Steven Crossin (talk | contribs) format |
Steven Crossin (talk | contribs) move opening statements, strike those of excluded editors |
||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
:::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 :) <font face="Forte">[[User:Steven Zhang|<font color="black">Steven Zhang</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Steven Zhang|<font color="#FFCC00">The clock is ticking....</font>]]</sup></font> 20:34, 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 :) <font face="Forte">[[User:Steven Zhang|<font color="black">Steven Zhang</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Steven Zhang|<font color="#FFCC00">The clock is ticking....</font>]]</sup></font> 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..--'''[[User:Lvivske|Львівське]]''' <small>([[User talk:Lvivske|говорити]])</small> 07:12, 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..--'''[[User:Lvivske|Львівське]]''' <small>([[User talk:Lvivske|говорити]])</small> 07:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
==Opening statements== |
|||
{{collapse top|Opening statements are here.}} |
|||
====Statement by Paul Siebert==== |
|||
In my opinion, the dispute is focused mostly on the following main points: |
|||
# (i) Holodomor was a part ("an epicenter", according to some authors) of the Great Soviet famine, or (ii) it was a separate phenomenon unrelated to the concurrent famine in other parts of the USSR. |
|||
# (i) Holodomor affected primarily major grain producing areas, or (ii) it was a genocide directed against ethnic Ukrainians. |
|||
# (i) Holodomor was an unexpected result of the Soviet policy of collectivisation, or (ii) it was a deliberately designed and consciously organised famine directed against (Ukrainian) peasantry. |
|||
# (i) Holodomor was a "man made" famine similar to most other great famines in recent human history, so, instead of describing it as "man made" (which implies some uniqueness), one should explain concrete causes (industrialisation, collectivisation, food requisition, poor weather conditions, infestation of grain), or (ii) it is necessary to specify that it was a "man made" famine, which is its distinctive feature. |
|||
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.<br>If my description of the subject of the dispute is incorrect, especially, if I described "ii"s incorrectly, please, let me know, and I'll try to fix my description of the subject of the dispute accordingly.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 21:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:<s>It would be helpful if you could provide cites for the points expressed in the "i's" and "ii's", so that this discussion can be rooted in what has been published in reliable sources. --[[User:Tammsalu|Martin Tammsalu]] ([[User talk:Tammsalu|talk]]) 22:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)</s> |
|||
::At this time, citations aren't required. This is an opening statement asking for opinions of the editors. Additionally, I'd appreciate it if we can not comment in each others sections. There will be time for discussion and debate later. <font face="Forte">[[User:Steven Zhang|<font color="black">Steven Zhang</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Steven Zhang|<font color="#FFCC00">The clock is ticking....</font>]]</sup></font> 22:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
# My interests in regards to the Holodomor article is to remove political and nationalist bias from this article. In my opinion, that can be achieved by making an emphasis on the peer-reviewed English publications authored by leading historians. I declare that I have no conflicts of interest. |
|||
# In my opinion, the major problem that have caused this dispute is the desire of some users to represent Hololdomor as a deliberately engineered genocide of ethnic Ukrainians. |
|||
# The list of the issues is presented above. |
|||
# During this mediation, I hope to achieve a consensus between all major contributors that, whereas different viewpoints exist on Holodomor, all of them should be represented in the article fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, and the priority should be given to the viewpoints presented in the recent peer-reviewed English sources. <br>The need to focus on the recent sources is dictated by the fact that many good books and articles written before so called "''archival revolution''" (massive release of formerly classified Soviet archival documents) are somewhat outdated now, and many authors re-considered their views of Holodomor during last two decades. --[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 03:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
On [[User:TransporterMan|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:blue; font-variant:small-caps;">'''TransporterMan'''</span>]]'s table. I am not sure the table summarises all possible viewpoints. The obvious omissions as as follows: |
|||
# The discussed event is seen as static. In actuality, serious authors discuss several phases of the famine. Depending on the phase, the situation could be described by 2B, then by 4A, then, probably, 4B, and sometimes even 4C, and, by the end of the famine, 2A. |
|||
