Talk:Holodomor denial

OR in the lead

@Mzajac, you were the one that added the Serby source to the lead [1], and you reverted to restore it three ​four times, against three four different editors [2] [3] [4] [5]. It seems especially unfair that editors need to go through this effort when you should be the one defending your addition to the lead in the talk, not us having to go to the talk to remove your edit.

Also please add a quote to the source on how it says "Holodomor denialis the claim that the Holodomor, a 1932–33 man-made famine that killed millions in Soviet Ukraine, did not occur or diminishing its scale and significance". Because, as I put in the edit, such a sentence is not there. Thank you.Stix1776 (talk) 07:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Your first link is broken. If you want to talk about the procedure, then it would be helpful to collect the diffs with edit summaries of the deletions that I reverted, and links to any discussions that followed.

But it might be more useful to talk about the lead.

I apologize for the cursory revert. I should have looked more closely at the text, which had been changed from my version. I think the text can be improved instead.

You summarized your removal with: “This source test, in its entirety, is a general review of Douglas Tottle's book Fraud, Famine and Fascism. It is not an effort to describe general Holodomor denial. It's not helped by being reprinted by a blog.”[6]

You’re right that the source and statement don’t go together well. I don’t believe this was what I originally wrote in the article either. I believe this is my preferred edit and version (after a quick search of the history):[7]

Holodomor denial ( . . . ) is the claim that the Holodomor, a 1932–33 man-made famine that killed millions in Soviet Ukraine, did not occur, or (especially since evidence of its existence became public in the 1980s) the diminishment of its scale and significance, including the claim that it was not a genocide.

I think the last three sources directly support the statements. The LOC gives the definition of Holodomor denial, and the Dobczansky paper discusses it in a secondary source. The Serbyn article discusses denial of the genocidal nature. These should be satisfactory at least to support the text. If you insist on more sources, I can try to find them.

I think this is necessary, because without this the definition “ Holodomor denial . . . is the claim that the Holodomor . . . did not occur” is completely inadequate and compromises the article. Deniers have stopped claiming that no famine occurred since the 1980s. But they continue to be active and there is so much written by them and about them that LOC created two new subject headings in 2009. So our definition should not leave this out.

Regarding “It's not helped by being reprinted by a blog”: the source[8] is not a blog entry. It’s a republished text that’s cited at the bottom:

Reprinted from The Ukrainian Canadian February 1989, pages 7-10, 14.
Kobzar Publishing Company Limited
962 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M6H 1L6
ISSN 0049-5077

I’d prefer to cite the original, but I don’t have access, and this is sufficient.  —Michael Z. 16:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac I fixed the link. I asked for a quote from the Serby to back up the the text and the lead from you, and I didn't get it. No one is able to judge the OR claims, as you're claiming an entire article.

Given that I showed that you're reverting to return your edit against 4 editors, you really should just remove Serby and try to build consensus for lead changes in the talk. Your edits are very edit wary. Please show some consideration for other editors and not continuously revert to defend your own edits.

I'm not relitigating the LOC source. It was three editors against Mzajac. Bring up an RfC if you wish to push this issue.Stix1776 (talk) 12:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Understanding might require reading the source, but here are some key parts of the Serbyn article:

Tottle is a self-confessed famine-genocide denier. No longer able to negate the famine as such, Tottle questions its genocidal character. Traditional famine-denial has been updated to famine-genocide denial, but the essence of the ideological trappings is the same. Today’s famine-genocide deniers are the spiritual heirs of the first famine negators, Stalin and those who helped him carry out the most heinous of crimes against the Ukrainian nation or to deny its existence.

Most of the rest of the article discusses the Tottle denialism, and is too specific for the lead, but of course it is directly relevan, too. Tottle’s Soviet-funded and -authored work represents the exact crux when Moscow’s campaign of denialism shifted from famine denial, quickly to denial of man-made causes, denial of genocidal intent, and denial of genocide.

