Steven Crossin (talk | contribs) archive topic 1 |
|||
Line 204: | Line 204: | ||
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) |
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) |
||
: Your assessment is completely correct. I wish you good luck with your book, I certainly find I periodically need to get some real projects of value done where I'm not wasting life energy with all the editors who would rather control and censor WP through administrative procedures. Odd how much time editors purporting to be here to build something spend time attacking others. [[User:Vecrumba|P<small>ЄTЄRS</small> <s>J</s> V]]<small> ►[[User_talk:Vecrumba|TALK]]</small> 01:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
: Your assessment is completely correct. I wish you good luck with your book, I certainly find I periodically need to get some real projects of value done where I'm not wasting life energy with all the editors who would rather control and censor WP through administrative procedures. Odd how much time editors purporting to be here to build something spend time attacking others. [[User:Vecrumba|P<small>ЄTЄRS</small> <s>J</s> V]]<small> ►[[User_talk:Vecrumba|TALK]]</small> 01:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
{{collapse top|Discussion on issue 1 is here}} |
|||
==Issue 1 - Image Use== |
|||
Remember, 200 words or less. <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> 02:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
=====Comment by Biophys===== |
|||
I think all images currently in the article are good. Of course nothing prevents from adding more images. The biggest problem are Tables: they show exact numbers per an arbitrary source, whereas other sources claim something different. All Tables (or diagrams) with disputable numbers, rather than with ranges of numbers, should be removed. In particular, 2nd Table named "Declassified Soviet statistics" was referenced to source [69]. This link leads to a Russian/Ukrainian language opinion piece, and I do not see this Table and numbers in the source. Remove this Table please. [[User:Hodja Nasreddin|Biophys]] ([[User talk:Hodja Nasreddin|talk]]) 04:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
The most terrible thing I have learned so far is [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Child_affected_by_malnutrition.jpg&action=history this struggle around images on Commons]. It involves all familiar faces, one of whom is administrator on Commons. This looks to me as a battleground worse than here. How to deal with it? I suggest not to place images in Commons, but download them here if there is so much trouble.[[User:Hodja Nasreddin|Biophys]] ([[User talk:Hodja Nasreddin|talk]]) 02:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
P.S. There is no any valid reason to move lead image. It should stay where it is right now. Just as Marek, I am surprised why this question was brought to mediation. There was no any recent discussions about this at article talk page, except something that takes place at Commons, but this is different project. [[User:Hodja Nasreddin|Biophys]] ([[User talk:Hodja Nasreddin|talk]]) 19:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
=====Comment by Volunteer Marek===== |
|||
While this is an issue related to this topic I don't think it falls within the scope of this mediation. I just quickly read over everyone's opening statements and just to make sure searched for the words "image" and "photo" in them - there was no mention of this. Basically, the issue of the usage of photographs from the 1921 famine to illustrate the Holodomor WAS PREVIOUSLY a subject of dispute, but my sense of it is that this has been worked out. Yes, some photos from the 1921 famine, or even photos from the 1931 Soviet famine (non-Ukrainian part) have been published around the internets as supposedly illustrating the Holodomor. At the same time there are genuine photos of the Holodomor. What has happened - and this is actually Wikipedia working pretty well - is that after these issues were raised people went out and researched pretty thoroughly which photos were fake and which were genuine. As far as I can tell at this point there's no more controversy on the subject. |
|||
<s>Images and photos were not mentioned in any of the opening statements which shows that this isn't one of the important problems here. So </s> let's move on since this will probably be taking up a lot of time anyway.<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> 05:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Ah yes, Greyhood did. Ok, but I think he was referring to past controversies not current ones. Will wait for his response.<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> 05:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Well, if that's the case, and we all come to an agreement that it's no longer an issue, then we can tick it off the list, can't we :) <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> 05:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yes, I think VM summarised the issue correctly, and, if no objections will follow within few days (e.g. until Monday) we can consider this issue to be resolved.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 09:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::Sounds fine to me. The only issue I recall getting involved in was when Jo0doe was editing the name and info of photos in bad faith in the Commons after he was banned from english wiki.--'''[[User:Lvivske|Львівське]]''' <small>([[User talk:Lvivske|говорити]])</small> 17:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Jo0doe is still a free man on Commons, which means that while we may resolve the issue here, he will still continue to wage his war on the last remaining front (he's indeffed on ru-wiki as well as here), which may create problems in the future for us. If I ran the zoo, I'd block him on Commons as well to save us from future headaches, but I digress.... ~~ [[User:Lothar von Richthofen|Lothar von Richthofen]] ([[User talk:Lothar von Richthofen|talk]]) 20:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Serenity now...serenity now...[http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Child_affected_by_malnutrition.jpg&action=history broke down and checked, yup, he never left.] Calm blue ocean...calm...--'''[[User:Lvivske|Львівське]]''' <small>([[User talk:Lvivske|говорити]])</small> 21:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: I don't think we have any disputes on either the current infobox image or the population decrease map in the article which was originally uploaded by Irpen. It would be helpful if we each make a statement to that effect and explicitly agree to discuss any proposed changes to images (photographs, diagrams, maps) on article talk. Making my statement. @Paul, while we're fond of using the "unless we hear otherwise by X" construct, I suggest we abstain from that for this mediation and assume no agreement with any sort of consensus unless explicitly stated. Such assumptions have been a source of grief in the past which we should take all steps possible to avoid. [[User:Vecrumba|P<small>ЄTЄRS</small> <s>J</s> V]]<small> ►[[User_talk:Vecrumba|TALK]]</small> 17:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
{{outdent}} I have to agree here. We are in no rush to get a quick resolution, so I'd rather get everyone's opinion rather than rely on silent consensus.We will have a greater chance of long term resolution that way. <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> 19:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Based on discussion above, let me add something specific about this particular photo. This source [http://www.harrimaninstitute.org/MEDIA/01292.pdf] "Holodomor Archives and Sources: The State of the Art" by Hennadii Boriak discusses the issue of fake/authentic photos in some depth on pages 23-26. On page 24 Boriak lists the sources of existing authentic photos (1st para). He then has a footnote which says: "Most of the authentic photos are presented in a special section of the web-portal of the State Committee on Archives of Ukraine: http://www.archives.gov.ua/Sections/Famine/photos.php" If you click on that link and go through the photos then you get this [http://www.archives.gov.ua/Sections/Famine/photos.php?35]. Hence this is one of the authentic photos, according to a reliable source. AFAICT no "fake" photos are presently in use in the article.<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> 18:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
=====Comment by The Last Angry Man===== |
|||
The current image in the article is authentic, as was being discussed before it was collapsed. I see no reason to either remove this image from the article, or to add disclaimers to it. [[User:The Last Angry Man|The Last Angry Man]] ([[User talk:The Last Angry Man|talk]]) 16:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
=====Comment by Greyhood===== |
|||
{{cot|Collapsed discussion}} |
|||
My suggestion on the lead image is very simple and I've already stated it in the opening statement basically. I can explain in a bit more detail, but I need to get a few sources for that and we'll do it tomorrow. [[User:Greyhood|<font color="darkgrey">Grey</font><font color="grey">Hood</font>]] [[User talk:Greyhood|<font color="black"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]] 20:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:There are relatively small number of Holodomor photographs at all, and there are few to none non-controversial images of Holodomor. For example, [http://www.garethjones.org/soviet_articles/thomas_walker/muss_russland_hungern.htm a set of 21 photograph is discussed here] and is suggested as "the only photographs of the famine that may be accepted as both genuine and authentic". But even those photographs [http://www.garethjones.org/soviet_articles/thomas_walker/human_life_in_russia.htm were first published, and likely deliberately, alongside the hoax photos]. |