# Similarly, it is hard to give a simple answer about the anti-Ukrainian nature of the famine. The opposition to collectivisation was common for all Soviet peasantry, however, since most grain producing areas in the USSR were populated by either ethnic Russians or ethnic Ukrainians, the peasant resistance in Ukrainian populated areas had assumed national forms, and the government actions, accordingly, became simultaneously anti-peasant and anti-Ukrainian. (Obviously, that specifically anti-Russian actions and nationalist Russian resistance were impossible for an obvious reason: the authorities by no means could the Russian peasantry as some minority, and the peasants didn't see the central authorities as some alien force). 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. |
|||
In summary, it is hard for me to formulate my position based on the table prepared by [[User:TransporterMan|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:blue; font-variant:small-caps;">'''TransporterMan'''</span>]], because it does not take into account some important nuances.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 21:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Vecrumba==== |
|||
''I 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.'' |
|||
:At issue are intent, means, and consequence. |
|||
:(a) Holodomor was a part ("an epicenter", according to some authors) of the Great Soviet famine, ''and'' (b) it became a separate phenomenon in the focusing of famine consequences on the Ukrainian people. |
|||
:(a) Holodomor affected primarily major grain producing areas—Ukraine being the “breadbasket of Europe”, ''and'' (b) in being focused on the Ukrainians, in particular, the resultant scale of death became a genocide against the Ukrainian nation. |
|||
:''Elimination of Ukrainian resistance to collectivization started at the top, commencing shortly after its announcement with show trials in 1930 and 1931 followed by the destruction of nationalist-leaning Ukrainian communist leadership in 1932-1933.'' |
|||
:(a) The Holodomor was ''neither'' an “unexpected result of collectivization” ''nor'' was it (b) “deliberately designed and consciously organised famine directed against (Ukrainian) peasantry.” (a) understates and misdirects so-called “expectations” regarding inevitable results of confiscating both grain and food (unrelated to collectivization) while (b) overstates pre-planning versus taking advantage of an opportunity once elimination of Ukrainian nationalism as a prerequisite to achieving collectivization was already (i) a ''priority'' and (ii) ''underway'' since 1930. |
|||
:(a) The concrete factors contributing to famine conditions (similar to the prior famine in which the USSR ''did request—and receive—international aid'') were similar to other great famines in recent history, ''and'' (b) the focusing and “man-made” amplification of famine upon the Ukrainians (e.g., confiscation of family food stores, not permitting Ukrainians to flee their territory once there was neither grain nor food) made it uniquely “man-made.” |
|||
: Regarding the chart mentioned below, "5C". Once a deliberate course was taken ''which included forcibly emptying Ukrainian households of even personal food stores'' even while grain was exported, other scenarios (focusing on stages or nuances) are side shows. [[User:Vecrumba|P<small>ЄTЄRS</small> <s>J</s> V]]<small> ►[[User_talk:Vecrumba|TALK]]</small> 20:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:: Apologies for not answering the questions, briefly: |
|||
::* ''Interest'': I discovered Holodomor as one of the many articles editor Jacob Peters was rampaging through back in early 2007. My interest is the historical portrayal of the Soviet legacy. I have no conflict of interest. |
|||
::* ''Locus'': The "dispute" is whether or not Stalin facilitated the deaths on a genocidal scale of Ukrainians (in particular, as they were the most resisting of collectivization), or if it was just all a terribly unfortunate confluence of circumstances, after all, there is one documented case in particular where Stalin responded to a personal request for aid. And if there is not incontrovertible archival evidence Stalin planned this all ''in advance'', it logically cannot be intentional, etc. Lastly, the contention by some that this ultimately boils down to just politicized attempts to drive apart the Ukrainian-Russian family and to smear Russia's image in the post-Soviet era. |
|||
::* ''Issues'': Per mine above in apposition to Paul Siebert's which, in my view, could not be more clear in having proposed a false set of choices. Stages, nuances, and claims of biased politicization are informative but not material ''once international aid was refused and the food cupboards of Ukrainian families were being forcibly emptied.'' Post-archival sources make for interesting reading but do not change the applicability of older sources which deal with circumstances on the ground, which archival sources do not change. |
|||
::* ''Hopes'': An article that reputably represents historical circumstances. The evidence of willful action focused upon the Ukrainians, with catastrophic results on a scale accurately described as genocidal, is voluminous and incontrovertible. [[User:Vecrumba|P<small>ЄTЄRS</small> <s>J</s> V]]<small> ►[[User_talk:Vecrumba|TALK]]</small> 23:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
If this might move along definition/resolution of positions (although how I became an apparent spokesperson is still unclear), to Paul Siebert's: "<tt>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.</tt>" 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.'' [[User:Vecrumba|P<small>ЄTЄRS</small> <s>J</s> V]]<small> ►[[User_talk:Vecrumba|TALK]]</small> 19:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by The Last Angry Man==== |