And the last few paragraphs of Serbyn’s 1989 article also discuss the historiographical change of the time: the newly open legitimate debate of the famine as genocide, contrasted with the new character of denial. He refers not only to Tottle but to contemporary Holodomor deniers in general. His summary:

In the light of all the evidence we now possess on the famine, how bleak and ignoble appear the statements of genocide deniers of the Stalin era (unscrupulous journalists like Walter Duranty of the New York Times, credulous and dishonest intellectuals like the British writer Bernard Shaw, the French politician Edouard Herriot). It took fifty years to debunk their big lie; how long will it take the defenders of truth to dispose of the big lie promoted by Tottle and his supporters? The challenge is before the Ukrainian community. Will The Ukrainian Canadian, for one, have the courage to take it up and make the last stand of the famine-genocide deniers a short one?

The big lie has shifted from denying famine to denying genocide. Holodomor genocide denial is Holodomor denial.

If you refuse to see this source’s relevance to the definition of the subject, then we appear to be at an impasse, and I suggest you proceed with WP:DR, like getting a WP:3O. —Michael Z. 16:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac You're completely ignoring that you've reverted to return your edit 4 times against 4 editors. It's not up to me to prove that your source isn't relevant for the lead, it's for you to make consensus for your edit in the Talk. I wish you'd show some consideration for the editors and administrators that need to deal with this edit warring. Honestly I wouldn't put you through this. Thanks. Stix1776 (talk) 09:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think that is how WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:DR work. You can’t just name three other editors who aren’t here and claim to speak for them making you a one-person majority. I’ve replied to this further in your separate thread on my talk page.  —Michael Z. 16:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert said in his revert [9] :

SYNTH removed. The refs do not use the term "Holodomor denial" as a separate term. LOC says nothing about genocide. Serbin does not use the term "Holodomoir denial"

This mirrors what I said about your source. I would never put another editor through this tedium. Stix1776 (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Since we’re canvassing, other editors previously discussing the definition of the subject or the mentioned sources: @AevumNova, @Blindlynx, @Cloud200, @Davide King, @K.e.coffman, @My very best wishes, @Paul Siebert, @Qayqran, @TimothyBlue.  —Michael Z. 18:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Michael you keep showing POV here as well as Synth.

Trying to use sources that refer to Holodomor as either a broad Ukrainian cultural Genocide, a deliberate famine on the Ukraine, or as a famine not intentionally caused and then using that to claim scholarly consensus on the definition that best suits your POV is Righting Great Wrongs.

Additionally in these arguments you make arguments against sources that you believe may have USSR or Russian ties while also arguing explicitly for sources from Ukrainian ties.

Additionally you explicitly call that dertain things should or shouldn't be included in the article based on combating the "big lie".

Wikipedia is NOT for righting great wrongs. And the disrespect for wikipedia's policy and violation of the revision rules really shows that you aren't keeping NPOV.

We all have biases but we need to have the introspection and self control to look inwards at our biases and converse with peers to try to be as little influenced by our biases as possible on this site AevumNova (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Please, correct me if I am wrong, but the accusation of canvassing is a pure personal attack. First, per WP:CANVASS, " it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion". In addition, keeping in mind that I am a former participant of this discussion, pinging me is totally in agreement with our guidelines. Second, Stix1776 pinged me in a response to @Mzajac: words: "You can’t just name three other editors who aren’t here and claim to speak for them making you a one-person majority." Therefore, it would be quite correct to bring some of those users here. That is exactly what Stix1776 did.

Michael is an admin, which imply some above-average familiarity with our behavioral rules. And he is expected to know know that false accusation of canvassing is a personal attack. Therefore, I think Michael should strike his accusation and explicitly apologize for knowingly violating our behavioral rules.

And, as soon as my attention has been drawn to this topic, let me explain that not only Serbyn, but all other sources, except LOC have been used incorrectly in the lede. Indeed, all of them just confirm that the very fact of Holodomor was denied by Soviet authorities and by some authors. However, they do not speak about that fact as about some separate phenomenon called "denial of Holodomor".

In reality, not such topic (outside of the LOC catalogue) exists in literature.

• If some fact X was denied by some authors, and that fact is verifiably described by sources A, B, and C, that does not allow use the sources A,B, and C for the statement like:

Denial of X is the claims that X never occurred (ref A, B, C).