|||
:The current lead image is taken from the book ''Famine-Genocide in Ukraine, 1932—1933: Western Archives, Testimonies and New Research Edited by Wsevolod W. Isajiw. — Toronto: Ukrainian Canadian Research 2003''. [http://www.archives.gov.ua/Sections/Famine/photos.php?35] The Head of Ukrainian State Archive (ГоскомАрхив Украины) Gennady Boryak (Геннадій Боряк), however, in his publication called "Публикация источников по истории Голодомора современное состояние и перспективы" (2003 p.10) admits that this book contains at least one known photo from the [[Russian famine of 1921]]. Using 1921 photos is a standard way to 'forge' "Holodomor photographs", and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=miHw4egKbZA#! the usage of 1921 photos was the source of various scandals] and the reason of suspicion towards those supposedly Holodomor photos which were not proven to be 1921, but nevertheless were first published alongside 1921 photos. The current lead image might be 1921 and might be 1931-32 and might be some other year. The depicted person and background don't exactly help to conclusively prove or disprove anything. Therefore doubts remain. |
|||
{{cob}} |
|||
:My suggestion is to use a photograph of some Holodomor monument in the lead, while the current lead picture should be removed at all or better inserted into some section below related to Holodomor historiography, with an accurate and extensive caption explaining the problems I've written above, [http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%80#.D0.9F.D1.83.D0.B1.D0.BB.D0.B8.D0.BA.D0.B0.D1.86.D0.B8.D0.B8_1980-.D1.85_.D0.B3.D0.BE.D0.B4.D0.BE.D0.B2 like it is done in the Russian Wikipedia]. [[User:Greyhood|<font color="darkgrey">Grey</font><font color="grey">Hood</font>]] [[User talk:Greyhood|<font color="black"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]] 19:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
{{cot|Collapsed discussion}} |
|||
::Sounds good to me--'''[[User:Lvivske|Львівське]]''' <small>([[User talk:Lvivske|говорити]])</small> 20:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Not completely. First part of caption on ruwiki for this photo sounds just fine. But last phrase tells: "Как отметил Геннадий Боряк (Генеральный директор ГоскомАрхива Украины в этой книге есть по меньшей мере одна фотография 1921 года". Translation: "as Gennadii Boryak said, this book also includes at least one photo from 1921". This phrase should be excluded from caption of this picture. This is a typical propaganda trick: instead of describing ''this'' photo, it challenges another (unknown) photo in the same book. As a more general comment, we can use some photos that show famine victims from 1921, with appropriate captions, not to illustrate the "forgery", but to illustrate the general concept of death from hunger in the Soviet Union. [[User:Hodja Nasreddin|Biophys]] ([[User talk:Hodja Nasreddin|talk]]) 00:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::>''As a more general comment, we can use some photos that show famine victims from 1921, with appropriate captions, not to illustrate the "forgery", but to illustrate the general concept of death from hunger in the Soviet Union.'' %) %) %) Are you seriously suggesting this, a propaganda instead of accurate history? Should we use the photos of [[Great Depression]] in the U. S. as well, to illustrate Holodomor, like some Holodomor activists already had done? I really didn't expect anyone here to make such a counterproductive suggestion. We should illustrate facts not concepts, and there is no need to try to make some justification for all those previous forgeries and mistakes. Remember also, that many readers don't really read the captions of the photographs, therefore you basically suggest "a typical propaganda trick": insert the photo to the article by whatever means, and be happy with an effect it makes over at least a part of the readership. [[User:Greyhood|<font color="darkgrey">Grey</font><font color="grey">Hood</font>]] [[User talk:Greyhood|<font color="black"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]] 10:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
The current image in the article is not a fake. [[User:The Last Angry Man|The Last Angry Man]] ([[User talk:The Last Angry Man|talk]]) 00:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Yes, it is not fake, but the caption of this image on ruwiku tells that a book which uses this photo also includes another image from 1921. This should not be in caption of this image. [[User:Hodja Nasreddin|Biophys]] ([[User talk:Hodja Nasreddin|talk]]) 00:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree, I see no reason why one mistake should be singled out. [[User:The Last Angry Man|The Last Angry Man]] ([[User talk:The Last Angry Man|talk]]) 00:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::I can't comment in detail, but a general approach of disproving images published in secondary RS using [http://www.garethjones.org/soviet_articles/thomas_walker/human_life_in_russia.htm this website] is clearly problematic. [[User:Hodja Nasreddin|Biophys]] ([[User talk:Hodja Nasreddin|talk]]) 00:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Given the long history of deliberate forgeries and "mistakes" in Holodomor publications, when propaganda was considered more important than honest historical study, there should be exceptionally high level of provenance for a photo and a good reputation for a source of the photo to include it without reservations. It should be proven not fake, proven to be 1932-33 in Ukraine. [[User:Greyhood|<font color="darkgrey">Grey</font><font color="grey">Hood</font>]] [[User talk:Greyhood|<font color="black"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]] 10:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::I have looked at the discussion on commons regarding this particular picture, it was proven this image is from the Holodomor and was released from some cardinals library. There is no doubt to the authenticity of this particular picture. And if as you say "a high level of provenance is needed" why link to an unreliable website like Gareth Jones? [[User:The Last Angry Man|The Last Angry Man]] ([[User talk:The Last Angry Man|talk]]) 10:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::And why is it even an external link in the article? And in a number of other articles? When did this site become [[WP:RS]]? [[User:The Last Angry Man|The Last Angry Man]] ([[User talk:The Last Angry Man|talk]]) 10:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Please give a link to the commons discussion. Please explain why Gareth Jones site, made by people from the University of Wales, is not [[WP:RS]]? [[User:Greyhood|<font color="darkgrey">Grey</font><font color="grey">Hood</font>]] [[User talk:Greyhood|<font color="black"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]] 10:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::You can follow the link to commons by clicking on the picture, who says that site is made by the University of wales? I see no mention of affiliation with said university. It is a self published site by Jones great-nephew, Nigel Linsan Colley and does not meet [[WPR:RS]]. [[User:The Last Angry Man|The Last Angry Man]] ([[User talk:The Last Angry Man|talk]]) 11:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
{{cob}} |
|||
[[File:2007ff.jpg|thumb|right|200px|]] |
|||
:::::OK, here is the link to the Commons discussion: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Child_affected_by_malnutrition.jpg. Personally I do not see how it was proven that the photo in question was 1932-33. The page is mostly a long argument between Jo0doe and Mark nutley, with commons administrators caring only about copyrights and edit-warring. Jo0doe's arguments on the page are quite convincing and he had the last say. At least it is made clear that the origin of the image is disputable. Why Jo0doe's arguments were not taken into account in the present version, I don't quite understand. Looks like TLAM and VM simply [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Child_affected_by_malnutrition.jpg&action=history achieved their preferred version by edit-war] after protection of the page by [[User:Russavia]] expired. [[User:Greyhood|<font color="darkgrey">Grey</font><font color="grey">Hood</font>]] [[User talk:Greyhood|<font color="black"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]] 12:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2007ff.jpg And here is the link to the part of the book it was taken from (fly-leaf and spine).] So it was published right on the same page where a 1921 photograph was used [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Famine_Saratov_1922.jpg]. [http://www.harrimaninstitute.org/MEDIA/01292.pdf Note 16 on page 24 of Boriak's publication] says: ''Note in particular the fly-leaf and spine of the book (with photos from the period of 1921-1923 famine).'' So basically at least 2 and perhaps all photos from that part of the book are from 1921-23. For me that's enough to make the following discussion unnecessary: the image is problematic and should be used only with reservations. [[User:Greyhood|<font color="darkgrey">Grey</font><font color="grey">Hood</font>]] [[User talk:Greyhood|<font color="black"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]] 12:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