|||
<s> |
|||
#What are your interests in regards to the Holodomor articles? How did you discover and start editing the article? Do you have any potential conflicts of interest? |
|||
*My interest lies more in the legacy communism left behind of which Holodomor is a part. The denial of the man made aspects of this genocide has irked me to quite some extent. There are no conflict of interest. |
|||
#What problems you think have caused this dispute to require mediation? |
|||
*Russian nationalist views and communist apologists who deny the facts of Holodomor, id est, Stalin used it to crush the people. |
|||
#What is your view of the dispute at present, and what issues need to be addressed in this mediation, that would help resolve this dispute amicably? Give a list of issues, if possible. |
|||
*The dispute is obvious, the removal of the man made aspects of Holodomor, be it the theft of seed grain, the theft of most anything edible in fact, the turning of people back at the borders, the shooting of people trying to leave the area, the denial of the famine to the world at large, and the point blank refusal of Stalin to render aid to the stricken people all point to a deliberate attack on the people of Ukraine, and this view is backed by the majority of reliable sources. |
|||
#What do you hope to achieve through mediation? |
|||
*An accurate article would be nice. |
|||
Regarding the chart [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/02_October_2011/Holodomor/Degrees_chart] I am of the opinion that 5C is the only possible response based on the sources. The harvest was not so bad that the populace would have been unable to feed themselves, the excessive requisitions of grain and specifically taking seed grain was the cause of the famine, the fact that the Soviet Union were exporting grain at the height of Holodomor is proof of this. [[User:The Last Angry Man|The Last Angry Man]] ([[User talk:The Last Angry Man|talk]]) 20:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
</s> |
|||
====Statement by Greyhood==== |
|||
Here are my answers for the questions. |
|||
*''Interests''. I was long aware of the disputes in this area, both on-wiki and off-wiki, but until recently I've avoided participation in such discussions, being just a watcher. Once I've actually read the current Holodomor article more closely, I was bemused by a fact that certain statements there not only are POVish when it comes to history representation, but also are problematic from a purely logical point of view. This spurred my participation in the dispute. My interest is to fix those logical problems, to make the article less-biased and to represent all points of view accurately, fairly and neutrally. I have no conflict of interest here. |
|||
*''Basis of dispute''. Paul has already named an immediate reason of the dispute. Speaking on a larger scale: unfortunately, there is a political demand and campaigning in Ukraine, supported by some other countries, seeking to present ''Holodomor'' as a kind of ''[[Holocaust]]'' against Ukrainians. This leads to the fact, that much of what was written about Holodomor has a political nature, not a scientific on. What real scientific discussion could be there when Ukraine almost legally prohibited the [[Holodomor denial]] (what a joke of an article, by the way, judging by the image captions alone)? So, the topic should be dealt with very carefully. |
|||
*''Issues''. Again, Paul named the primary issues, and I share his approach to fixing them. "Man-made" should not be used as a [[black box]] label, it should be properly clarified; it should be explained what is meant under that characteristic. Among other typical issues related to the subject are the following: |
|||
**1) The question of controversial victim figures - often the numbers are inflated by including migration, mortality from other causes and estimates of unborn children due to the much lower birth rate. Could be solved by presenting any figures only alongside with the explanation of counting methods. |
|||
**2) The question whether relief was provided or prohibited by the state. Could be solved by unbiased presentation of available sources. |
|||
**3) The question of dubious photographs illustrating Holodomor. There are very few, if any, real photographs of the 1932-33 hunger with 100% provenance. There were [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Holodomor_hoax_photos multiple scandals] when Holodomor researchers or activists used the photographs of the [[Russian famine of 1921]] presenting them as Holodomor photographs. Those of the supposed Holodomor photographs, which were not proven to be from 1921 ([[:File:Child affected by malnutrition.jpg|like the current lead image]]), were published originally in the books alongside hoax photos. The problem could be solved by making very accurate and extensive captions to such photographs, explaining the problems with provenance, or by not using dubious pictures at all. |
|||
