he has never before participated in any discussion on the topic. This was a dispute amongst a more or less defined and constant group of editors, and his entry changes the nature of this dispute a bit. His statement is also a cause for some suspicion, as it betrays either a lack of knowledge of or lack of focus on the specific issue that we came here to settle. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Statement by Lvivske[May be a work in progress before the 'deadline']
edit: After now reading through the statements, I'd like to point out that I agree with VM and Lothar's assertion that BesterRus's inclusion in this mediation may be problematic --Львівське (говорити) 20:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC) Statement by FaustianToo busy now to be very active, but basically I agree with VM. I find Siebart's statement to be quite reasonable. Faustian (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC) |
External links?
Will these be discussed during mediation? The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'll discuss whether this will be appropriate with the other mediators. But first, could you give me a rough idea of what your issues with the external links are? Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 02:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- The one we were discussing in the section you collapsed, garethjones.org :o) It is a self published site and really has no place in the article. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- The question of the RS aside, using self-published site as a source is different from using it as external link (only the first practice is directly not recommended in most cases). This site mainly contains articles by Gareth Jones (not self-published), a journalist who traveled in Ukraine in 1930s, as well as some other primary materials related to the topic of the article. Whether or not it belongs to the article is a different question, but the very fact that someone self-published a good collection of primary materials from 1930s does not prohibit it from External links section. GreyHood Talk 23:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- The one we were discussing in the section you collapsed, garethjones.org :o) It is a self published site and really has no place in the article. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Related pages
BTW, perhaps the article on Holodomor genocide question should be protected as well, as it's possible that there might be some 'spill over' into there. My understanding is that we will take up some issues specifically relevant to that article later on in the mediation. Volunteer Marek 18:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Seconded. Also, the article Ukrainians contains mention of Holodomor and (prior to the snafu that just happened there recently) was about to spill over there. Greyhood is also editing there...I think whatever we decide here should filter down to articles like this and conflict on external articles (esp. by members here) be resolved here and not on proxy articles.--Львівське (говорити) 19:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- I was going to make a similar proposal. Holodomor in modern politics and Denial of the Holodomor (the captions in the photos of the last article are really amusing) are two closely related articles, and there are various mentions of Holodomor in the articles like Ukraine, History of Ukraine etc. GreyHood Talk 20:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Any amusement regarding the topic is ill-placed. Please state your issue with the captions in the form of a collegial discussion. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 01:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)- Hi everyone. Just to let you know that the mediators are aware of this and are talking through it. We'll let you know when we decide what to do. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 03:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- After discussing this, we have come to the conclusion that actual technical protection is probably not necessary for the articles. They are not edited all that frequently (aside from the Ukraine articles), and there haven't been any recent edit wars on them recently, so admins are not going to be rushing to protect them in any case. We did discuss implementing a "gentlemen's agreement" though, whereby there wouldn't be any technical protection, but where you would all agree not to edit the articles or sections which are affected by this mediation until the mediation ends. (I'm not sure if we have any ladies in this mediation, but if we do, please accept my apologies.) With this method there could be problems with new users, etc., changing the relevant content, but my feeling is that most of this can probably solved through normal processes, and that if in the unlikely event that other measures become necessary, we can consider them when the situation comes up. Let me know what you think about this. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- If we've agreed to participate here, then mere courtesy dictates we should most certainly not be affecting the status quo in articles related to the Holodomor. Any changes, particularly if perceived as running against any developing consensus here or at said articles would lead to accusations of bad faith here and torpedo the mediation. That possibility has already been realized by Paul Siebert opening an AE request regarding activities involving other editors and himself at the Mass killings under Communist regimes article, which would be related to the Holodomor. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 14:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- If we've agreed to participate here, then mere courtesy dictates we should most certainly not be affecting the status quo in articles related to the Holodomor. Any changes, particularly if perceived as running against any developing consensus here or at said articles would lead to accusations of bad faith here and torpedo the mediation. That possibility has already been realized by Paul Siebert opening an AE request regarding activities involving other editors and himself at the Mass killings under Communist regimes article, which would be related to the Holodomor. PЄTЄRS
- After discussing this, we have come to the conclusion that actual technical protection is probably not necessary for the articles. They are not edited all that frequently (aside from the Ukraine articles), and there haven't been any recent edit wars on them recently, so admins are not going to be rushing to protect them in any case. We did discuss implementing a "gentlemen's agreement" though, whereby there wouldn't be any technical protection, but where you would all agree not to edit the articles or sections which are affected by this mediation until the mediation ends. (I'm not sure if we have any ladies in this mediation, but if we do, please accept my apologies.) With this method there could be problems with new users, etc., changing the relevant content, but my feeling is that most of this can probably solved through normal processes, and that if in the unlikely event that other measures become necessary, we can consider them when the situation comes up. Let me know what you think about this. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi everyone. Just to let you know that the mediators are aware of this and are talking through it. We'll let you know when we decide what to do. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 03:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Any amusement regarding the topic is ill-placed. Please state your issue with the captions in the form of a collegial discussion. PЄTЄRS
I quit
I am quite simply giving up on trying to edit wikipedia. Editors I have never come across are now calling me a sockpuppet, I get accused of conducting a smear campaign and called a troll and nothing is done about it. The atmosphere on this site is toxic, and I see no reason to suffer stress just because I wished to contribute. I`m going back to finish my book which I have neglected while being on this site. I should like to thank the mediators for all they did in getting permission for myself to take part here, but I am damned if I am going to put up with abuse from random strangers on the internet. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)