{{cot|Collapsed discussion}} |
|||
:::::::Read the discussion again, all the links posted by Jodoo do not back his claims, not one of them do. The other link is [[WP:OR]] by another editor, totally fabricated in an attempt to discredit a photo. There is enough proof in that discussion to prove the photo is not fake. I will quite happily post it over here and you can try and rebut it if you so wish. [[User:The Last Angry Man|The Last Angry Man]] ([[User talk:The Last Angry Man|talk]]) 12:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I've already posted the links I consider most relevant (the screenshot of a book and Boriak's quote). Please rebut them. [[User:Greyhood|<font color="darkgrey">Grey</font><font color="grey">Hood</font>]] [[User talk:Greyhood|<font color="black"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]] 13:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::It is difficult to rebut an argument not made, were is this quote from Boriak? [[User:The Last Angry Man|The Last Angry Man]] ([[User talk:The Last Angry Man|talk]]) 13:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::I'll repeat: [http://www.harrimaninstitute.org/MEDIA/01292.pdf Note 16 on page 24 of Boriak's publication] says: ''Note in particular the fly-leaf and spine of the book (with photos from the period of 1921-1923 famine).'' [[User:Greyhood|<font color="darkgrey">Grey</font><font color="grey">Hood</font>]] [[User talk:Greyhood|<font color="black"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]] 13:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}}Greyhood, there are no pp24 on this .pdf I have downloaded it to double check. And a search shows no match for "fly-leaf and spine" Have you linked to the correct .pdf? [[User:The Last Angry Man|The Last Angry Man]] ([[User talk:The Last Angry Man|talk]]) 13:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:It's page 4 of the PDF and page 24 of the publication. Note 16 can be easily find anyway. [[User:Greyhood|<font color="darkgrey">Grey</font><font color="grey">Hood</font>]] [[User talk:Greyhood|<font color="black"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]] 13:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::I would suggest instead of looking at the citation you look at what that citation is supporting. Might I point out one photo being included in a book does not invalidate the others. [[User:The Last Angry Man|The Last Angry Man]] ([[User talk:The Last Angry Man|talk]]) 13:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::The citation says ''photos'' which means that from ''2 to all'' photos included into the fly-leaf and spine are from 1921-23. That means that any other photo in the named parts of the book is under suspicion. [[User:Greyhood|<font color="darkgrey">Grey</font><font color="grey">Hood</font>]] [[User talk:Greyhood|<font color="black"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]] 13:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::No it does not, it means one is. You need to produce a source which states the current photo in the article is not from Cardinal Theodor Innitzer collection [http://www.archives.gov.ua/Sections/Famine/photos.php?35], the burden of proof is on you to prove this photo is not from Holodomor. [[User:The Last Angry Man|The Last Angry Man]] ([[User talk:The Last Angry Man|talk]]) 14:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I think that the plural form ''photos'' has quite clear meaning. Your link does not work, and btw. being from a collection of some cardinal who never was in Soviet Russia is no way conclusive. As for the burden of proof, I'm not going to prove it was not from Holodomor. I do not think it is possible to conclusively proof anything in this case, unless we find a publication that clearly states the photo is from 1921-23 or some other year and place than 1932-33 in Ukraine. Given the limited number of supposedly authentic Holodomor photos and the amount of forgery and controversy, the lack of proof it is not 1932-33 isn't enough to conclusively prove it is 1932-33. But I've already presented the sources that indicate that it might be not from 1932-33 in Ukraine, and if we use the photo in the article, these sources should be inserted in the caption. [[User:Greyhood|<font color="darkgrey">Grey</font><font color="grey">Hood</font>]] [[User talk:Greyhood|<font color="black"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]] 14:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*Was it published anywhere? I mean the PDF file by [[Hennadii Boriak]]. It looks like a self-publication on the internet. I would completely disregard such "sources" having a lot of academic publications about Holodomor. [[User:Hodja Nasreddin|Biophys]] ([[User talk:Hodja Nasreddin|talk]]) 14:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
**Boriak is described in media as either Head or Deputy Head of the State Comittee of Archives of Ukraine, as well as Deputy Director of Institute of History of Ukraine; he is Doctor of Historical Sciences. The PDF is taken from ''[http://www.harrimaninstitute.org/research/harriman_review.html Harriman Review]'' published by [[Harriman Institute]]. In this light your phrase ''I would completely disregard such "sources"'' looks strange and out of place. [[User:Greyhood|<font color="darkgrey">Grey</font><font color="grey">Hood</font>]] [[User talk:Greyhood|<font color="black"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]] 15:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::So, it was published in [[Harriman Review]] (we do not have even article), an internal publication of [[Harriman Institute]]. Did it went through a [[peer review]] process? They do not tell anything about their editorial policies, but I think the answer is "no". This is simply a local university web site for any publications by their faculty. This is still essentially a self-publication. It can be used to source the personal opinion of Boriak (we do not have an article about him either), however this is not a good source to disprove reliable secondary sources, such as published books. [[User:Hodja Nasreddin|Biophys]] ([[User talk:Hodja Nasreddin|talk]]) 15:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Having Wikipedia articles on authors or journals is nice, but little relevant to the question of their quality. Judging by the offices he holds, Boriak is among the top authorities on the Ukrainian archive materials subjects. His work in Russian is called "Публикация источников по истории Голодомора современное состояние и перспективы". I suspect that the real original name of the work is Ukrainian and can't find anything on the publication with Russian name. [http://www.harrimaninstitute.org/research/institute_publications.html Harriman Review] seems quite substantial publication, even if not peer-reviewed. I doubt that it "is not a good source to disprove reliable secondary sources, such as published books" when those books contain significant mistakes which make it a question whether they were properly reviewed themselves. Overall, we have a serious specialist holding several of the top official positions among academic historians in Ukraine, and decent, though perhaps not a top level journal. It's RS by all means. [[User:Greyhood|<font color="darkgrey">Grey</font><font color="grey">Hood</font>]] [[User talk:Greyhood|<font color="black"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]] 16:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
{{cob}} |
|||
Thank you, everyone, I think we should stop this conversation here. Free discussion seems to be creating some antagonism, so I ask you to please to stick to writing statements in your own sections, 200 words maximum, as outlined above. If anyone wants to redo their statements based on what has been discussed, then feel free to add to what you have already written, or to redo it (I recommend using {{tl|cot}} and {{tl|cob}} to collapse unwanted wordage). Thanks for your cooperation. — <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> 15:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
@ Marek, for some reason the link does not work for me, as I've already said to TLAM. [[User:Greyhood|<font color="darkgrey">Grey</font><font color="grey">Hood</font>]] [[User talk:Greyhood|<font color="black"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]] 19:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:The Boriak one or the archives one? If it's the Boriak one I can email it to you. <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> 19:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Both links work fine for me...