*''Hopes''. I hope to fix at least the primary issues which led to this dispute, and, if possible, other issues named by me above. I hope also that we will find a good mechanism to collaboratively work on this article (and related ones) in future. [[User:Greyhood|<font color="darkgrey">Grey</font><font color="grey">Hood</font>]] [[User talk:Greyhood|<font color="black"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]] 12:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*As for the chart, I'm not sure that it fully summarizes all aspects and all options, but 2B is the closest hit in my opinion. [[User:Greyhood|<font color="darkgrey">Grey</font><font color="grey">Hood</font>]] [[User talk:Greyhood|<font color="black"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]] 12:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*I agree that the entire article should better be checked and rewritten. BesterRus named many issues that could and should be addressed - in fact I was going to talk about some of these as well, but feared it would make the scope of the discussion too large. But perhaps it is indeed the only solution, since the lead should summarize the body of the article. [[User:Greyhood|<font color="darkgrey">Grey</font><font color="grey">Hood</font>]] [[User talk:Greyhood|<font color="black"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]] 20:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*''Sources''. Some editors here, e.g. Biophys, suggest discussing sources and complain that other participants of discussion often discard supposedly good sources "only based on various technicalities". I'd like to discuss sources in more detail later, when mediators would find it appropriate. Now I'll just state that in the late 1980s and in the 1990s there was so called "archival revolution" in the USSR and later in Russia, when much of previously inaccessible archival data was opened to researchers. This rendered many (in fact most) of the previous works on the controversial Soviet subjects obsolete, even though the tendency to disregard the new data continued well into 1990s and sometimes even up to this day (because of [[inertia (disambiguation)|inertia]] in the field of study and also because of the political conditions). |
|||
:However, by now even some of the top scholars who have written highly critical works on the Soviet history have partially reconsidered their views, including Robert Conquest himself. And Biophys is well aware of this fact (several editors in a number of discussions have informed him and presented the sources), and I really wonder why he calls suggestions not to use obsolete sources or to use them only with reservations a ''technicality''. We'd still believe in [[geocentric system]] if we always would stick to obsolete things, disregarding new data and fresh arguments. ''The Harvest of Sorrow'', published in 1986 by Conquest seems not to fall in the category of up-to-date sources and should be dealt with very carefully if used at all. |
|||
:As for the preference to non-Russian and non-Ukrainian sources, this is not a solution. Russian and Ukrainian researchers have the better access to the archival data, and much as I doubt in fairness and neutrality of sources from those countries, they should not be disregarded, also because there are no strong reasons to believe that the post-Cold War historiography, say, American or British, would be less biased or better provided with data. [[User:Greyhood|<font color="darkgrey">Grey</font><font color="grey">Hood</font>]] [[User talk:Greyhood|<font color="black"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]] 22:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Biophys==== |
|||
*''Interests''. I came to comment because I was asked by Mr. Stradivarius [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hodja_Nasreddin&diff=454334517&oldid=454331065]. I am also concerned about the general tendency of removing well sourced texts and discrediting good sources in this subject area (e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sergey_Kirov&diff=455163084&oldid=455154119 here]), and Holodomor is only one example. I talked already with three participants of this mediation about it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASergey_Kirov&action=historysubmit&diff=455408682&oldid=455356658][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Greyhood&oldid=437540796#Your_revert] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paul_Siebert&oldid=442378392#Your_revert] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paul_Siebert&oldid=442378392#Your_second_revert_without_discussion]. |
|||
*''The problems''. This is a problem for arbitration enforcement, not for mediators. I think so for several reasons. |
|||
#Two participants of this mediation have been topic banned at AE already and rightly so. Others move in the same direction [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BesterRus&diff=prev&oldid=456334615]. |
|||
#Instead of releasing tensions, this mediation only makes things worse. There are already two threads at arbitration pages about this. Although the initial statements were very much reasonable, one of the sides saw this as an opportunity to demand sanctions and criticize Arbcom [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification&diff=454578395&oldid=454549956], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification&diff=456245421&oldid=456243281], while willingly violating their own editing restrictions [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aeroflot&diff=455649266&oldid=455434562]. |
|||
#None of the editors here made significant content contributions to the article under mediation. There are simply two or more groups of editors who stalk each other, create enormously long talk pages, conduct edit wars, and make editing impossible for others. They do it in many articles. |
|||