That is a chemically pure example of synthesis. And, frankly speaking, the whole article is a synthesis. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac, an apology for tedious editing would be appreciated, for no other reason that I'd like not to have to go through this again. I would not bring another editor through this hassle, and it's unfair for you to bring us through it.Stix1776 (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• I am not sure what you guys disagree about. If it is about using Roman Serbyn for referencing, I think we can cite him. If it is about what constitutes "denial" in this case, I think one should follow the definition what "denialism" is. Our Denialism page provides a sourced explanation. This is the rejection of basic facts and concepts that are undisputed, well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a subject. Based on that, Duranty and Tottle were indeed historical denialists with regard to Holodomor, and they have been described as such in sources. Just to clarify, there is a general consensus that the famine was "man-made" [by the Soviet authorities]. Someone denying this like Tottle is a denialist. However, the question if it was a genocide would be a more legitimate dispute, and we have a separate page about it. My very best wishes (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, denialism is key. Serbyn 1989 makes it clear that Holodomor denial includes denial that it is genocide. Dobczansky 2009 makes it clear that there is no confusion between academic debate about the determination of the Holodomor as genocide and Holodomor denial.  —Michael Z. 03:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

"Holodomor denial includes denial that it is genocide". Yes, it would be the case for Armenian genocide, but debatable here per sources (personally, I do agree it was a genocide). My very best wishes (talk) 02:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, perhaps that aspect is not necessarily defining but part of diminishment. Certainly Holodomor denial literature does deny its genocidal nature without allowing for academic debate on the question.  —Michael Z. 18:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

References

RSN again

Part of the above wasn’t settled, so I’ve posted another discussion specifically about the Dobczansky paper at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Source for “Holodomor denial”.  —Michael Z. 17:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Revert

Hi @Stix1776. Why did you revert me with “Reverting the last addition. It seems a bit much to include this in the lead after two posts to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Please gain consensus of other editors in the talk page before adding. Thanks”?[10] This is not a reason. There was no objection and positive remarks about this source at the RSN.  —Michael Z. 15:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm on mobile this very second, so I didn't write as eloquently as I wished I did. I meant that you hadn't gotten one supportive second editor, despite two posts to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and adding a paragraph to the lead really should get consensus of other editors per WP:LEADCREATE. Is this really so important, relevant, and reliable that it should be included in the lead?Stix1776 (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, I did get support, at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 417#Is the Library of Congress Subject Headings a reliable source on defining “Holodomor denial”.

What is your objection to this edit?  —Michael Z. 16:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

What support? Show diffs. Stix1776 (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The comment by whatamIdoing showed general support, and the comment by GreenC specifically supported the paper.

You haven’t said why you oppose this source or the cited statement. I guess you just don’t want it.  —Michael Z. 13:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Neither of them did, although GreenC's comment was a bit more supportive that others should "read it". No one said it was reliable. Your second post got zero replies, so instead of dropping it, you reinsert a paragraph back into the lead.

My issues with this is that it's a WP:LEADBOMB. It's dropping a huge chunk of new info, not in the article, but in the lead. The lead should be a summary of article. And you're the only editor pushing this.

Per [11], academia.edu isn't a reliable source. Do you not have a DOI or link to the original?? Thanks.Stix1776 (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The source is already cited in the article. Since you object to it in the lead, I’ll put it in the body. Since you object to a link to an online version, I’ll just cite the source. I think your baseless obstruction is making the article worse than it would be otherwise.  —Michael Z. 13:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, can you please include a doi or some way of linking to the actual article. Thanks. Stix1776 (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac: I support including the source in the article. I'll WP:BOLDly re-add it, at least for now. CJ-Moki (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@CJ-MokiDoes the Reliable Source noticeboard ruling that academia.edu isn't reliable mean nothing?Stix1776 (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not published or self-published on academia.edu merely hosted there. If you like you can remove the URL—blindlynx 16:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, the article has been cited here for seven years,[12] so please demonstrate consensus to remove it before doing so. There is no objection to it. Even Stix1776 hasn’t made any concrete objection to it, but merely tried to remove it because they don’t like the facts it supports.

Secondly, the source is not academia.edu, but Holodomor Studies. There is a WP:CONLINK to Academia, and it was posted there by the author and presumably copyright holder, so please do not remove it without justification either.

These objections without any basis are obstruction and they are getting disruptive.  —Michael Z. 22:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)