--'''[[User:Lvivske|Львівське]]''' <small>([[User talk:Lvivske|говорити]])</small> 19:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Hm, strange, the archives link didn't work for me until while after many attempts I checked it through the Google view first. OK, seems like now I have a full picture, I should mostly give up with this issue, even though the publication ''Famine-Genocide in Ukraine, 1932-1933'' remains problematic and likely should not be qualified as RS because of its multiple use of wrong photos. Still my proposal to use Holodomor monument in the lead instead of not entirely convincing photo of this child (moving the photo to some subsection) remains intact. But this is not an important issue anymore. [[User:Greyhood|<font color="darkgrey">Grey</font><font color="grey">Hood</font>]] [[User talk:Greyhood|<font color="black"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]] 20:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Greyhood, are you sure that you don't want to pursue this issue any more? If your reasoning is merely that your views have been opposed by some of the other editors, then I invite you to reconsider. Giving up does not equal compromise, and the mediation process is here precisely to ensure that everyone's voice can be fairly heard. This mediation is not a vote; we will be deciding things based on consensus, compromise, and on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please be aware that if you want to address images during the mediation, then now is the time to do it. If you do decide to leave things as they are, then we will not be coming back to this issue. I urge you to consider this carefully, and to make absolutely sure that this is what you want. — <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> 05:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::My reasoning is as follows: Volunteer Marek demonstrated me, that Gennady Boriak, the main source I used to demonstrate that the set of pictures including the current lead image is problematic as a whole, at the same time indicates that the particular image (the discussed one), is believed to be authentic. Seems this fact should be accepted and not argued anymore, unless some other RS with a contradicting view is found. I still do not find the image good and entirely convincing (the child's malnutrition is not clearly and undeniably visible), and still propose to use it in the body of the article if use at all, while using some Holodomor monument in the lead. [[User:Greyhood|<font color="darkgrey">Grey</font><font color="grey">Hood</font>]] [[User talk:Greyhood|<font color="black"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]] 13:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I agree with Greyhood regarding the appropriateness of the image: a high contrast b/w image of a healthy but slim child will look similarly. The signs of malnutrition are really hardly visible here. However, I do not think we need to waste MedCab's time for discussion of these details.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 20:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
=====Comment by Vecrumba===== |
|||
As I understand it, the photograph is from the collection of Cardinal Theodore Innitzer, which consists of information and pictures he collected from the famine in the Ukraine (not in 1921-22). @Greyhood, given WP:RU's partisanship, holding it up as an example to follow in an area of historical contention between Russian and its neighbors is usually not the best approach. If anyone has something to say, please say it here and say it in English. So if there are any non-English sources which pertain to calling the ''specific picture'' into question, please translate and provide here. |
|||
<p>I should add that Innitzer formed a famine relief committee in September 1933 and was not involved in the famine a decade earlier. [[User:Vecrumba|P<small>ЄTЄRS</small> <s>J</s> V]]<small> ►[[User_talk:Vecrumba|TALK]]</small> 21:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
: Per the last exchange elsewhere with Greyhood, it would appear that issues over the picture have been resolved. While I prefer the picture that is in the infobox as it stands, I am not completely averse to adding a monument picture and potentially rearranging. Do we want to discuss that at this point? [[User:Vecrumba|P<small>ЄTЄRS</small> <s>J</s> V]]<small> ►[[User_talk:Vecrumba|TALK]]</small> 02:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::I think it would be worthwile to discuss it. <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> 03:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::(Not sure if I'm supposed to be commenting here or above) - I think that given that the above question as to the authenticity of the current image is resolved, whether or not to use this particular image or some other one essentially comes down to aesthetics. In other words, it's a matter of taste. IF there is a very good high quality image of a monument somewhere out there (that is PD) then we might consider using it. In my experience though a lot of these photos of monuments are fairly ... amateur ... oh ok, they're mostly crappy. So I would need to see a very nice one to consider changing from the present one. The present one is illustrative and draws the reader in, which - as long as there are no questions as to its authenticity - is exactly what we want. It entices people who come to the article to actually read it. In that sense it's exactly what should be there. But if someone can propose viable alternatives I'm willing to consider it. <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> 03:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::These monuments are the nearest candidates, since they've acquired some of an iconic status. Surely they are much more recognizable, when it comes to the topic, than the present image. [[User:Greyhood|<font color="darkgrey">Grey</font><font color="grey">Hood</font>]] [[User talk:Greyhood|<font color="black"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]] 19:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
<gallery> |
|||
File:HolodomorKyiv.jpg |
|||
File:Kiev-MonumentVictimsHolodomor1932-33 02.jpg |
|||
</gallery> |
|||
::::::Does Ukraine have [[freedom of panorama]]?--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 19:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Well, the image is fairly iconic too, I think. From these two photos I'm going to immediately veto the one on the right. The one on the left would be a potential candidate, IMNSHO, if the photo itself was better (basically too much background, bad framing etc.) But like I said, this comes down to aesthetics.<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> 20:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
* Oppose both of those, were is the feeling? My personal favorite holodomor monument is this one [http://www.flickr.com/photos/emandernie/5132210985/] I would be happy to see that in the lede. [[User:The Last Angry Man|The Last Angry Man]] ([[User talk:The Last Angry Man|talk]]) 20:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Again, you all seem to overlook a very simple thing: since there is no freedom of panorama in the US and Ukraine, these images cannot be used in the infobox per [[WP:NFCC]].--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 20:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Does it mean that these images should be removed from the gallery as well? I really dislike no FoP.. [[User:Greyhood|<font color="darkgrey">Grey</font><font color="grey">Hood</font>]] [[User talk:Greyhood|<font color="black"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]] 20:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Not only. They should be removed from Commons also. However, I may misunderstand that, so you should better can ask [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions|there]].--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 20:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:In discussions above it was proposed to proceed to other issues. For now it seems that the participants of the discussion are quite able and willing to negotiate the possible future replacement of the lead image with a better one, if such one is found. Also we might need to remove some copyright-problematic images. |
|||
:I'm of double mind whether to support moving to the next issue at this point. One one hand, it seems that we've achieved some understanding and the remaining questions are too minor and better be resolved after this mediation or independently of it (via work on Commons removing panorama-violating images etc.). However, making more research on [[Theodor Innitzer]], the man from whose archive the current lead image was taken from, my suspicions towards the photo somewhat renewed. The person was a Nazi supporter to a great degree, as well as anti-Soviet and anti-Communist it seems. I believe we at least should provide a link to [[Theodor Innitzer]] in the photo caption if it stays in the article. [[User:Greyhood|<font color="darkgrey">Grey</font><font color="grey">Hood</font>]] [[User talk:Greyhood|<font color="black"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]] 00:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:: Really, the famine was in 1932-1933. Whatever happened later is not material. And who is to say that seeing (his perspective) what the Soviets did (and did not) regarding the Ukraine would not drive him to embrace extremes of anti-Sovietism? Let's stay on topic, we're not opening the conversation to slurring pictures by subsequent events. [[User:Vecrumba|P<small>ЄTЄRS</small> <s>J</s> V]]<small> ►[[User_talk:Vecrumba|TALK]]</small> 02:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::I would say the problem is not in Innitzer's anti-Sovetism. We need to decide (i) if Innitzer is a primary or secondary source, and, if he is a primary source (and I am inclided to think so) then (ii) if reliable secondary sources exist that confirm authenticity of this particular image. If yes, I see no formal reason for removal of this photo, although the signs of malnutrition are not so evident from it.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 02:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::Paul, we're talking about historical photos here, so they will all more or less be primary sources. In fact, strictly speaking that's what historical photos are (in fact they are one of the "primary" primary sources used in historical research). It is a little weird in the sense that with regard to these kinds of images (broadly speaking, not just here) Wikipedia practice tends to depart from the strictly interpreted "only secondary sources" line, but it's also understandable. Likewise posters, or what have you, from 1920, are strictly speaking "primary sources". If you were going to be pedantic about it then ALL these kinds of images, across scores of articles would be removed on WP:PRIMARY grounds. But that's not how WP:PRIMARY usually is interpreted with regard to images. |