#At least one of the "sides" make editing impossible for third parties by violation our core RS and NPOV policies. I personally could never edit this article because this side refused to accept academic sources on the subject, and in particular the book "The Harvest of Sorrow" by the most prominent western historian of Russia [[Robert Conquest]] (a publication by [[Oxford University Press]]). This is not a partisan source. The whole book was written specifically on the subject of this article. Of course this "side" did not discard this source completely and directly, but only based on various technicalities. A few years ago it looked like that (see edit summaries)[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holodomor&diff=175861611&oldid=175856711] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holodomor&diff=175848462&oldid=175844287]. Now it looks like that: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Holodomor&diff=451557087&oldid=451536059][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Holodomor&diff=452448186&oldid=452447655]. Looking at the discussion (for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Holodomor#Conquest.27s_opinion_on_the_genocidal_nature_of_Holodomor. here]), it's apparent that instead of using statements made by Conquest himself in his books, this "side" claims that he changed his scientific conclusions. However, Conquest never [[Retraction|officially retracted]] his Holodomor research. To the contrary, he reiterated his position in his more recent books, such as "Reflections on a Ravaged Century". If Conquest changed his position, this must be referenced to a later RS by the same author. Here is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMediation_Cabal%2FCases%2F02_October_2011%2FHolodomor&action=historysubmit&diff=455449354&oldid=455438065 first response]. No one objects to using newer sources or later publications by the same historian ''if'' he retracted his previous scientific findings. But an attempt to dismiss the entire most detailed academic book on the subject as an "obsolete source" is precisely the problem I am talking about. [[User:Hodja Nasreddin|Biophys]] ([[User talk:Hodja Nasreddin|talk]]) 00:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*''Expectations''. Nothing good. There are two common misconceptions here: |
|||
#Some think that discussing content disagreements is always good. No, the prolonged discussions with repeating the same arguments over and over again is only waste of time and hurt the project. This is winning content disputes by [[ad nauseam]]. This can be also a variety of [[WP:Troll|trolling]]. |
|||
#Some think that dispute resolution is always a good idea. No, the dispute resolution frequently leads to ''development'' of conflicts and banning good content contributors. This is a necessary evil at best. This is something to avoid.[[User:Hodja Nasreddin|Biophys]] ([[User talk:Hodja Nasreddin|talk]]) 14:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by BesterRus==== |
|||
<s> |
|||
*''Interests''. My only interest is historical integrity. I want people to know what ''really'' happened. I have no conflicts of interest. |
|||
*''The problems''. What caused the dispute to require mediation is that there is no formal consensus on the subject even between historians. The reason for this is because this famine was used most irresponsibly in anti-soviet propaganda, in attempts to separate Ukraine from USSR, in attempts to smear communism, in attempts to seed hatred between two brother nations, and so much more. Numerous lies have been proven to be just that. The overwhelming amount of distorted information combined with blatant lies led honest people like some participants of this discussion to believe something that simply isn't true. What made the situation even worse is that some writers blatantly abused of their status to spread their opinions, based on no factual evidence, but rather on hearsay or simply on their own intuition (Robert Conquest comes to mind). Hopefully, this discussion will help clear things up. |
|||
*''Current dispute''. Everything needs to be addressed from A to Z. The article has to be heavily rewritten. Truth be told, I wouldn't know where to start. What I think is underrepresented in this article is this: |
|||
# the climate conditions - the heavy rains that drenched the crops and caused too much weed, the drought, the locust infestation. (even if there's another article for this) |
|||
# the numbers of grain production by years that show tendencies (production went drastically down). |
|||
# the numbers of livestock in Ukraine by years. |
|||
# the context of collectivization - for example: policy forced people to give up their horses and oxes to the Kolkhoz, so they slaughtered and ate them instead. |
|||
# the industrialization context - some amount of crops ''had'' to be sold, it was the only source of revenue to buy heavy machinery, and the industrialization couldn't be stopped once it had started. The West wasn't accepting Soviet gold since 1925 till after 1933. |
|||
# the help that was provided - how many people were relocated from the drought area, how much bread was sent to relieve the famine. In numbers. |
|||
# the lack of any factual evidence in the unsealed archives that'd prove that the famine was intentional or wasn't to be relieved, while the term genocide ''requires'' proven intent. |
|||
# the victims - how many % were actually Ukranians, and how many % were other nations. Sheer numbers. |
|||
# the precedence - famines ravaged Russia from the [[Emancipation reform of 1861|Peasant Reform of 1861]] till the famine of 1932-33 (if we don't take into account the post-war famine of 1946-47). And they weren't called man-made, only this one. |
|||