|||
::::The way I think of it - and the way that I think the policy is being implicitly interpreted - is that if a particular historical image (poster or photo) was re-published in a reliable secondary source, and the way that it is being presented in a Wikipedia article accords with how it is being presented in that reliable source(s), then it is no longer a primary source but a secondary source. |
|||
::::So based on that, since we DO have reliable secondary sources which confirm the authenticity of the image, I think we can consider it as a secondary source in this instance. |
|||
::::Innitzer's personal politics, as atrocious as they may have been are then irrelevant here. The photo was not taken by him, it was just "in his collection". If secondary reliable sources confirm the authenticity of the photo then we go with that. |
|||
::::I do think we should move on. In answer to Steve's questions as to where everyone is - well, I think they're waiting on the mediators to mediate which involves pushing the discussion forward. Are we being too nice or something? We can fight more if you want us to.<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> 03:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The fact that some source is primary does not mean that it should be removed. Our policy allows us to use it, if we draw no conclusions based on it. I see no problem with using this particular image, however, I would prefer to see the evidence from some reliable secondary source that this image is an authentic Holodomor photo. It would be good if someone provided such a source.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 03:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::You're right in that if we include the image, the conclusion that is drawn - which here is "this is a photo relevant to the Holodomor" - needs to come from a reliable sources, which is essentially the point I'm making above (I've seen a lot of images being used in articles where all the conclusions are NOT drawn from third party, reliable sources... hmmm, now that I've thought about it I'm gonna go and remove some I think). However, WE DO have evidence from a reliable source that this is an authentic Holodomor photo. It has already been provided above - Boriak. Ok, let me start a fight here: "I'm tired of saying this over and over again!!!!!" (exclamation points included for the sake of confrontation) |
|||
::::::Note to meds: see, this is what happens if you let a settled issue fester, it just re-appears again. Better to move on to new stuff. <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> 03:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Very well then, it seems my colleagues have/are away, and I myself have been a bit busy (I appreciate your comment at Wikipedia Review about me). As I see it at present, the discussion seems to be around whether the images proposed in the lead section are truly representative of Holodomor, and the concerns about using certain images due to either the difficult of verifying they are indeed authentic and from 1932-33, as opposed to another famine image misrepresented as a Holodomor image, or the image not being freely licensed. licensed. Does that sound about right? <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> 03:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::{{ec}}Then we should forget about Innitzer and focus on Boriak. In connection to that, my question is: |
|||
::::::::"''Does anybody think that Boriak is not a reliable source?''" |
|||
:::::::If some evidences that he isn't will not be provided in close future, we can leave it is the infobox, and move to the next issue. However, if some sources express another viewpoint on ''this particualr image'', we should better move it to the article's body. I personally am neutral regarding that.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 03:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::I have not seen anything to suggest that he isn't. I don't think anyone here has questioned his reliability either. I think the best conclusion to this part of the mediation is: ''leave the image (status quo) but be open to alternative images if and when these should be offered''. Ok, let's go, #2 will be more fun.<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> 04:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::I didn't expect you will object against Boriak. Let other users to express their opinions.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 04:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::As I've already said,I don't object against Boriak as well. But we need to provide a link to [[Theodor Innitzer]] in the caption and on the image description page. Anyway we should have a link on the source of the image, and we have an article about it. [[User:Greyhood|<font color="darkgrey">Grey</font><font color="grey">Hood</font>]] [[User talk:Greyhood|<font color="black"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]] 09:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::In other words, you have no objections against the image? I agree that the link to Innitzer must be provided with brief explanation of his political views. Let me also remind to every one that the we had the same issue (an Nazi supporter, Rauschning, as a reliable source) in another article, and, if I am not wrong, one of the participants of the present discussion argued that this source cannot be considered as reliable.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 16:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}}Holodomor is not an article about the Cardinal, there is no need to mention his politics at all. I can agree to an internal link however. [[User:The Last Angry Man|The Last Angry Man]] ([[User talk:The Last Angry Man|talk]]) 16:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Well, the image stays (at least, for a while), the internal link to Innitzer will be provided. Does anyone object against moving to #2?--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 16:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:: Again, Innitzer did not take the picture himself. His political views subsequent to the event are not material to the content here. [[User:Vecrumba|P<small>ЄTЄRS</small> <s>J</s> V]]<small> ►[[User_talk:Vecrumba|TALK]]</small> 00:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:: Picture stays, if there is an appropriate image of a monument that can be added. We can move to the next item for discussion. [[User:Vecrumba|P<small>ЄTЄRS</small> <s>J</s> V]]<small> ►[[User_talk:Vecrumba|TALK]]</small> 00:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:: Just mentioning, I did write to the archive (or as close as I could get, Email-wise) to see if I can get any additional information on the Innitzer collection, that was a week or so ago. I'll share any response I receive. A Happy Thanksgiving for our U.S. editors! [[User:Vecrumba|P<small>ЄTЄRS</small> <s>J</s> V]]<small> ►[[User_talk:Vecrumba|TALK]]</small> 19:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
=====Conclusions===== |
|||
It seems like the issue with the lead image is resolved in principle but let me remind you how the issue #1 was worded: |
|||
*''Which photographs to use and how to portray them, considering the history of fake Holodomor photographs in existence'' or, more broadly, ''Image use'' |
|||
We've discussed more than one image, but might have not covered or agreed upon all possible image-related questions so far. Below I'll try to make conclusions from what we have already discussed, extrapolating the treatment of the discussed image to all authentic photographs, and mentioning other issues found in the discussion above. '''Some of the later issues in the list were discussed very briefly or not at all, and might need further clarification.''' |
|||
* '''1. Usage of the proven authentic photographs''' '''''from 1932-33, Ukraine'''''. By that we mean the images fulfilling the following conditions: |
|||
**1.1. The photograph should be among the images which are not only used, but specifically claimed to be authentic by reliable sources'', as well as being 1932-33, Ukraine''. [http://www.archives.gov.ua/Sections/Famine/photos.php This official Ukrainian archive] in combination with [http://www.harrimaninstitute.org/MEDIA/01292.pdf this publication by Boriak, an Ukrainian high archive official and scientist,] provide us with some or perhaps all photographs following this condition'' (though not all photographs there are stated to be 1932-33 rather than 1929-1933)''. |
|||
**1.2. The particular photograph should not be disproven to be authentic or strongly questioned by some reliable source, and should not belong to a set of images which in its entirety is disproven to be authentic or strongly questioned by some reliable source. Given the history of misuse and mistakes even by the supposedly most reliable sources and publications, this condition should supplement 1.1. |
|||
**1.3. The photograph should not appear in the reliable sources which use it to illustrate completely different events, such as the [[Russian famine of 1921]], the [[Great Depression]] etc. |
|||
**1.4. The photograph should not breach the general Wikipedia rules of image use, in particular there should be no problems with copyright issues. |
|||
* '''2. The lead image'''. |
|||
**<s>2.1. The current lead image has been found to fulfill the conditions outlined above and may stay in principle.</s> |
|||
**2.1. The current lead image has been found to be authentic '''1929'''-1933 image (the section of the site is called Контекст трагедії (1929-1933): офіційні фотодокументи translated as "The context of the tragedy (1929-1933: official photodocuments)"), but its description doesn't specify whether it was 1932 or 1933 in Ukraine rather than 1929-1931, and the given publication "Famine-Genocide in Ukraine, 1932-1933" has been found to contain at least several misused images from 1921 and therefore of dubious reliability in the image area; [http://www.harrimaninstitute.org/MEDIA/01292.pdf on page 24 Boriak mentions] only engineer Alexander Wienerberger's photos as authentic 1932-33, not other photos from cardinal Innitzer's collection. |
|||
**2.2. The image has not been found entirely convincing and illustrating the subject at best by some editors here, and other editors have agreed to replace the lead image if a better one is proposed, be it another proven authentic photograph, or an image of a modern monument (other categories of images such as maps, photographs of official documents were not discussed so far, but I hope they are also could be considered as replacement). |
|||
**<s>2.3. While the two points above seem to be agreed upon and editors involved in the mediation are unwilling to further discuss the lead image here, it should be decided whether we are free to start the relevant discussion on the alternative lead images at [[Talk:Holodomor]] before this mediation ends. Perhaps the mediators could resolve this question.</s> |
|||
**2.3. The image is currently under copyright investigation on Commons and will be deleted if the relevant information is not provided until January. Commons admins also request additional sources to attribute the image as 1933 as its description currently states, or other year. |
|||
* '''3. Captions of authentic photographs'''. |
|||
**3.1. The captions of authentic photographs should include the available information on the author of the image or the original source, such as ''from the collection of Cardinal [[Theodor Innitzer]]''. |
|||
**3.2. The captions of authentic photographs should follow the descriptions of those photographs in the reliable sources as close as possible. |
|||
* '''4. Usage of modern photographs'''. |
|||
**4.1. Some of the modern era photographs in the article were found to be problematic from the point of view of copyright, in particularly the lack of the freedom of panorama in certain countries. This might lead to removal of such photographs, though some of them might be reloaded later to be used in a limited scope of articles on fair use terms. |
|||
**4.2. The possible copyright problems and removals, however, are to be decided not in this mediation, but on Commons and according to general rules. Editors, willing to pursue the issue on Commons or on the image talk pages in the English Wikipedia, are free to do so before the end of this mediation and there is no need in pre-discussing or discussing it here. |
|||
* '''5. Usage of hoax photographs'''. Currently some hoax photographs continue to be used in certain articles related to the subject, e.g. [[Holodomor denial]]. Given the fact that the usage of hoax photographs is a notable aspect of Holodomor historiography, such photographs might be relevant to use in Holodomor-related articles, if they fulfill the following conditions. |
|||
**5.1. The hoax photographs should be placed in special sections titled ''Hoax photographs'' or in a similar way so as not to mislead the readers. |
|||
**5.2. The captions should in a straight, neutral and accurate way describe the hoax photographs as hoaxes. That is, not like it is done in [[Holodomor denial]], where the description starts with ''A photograph widely believed to depict Holodomor victims'' instead of ''A hoax photograph widely used to depict Holodomor victims'', and where the scientists who indicated the hoax character of the image are labeled ''Holodomor denailists''. |
|||
* '''6. Reflecting the questions related to hoax and authentic photographs in the text of the article'''. As this and other discussions have shown, this is a notable subtopic covered by reliable sources, both scholarly and media. |
|||
**6.1. The fact that there are very few authentic photographs of the 1932-33 hunger in Ukraine should be mentioned in all the main articles related to the subject ([[Holodomor]], [[Holodomor genocide question]], [[Holodomor denial]] etc.). |
|||
**6.2. It should be outlined which known sets of photographs are considered authentic, when and how they were made and published |
|||
**6.3. The fact that there were multiple cases of misuse of photographs in Holodomor-related publications, exhibitions etc. should be mentioned in all the main articles related to the subject. |
|||
**6.4. Depending on the character and scope of the particular article, the image-related questions might require from several paragraphs to a separate section. |
|||
* '''7. Usage of maps'''. |
|||
**7.1. Maps of Ukraine and sorrounding areas, as well as the USSR in the whole, depicting the 1932-33 hunger spread and reflecting statistics of fatalities, harvest etc. should be based on reliable data from reliable sources. |
|||
**7.2. If the methodology behind the data on which the maps are based is faulty or questionable (such as getting the data not from the primary statistics exclusively, but by extrapolation of the limited pieces of data to a wider scope), the relevant aspects of methodology should be reflected in the map caption. |
|||
**7.3. If there are reliable sources criticizing the methodology behind the data on which the maps are based, be it a criticism of the particular study or a criticism of the approach in general, this might be the basis of removal of such maps and data. |
|||
[[User:Greyhood|<font color="darkgrey">Grey</font><font color="grey">Hood</font>]] [[User talk:Greyhood|<font color="black"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]] 14:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
I suppose that the main participants and spokespeople should indicate the points which they disagree with and which need further discussion and why. The other points would be then accepted by default, the discussion on them stopped and the consensus achieved. [[User:Greyhood|<font color="darkgrey">Grey</font><font color="grey">Hood</font>]] [[User talk:Greyhood|<font color="black"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]] 14:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support'''--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 21:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*Mmmm, for the most part, 1 through 4 seem fine. Let me think a bit more about the others. (after two minutes of thinking) - the general thrust of 5 and 6 seems correct, though I think it's a bit off topic. #7 however is not something that has been discussed so far and this in fact seems like more relevant to one of the other issues which are further on the agenda.<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> 08:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose 7''' That is not how things are done, if there are criticisms of a map or methodology then that does not make a source no longer usable, people can and will find fault in everything. If a source is critiqued then that ought be mentioned, we do not just drop a source because someone some were did not like what was written. I will look through the others later [[User:The Last Angry Man|The Last Angry Man]] ([[User talk:The Last Angry Man|talk]]) 17:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
**I hope at least you don't mind the quite obvious points 7.1. and 7.2. As Volunteer Marek proposes, we may discuss this later, perhaps under #2 of the general agenda, at least when it comes to the map depicting victim numbers. [[User:Greyhood|<font color="darkgrey">Grey</font><font color="grey">Hood</font>]] [[User talk:Greyhood|<font color="black"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]] 14:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
'''Note to mediators and everyone'''. There is a related discussion started by Lothar on Commons: [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#Jo0doe]. Another discussion followed on the talk page of the Holodomor lead image: [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Child_affected_by_malnutrition.jpg#So...]. And guys, please, next time inform everyone here about the related discussions, nor only some people, like Lothar did (sorry for forgetting about mentioning the first discussion here myself right when I encountered it). If a discussion on Commons is related purely to copyright issues, that's OK not to bring it here, but if historical aspects of the authenticity are involved, I think it is relevant to notify the participants of this mediation. [[User:Greyhood|<font color="darkgrey">Grey</font><font color="grey">Hood</font>]] [[User talk:Greyhood|<font color="black"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]] 14:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*I must confess that the development of the discussions mentioned above, namely [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Child_affected_by_malnutrition.jpg#Most_vs_All this new thread] have made me to change my position a bit, and now I myself '''oppose the points #2.1. and #2.3''' proposed by me above, at least until more evidence is presented. The reason is as follows: while the image fulfills requirements on proven authenticity mentioned in #1, its description fails #3.2.: ''The captions of authentic photographs should follow the descriptions of those photographs in the reliable sources as close as possible.'' Now I'll reproduce [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk%3AChild_affected_by_malnutrition.jpg&action=historysubmit&diff=62684686&oldid=62683543 my latest comment from Commons]: |