# the myths - the article is full of them, they have to be debunked and removed. Some of them are revolting, but impossible to disprove, even though they're not proven either. Let's just agree that it's an issue that has seen so much propaganda that in order to bring in new information, such as "youth brigades that ran around Ukraine raping women", we need to have heavy proof. No frivolities should be accepted. Baseless accusations should retire into a small section instead of ''being the article''. |
|||
*''What do you hope to achieve through mediation''. Truth. Sorry, I think I went over 250 words, but it's a vast subject. My position on the chart is 2A with the understanding that if crops were redistributed differently, it'd be the army, for example, who'd suffer the famine, leaving the country completely defenseless, or another region would suffer the famine. |
|||
[[User:BesterRus|BesterRus]] ([[User talk:BesterRus|talk]]) 13:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::<small>Removed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3A.Mediation_Cabal%2FCases%2F02_October_2011%2FHolodomor&action=historysubmit&diff=455952361&oldid=455946837 reply] from uninvolved editor. Please use the talk page for discussion. — <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> 05:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)</small> |
|||
</s> |
|||
====Statement by Volunteer Marek==== |
|||
# ''What are your interests in regards to the Holodomor articles? How did you discover and start editing the article? Do you have any potential conflicts of interest?'' - the article falls in the scope of a topic area which I edit regularly. I "discovered" it by typing in "Holodmor" into Wikipedia's search feature. I have no conflict of interest, potential or otherwise here. |
|||
# ''What problems you think have caused this dispute to require mediation?'' - there's actually two problems here. One is a perennial one which is that this article is a prime target for editors who wish to engage in Stalinist apologetics. This is basically constant here and has been ever since the article has existed. These editors introduce unreliably sourced material, remove reliably sourced material etc. the usual stuff. Most of these kinds of editors end up getting themselves banned in one way or another pretty quickly and none of the parties, AFAICT, of this mediation falls under that scope. Still, the frequent arrival of such editors tends to constantly re-inflame issues which should have already been settled. The second problem, which is more directly relevant for this mediation is related but different. As Paul Siebert above says we should use only high quality academic sources on a potentially controversial article like this one. The thing is, high quality academic sources are pretty explicit here but these same editors are just refusing to acknowledge in what these sources say or try to interpret them "creatively". The dispute has arisen because, honestly there's only so many times you can say on the talk page "high quality academic source says Holodomor was a distinct phenomenon from the general Soviet famine" only to have other editors keep repeating "please provide high quality academic sources for this contention" as if you didn't just waste reading a number of scholarly articles on the subject. So um, the problems is stubbornness and unwillingness to admit something, even while paying lip service to use of high quality sources. |
|||
# ''What is your view of the dispute at present, and what issues need to be addressed in this mediation, that would help resolve this dispute amicably? Give a list of issues, if possible.'' - at this point there's two main issues. 1 - was Holodomor a distinct phenomenon from the Soviet famine. Nobody's denying that a famine in other parts of Soviet Union happened at around this time, but most high quality academic sources do treat the Holodomor as a separate subject because there were many unique features associated with it, which were not present in regard to the Soviet famine. 2 - was Holodmor "man-made". The question lurking in the background here is "was Holodomor a genocide". However, "man-made" does not imply "genocide". Roughly speaking the famine in the Ukraine started out as a famine similar to ones which were taking place in other parts of SU. All of these were "man-made" in the sense that they were mostly the result of man-made policy (harvests, weather all that crap, had little if anything to do with it). But '''additionally'' in mid to late 1932 Stalin and others realized that they could use this famine in the Ukraine to suppress Ukrainian peasants who had some notions of independence. Sources are pretty clear about this. The question is whether this is enough to make it a genocide. But that is not the problem here - the problem is over whether the famine can be described as "man-made". Which it obviously was, one way or another, genocide or not. |
|||