|||
:::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMediation_Cabal%2FCases%2F02_October_2011%2FHolodomor&action=historysubmit&diff=458339063&oldid=458174891 By this comment] on en wiki Volunteer Marek has convinced me that Boriak supports the authenticity of the images on the Ukrainian archive site (''On page 24 Boriak lists the sources of existing authentic photos (1st para). He then has a footnote which says: "Most of the authentic photos are presented in a special section of the web-portal of the State Committee on Archives of Ukraine''). |
|||
:::However, now I must agree this may mean only that this is an authentic photo from the late 1920s or the early 1930s. The description on the site doesn't say it is 1933 (and not, say, 1932), doesn't say it is from the 1932-1933 hunger (the section of the site is called ''Контекст трагедії (1929-1933): офіційні фотодокументи'' translated as "The context of the tragedy ('''1929'''-1933: official photodocuments)"), nor does it say that the child is a "victim" (and not just some undernourished child from the era of collectivisation). I'd agree only with the suggestion that it is the photo related to Ukraine since it is placed on the Ukrainian website and reproduced in the books about Ukraine, but still I'd not be 100% sure about that. |
|||
:::It seems so far there is not enough evidence to say the image depicts the hunger of 1932-1933 or even 1933 in particular. Perhaps examining the caption and the usage of image in what is supposed to be the [http://books.google.com/books?id=F2_7GgAACAAJ&dq=Theodor+Innitzer+Authentische+Dokumente&hl=en original publication] could give some more details (note that the title of the book ''Hungersnot: Authentische Dokumente über das Massensterben in der Sowjetunion'' doesn't speak about Ukraine in particular or about 1932-33, but rather about mass deaths in the Soviet Union in general). [[User:Greyhood|<font color="darkgrey">Grey</font><font color="grey">Hood</font>]] [[User talk:Greyhood|<font color="black"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]] 18:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::unsurprised really, the image is authentic, this is as pointless as the debate on commons. [[User:The Last Angry Man|The Last Angry Man]] ([[User talk:The Last Angry Man|talk]]) 21:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::I'm just going to repost what I wrote on commons: |
|||
::::Greyhood, I think you are confusing what the title of an exhibition is, "Контекст трагедії (1929-1933): офіційні фотодокументи", which does indeed cover the entire period 1929-1933, with the how the source within the exhibition describes this particular photograph: "Famine-Genocide in Ukraine, 1932-1933" - hence from the Holodomor. |
|||
::::I think we should leave this issue of the image where it is and let matters resolve themselves on commons (though who knows what kind of crazy shit can happen there). Let's move on to the next issue, or talk about these maps that you put in above, that haven't been discussed so far.<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> 21:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I was confused with this title as well until today. "Famine-Genocide in Ukraine, 1932-1933" is the name of that 2003 Canadian publication, which mixed the authentic images with those of the 1921 hunger. Obviously that publication is not a reliable source, at least when it comes to images. If you can provide an information from the original 1930s publication, or some other reliable source which didn't make serious mistakes with illustrations, that's OK, but the current sources are not enough. They are enough only for the assertion that the image is from 1929-1933. [[User:Greyhood|<font color="darkgrey">Grey</font><font color="grey">Hood</font>]] [[User talk:Greyhood|<font color="black"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]] 22:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Greyhood, since your position has changed a little bit, could you please present a revised version of "Conclusions"?--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 03:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Per Paul's request above, I have made hopefully an obviously non-controversial addition to point #1.1, that the images should be from 1932-33, Ukraine. I've stricken out points #2.1 and #2.3 and have written new ones, just describing the situation as it is there, without any decisions or proposals. But now I'll propose some things. |
|||
:'''Proposal 1'''. We all accept points #1, #3, #4, #5, #6 since nobody so far has opposed these points, and we need to move further. |
|||
:'''Proposal 2'''. We discuss point #7 of the proposed conclusions as a part of the discussion of the point #2 of the general mediation agenda. |
|||
:'''Proposal 3'''. We leave the final decision regarding the lead image to the discussion on Commons, since now copyright issues are investigated there, and admins request additional sources for the correct attribution of the image. Unless the relevant information about the original 1930s publication is provided, the image will be deleted. |
|||
:'''Proposal 4'''. Until the question with copyright is resolved positively, and the additional information is brought into discussion on Commons to conclusively show that the image is 1932 or 1933 in Ukraine, rather than 1929, 1930, 1931 or other year, we remove the image from the article or place it into the comment tags. |
|||
::VM seems to support Proposal 2 and Proposal 3. And since I doubt there will be consensus on Proposal 4, perhaps the mediators should take decision on this point. [[User:Greyhood|<font color="darkgrey">Grey</font><font color="grey">Hood</font>]] [[User talk:Greyhood|<font color="black"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]] 13:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::It's a rare thing that a mediator would decide on something unilaterally. That said, to steal a phrase from a fellow mediator, "If in doubt, leave it out." I've read over the commons discussion, and the main issues from a copyright perspective are that we don't know with certainty when the image was first published, and who published it. Are there no alternative images we could use that both the release date and the original author is known? Brokering a compromise is important, but if the image violates our policies, or appears to, then I would question its use. <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> 20:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::: There are plenty of images [http://www.archives.gov.ua/Sections/Famine/photos.php in these collection] which are specifically attributed as 1933, are known to be published in 1930s and have a known or at least very likely author. Some of this images are on Commons in the [[:commons:Category:Holodomor]]. Well, in fact even those events are not of 100% provenance, but that's the best we have. [[User:Greyhood|<font color="darkgrey">Grey</font><font color="grey">Hood</font>]] [[User talk:Greyhood|<font color="black"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]] 01:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::: We've had some unfortunate instances of unilateral actions in the past (not that such is being contemplated here!). I'll have my feedback added here soon. BTW, given that the Holodomor "conflict" has been going on for years, there is no train leaving the station. My own perception in these matters is that a slower process is more likely to lead to consideration of positions and potential compromises. :-) [[User:Vecrumba|P<small>ЄTЄRS</small> <s>J</s> V]]<small> ►[[User_talk:Vecrumba|TALK]]</small> 22:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Judging by the situation on Commons, the question with the lead image will be resolved in one and a half month anyway, so we indeed may do nothing about it here and just wait. I just thought it is against the spirit of Wikipedia to display the image with dubious copyright status and unknown attribution which might be not related to the event it is supposed to depict. [[User:Greyhood|<font color="darkgrey">Grey</font><font color="grey">Hood</font>]] [[User talk:Greyhood|<font color="black"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]] 01:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Is it possible that the current lead image came from [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2007ff.jpg here], from the book ''Holodomor 1932-1933 rokiv v Ukraїni: Dokumenty i materialy?'' Or am I reading this wrong? Also, unless I'm mistaken, [http://www.archives.gov.ua/Sections/Famine/photos.php all of these] images seem to be copyrighted (per the copyright notice at the bottom). <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> 01:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Yes, you are right. There is, however, supposedly [http://books.google.com/books?id=F2_7GgAACAAJ&dq=Theodor+Innitzer+Authentische+Dokumente&hl=en the original 1930s publication], where other images from Innitzer's collection were published. But this source has not been checked by anyone, so it is unknown whether this particular image was used there, how it was attributed and what was the copyright. [[User:Greyhood|<font color="darkgrey">Grey</font><font color="grey">Hood</font>]] [[User talk:Greyhood|<font color="black"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]] 12:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::As for the copyrights in that collection, some of these images should be in public domain in Austria, where they were published in 1930s.[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GolodomorKharkiv.jpg See the Austrian license here] for example. Other images from that collection on commons use an incorrect Ukrainian license, though. [[User:Greyhood|<font color="darkgrey">Grey</font><font color="grey">Hood</font>]] [[User talk:Greyhood|<font color="black"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]] 12:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
==Inactive?== |
|||
A bot just informed me this mediation has died, is this true? [[User:The Last Angry Man|The Last Angry Man]] ([[User talk:The Last Angry Man|talk]]) 17:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:I think we have to move to the next step. We need to accelerate the process in general. If some participants have nothing to say, they should clearly let us know that they have no objections. Otherwise, the meditation may take years. --[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 23:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
Revision as of 04:06, 3 December 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) Statement by FifelfooI was under the impression this mediation was only covering the lede. I have an involvement with archives, structure and weight, and sourcing quality (issues 3, ?7, and some of the others). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:05, 14 November 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)
- Your assessment is completely correct. I wish you good luck with your book, I certainly find I periodically need to get some real projects of value done where I'm not wasting life energy with all the editors who would rather control and censor WP through administrative procedures. Odd how much time editors purporting to be here to build something spend time attacking others. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 01:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Discussion on issue 1 is here
| ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Issue 1 - Image UseRemember, 200 words or less. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 02:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC) Comment by BiophysI think all images currently in the article are good. Of course nothing prevents from adding more images. The biggest problem are Tables: they show exact numbers per an arbitrary source, whereas other sources claim something different. All Tables (or diagrams) with disputable numbers, rather than with ranges of numbers, should be removed. In particular, 2nd Table named "Declassified Soviet statistics" was referenced to source [69]. This link leads to a Russian/Ukrainian language opinion piece, and I do not see this Table and numbers in the source. Remove this Table please. Biophys (talk) 04:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC) The most terrible thing I have learned so far is this struggle around images on Commons. It involves all familiar faces, one of whom is administrator on Commons. This looks to me as a battleground worse than here. How to deal with it? I suggest not to place images in Commons, but download them here if there is so much trouble.Biophys (talk) 02:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC) P.S. There is no any valid reason to move lead image. It should stay where it is right now. Just as Marek, I am surprised why this question was brought to mediation. There was no any recent discussions about this at article talk page, except something that takes place at Commons, but this is different project. Biophys (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Comment by Volunteer MarekWhile this is an issue related to this topic I don't think it falls within the scope of this mediation. I just quickly read over everyone's opening statements and just to make sure searched for the words "image" and "photo" in them - there was no mention of this. Basically, the issue of the usage of photographs from the 1921 famine to illustrate the Holodomor WAS PREVIOUSLY a subject of dispute, but my sense of it is that this has been worked out. Yes, some photos from the 1921 famine, or even photos from the 1931 Soviet famine (non-Ukrainian part) have been published around the internets as supposedly illustrating the Holodomor. At the same time there are genuine photos of the Holodomor. What has happened - and this is actually Wikipedia working pretty well - is that after these issues were raised people went out and researched pretty thoroughly which photos were fake and which were genuine. As far as I can tell at this point there's no more controversy on the subject.
I have to agree here. We are in no rush to get a quick resolution, so I'd rather get everyone's opinion rather than rely on silent consensus.We will have a greater chance of long term resolution that way. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 19:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Based on discussion above, let me add something specific about this particular photo. This source [17] "Holodomor Archives and Sources: The State of the Art" by Hennadii Boriak discusses the issue of fake/authentic photos in some depth on pages 23-26. On page 24 Boriak lists the sources of existing authentic photos (1st para). He then has a footnote which says: "Most of the authentic photos are presented in a special section of the web-portal of the State Committee on Archives of Ukraine: http://www.archives.gov.ua/Sections/Famine/photos.php" If you click on that link and go through the photos then you get this [18]. Hence this is one of the authentic photos, according to a reliable source. AFAICT no "fake" photos are presently in use in the article. Volunteer Marek 18:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Comment by The Last Angry ManThe current image in the article is authentic, as was being discussed before it was collapsed. I see no reason to either remove this image from the article, or to add disclaimers to it. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Comment by Greyhood
Thank you, everyone, I think we should stop this conversation here. Free discussion seems to be creating some antagonism, so I ask you to please to stick to writing statements in your own sections, 200 words maximum, as outlined above. If anyone wants to redo their statements based on what has been discussed, then feel free to add to what you have already written, or to redo it (I recommend using {{cot}} and {{cob}} to collapse unwanted wordage). Thanks for your cooperation. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC) @ Marek, for some reason the link does not work for me, as I've already said to TLAM. GreyHood Talk 19:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment by VecrumbaAs I understand it, the photograph is from the collection of Cardinal Theodore Innitzer, which consists of information and pictures he collected from the famine in the Ukraine (not in 1921-22). @Greyhood, given WP:RU's partisanship, holding it up as an example to follow in an area of historical contention between Russian and its neighbors is usually not the best approach. If anyone has something to say, please say it here and say it in English. So if there are any non-English sources which pertain to calling the specific picture into question, please translate and provide here. I should add that Innitzer formed a famine relief committee in September 1933 and was not involved in the famine a decade earlier. PЄTЄRS
Holodomor is not an article about the Cardinal, there is no need to mention his politics at all. I can agree to an internal link however. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
ConclusionsIt seems like the issue with the lead image is resolved in principle but let me remind you how the issue #1 was worded:
We've discussed more than one image, but might have not covered or agreed upon all possible image-related questions so far. Below I'll try to make conclusions from what we have already discussed, extrapolating the treatment of the discussed image to all authentic photographs, and mentioning other issues found in the discussion above. Some of the later issues in the list were discussed very briefly or not at all, and might need further clarification.
GreyHood Talk 14:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC) I suppose that the main participants and spokespeople should indicate the points which they disagree with and which need further discussion and why. The other points would be then accepted by default, the discussion on them stopped and the consensus achieved. GreyHood Talk 14:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Note to mediators and everyone. There is a related discussion started by Lothar on Commons: [23]. Another discussion followed on the talk page of the Holodomor lead image: [24]. And guys, please, next time inform everyone here about the related discussions, nor only some people, like Lothar did (sorry for forgetting about mentioning the first discussion here myself right when I encountered it). If a discussion on Commons is related purely to copyright issues, that's OK not to bring it here, but if historical aspects of the authenticity are involved, I think it is relevant to notify the participants of this mediation. GreyHood Talk 14:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Inactive?A bot just informed me this mediation has died, is this true? The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
|