# ''What do you hope to achieve through mediation?'' Hope? Well... let me "hope" for a second. I hope to have the present disputes resolved as they pertain to the problems described above. Even that is extremely optimistic. However even if by some miracle this mediation is successful, I am 98.675% sure that one of two things will happen anyway: a year from now or so, some new editors will show up and restart exactly the same arguments, and if somebody points to this successful (let's "hope") mediation they will say that that was different, "consensus can change" blah blah blah, it's gonna be the same thing all over again, just new faces. If that doesn't happen, then I'm pretty sure (see % above) that one of the editors involved in the present dispute will fancy to restart the debate once the "mediators and admins have lost interest" and try, once again, to get their way (that's basically the history of this article so far). Maybe it won't be one of the parties involved in this mediation but rather one of the editors who were involved in these disputes shortly before but who decided, for one reason or another, to lay low during this mediation. I don't know. But I do know that this is exactly what will happen. I'd love to be proved wrong and hence my honest and good faithed participation in this mediation. |
|||
<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<font style="color:blue;background:orange;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</font>]]</span></small> 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.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<font style="color:blue;background:orange;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</font>]]</span></small> 23:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Galassi==== |
|||
Under extreme duress - I largely second Biophys' sentiments here.--[[User:Galassi|Galassi]] ([[User talk:Galassi|talk]]) 14:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
==== Statement by Lothar von Richthofen ==== |
|||
Another 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. ~~ [[User:Lothar von Richthofen|Lothar von Richthofen]] ([[User talk:Lothar von Richthofen|talk]]) 00:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
==== Statement by Lvivske ==== |
|||
[May be a work in progress before the 'deadline'] |
|||
:1. My interests in regard to the Holodomor articles relate to my overall interest in Ukrainian, Soviet, and Russian history. I mostly stayed away from the article in past years, holding off on really understanding the topic until I was able to do my own extensive personal research on the topic for a Soviet history course I happened to be in at the time. I'm a bit of a trouble maker when it comes to papers and generally like to argue against the generally accepted historiography....in this case, it just wasn't there. The 'Russian' or 'Soviet' national narrative just didn't, in my findings, add up to the reality of the situation. As a 'Ukrainian nationalist' one would think I'd have a conflict of interest on historical subjects, but I've taken the same position of challenging in regards to topics like [[Ivan Mazepa]], for example (another topic where Russian and Ukrainian narratives divide) and I almost entirely sided with the Russian view. I'm impartial the sides and just want to present the most accurate, objective, and even handed view of history as possible. |
|||
:2. The problems, from what I have seen, stem from a clash between two historiographies that are also imbued as national narratives. The Ukrainian side uses this event as an exercise in state building, much like Israel and the Holocaust, because tragedy is a great unifier. The Russian side, however, sticks to the Soviet narrative that universalizes events as a common tragedy; in their view, the Holodomor did not happen as a singular event, but was a transnational 'soviet' tragedy (just as the Holocaust is presented as a transnational tragedy, and so on). The Russian side here is essentially revisionism. The Ukrainian side, if one moves beyond the numbers, generally lines up with the consensus of western historians. The orthodox Soviet interpretation is generally is only accepted in Russia. |
|||
::The biggest problem facing the content of the article is playing a balancing act between western/consensus historiography, and the Russian revisionist narrative. Undue weight from the latter adversely affects the article. |
|||
:3. I think Biophys sums things up fairly accurately. I ended up walking away from this article for practically a year because it became too frustrating to work on for the exact reasons he stated.(Regarding the chart, the only acceptable answer is 5C). In regards to the bullet points: a) the famine should, by any narrative, be described as man-made. It wasn't a natural famine or drought, that it was man-made is not even disputable. b) I think it would be okay to describe it as happening 'during' the greater soviet famine, just as the holocaust happened during WW2. The Holodomor is an event that stands alone and its circumstances and causes were greatly different from the (in comparison) smaller famine that happened concurrently in the east. c) Why shouldn't the relief parameter be filled out? If relief was denied...that's a fact. |
|||
:4. An impartial representation of events with due weight given to the consensus of reputable historians and scholars. |
|||
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 |
|||
--'''[[User:Lvivske|Львівське]]''' <small>([[User talk:Lvivske|говорити]])</small> 20:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Faustian==== |
|||
Too busy now to be very active, but basically I agree with VM. I find Siebart's statement to be quite reasonable. [[User:Faustian|Faustian]] ([[User talk:Faustian|talk]]) 23:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
Revision as of 08:11, 23 October 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)
- 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) |