Jump to content

Talk:Holodomor in modern politics/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Modern politics outdated

The article became obsolete when Yanukovich came to power. As of 2010 Ukraine no longer recognizes holodomor as genocide. (Igny (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

Italy

Italy, as many other nations listed as recognizing the Holodomor a genocide, never recognized the Holodomor as a genocide. 84.223.132.138 (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

According to the gov't of Ukraine it did http://www.mfa.gov.ua/thailand/en/8350.htm .--Galassi (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
The government of Ukraine is wrong, this is the act of the italian parliament about the recognition of the holodomor: http://banchedati.camera.it/sindacatoispettivo/ShowXml2Html.Asp?IdAtto=90369&Stile=5&HighLight=1&SearchType=1&Originale=0
It clearly says "IN CORSO" (below the table, beside "Stato iter", that is "status of the approval") which means "in progress". So the act is not effective. The same goes for Chile, the only source of the chilean recognition is this: http://www.camara.cl/prensa/noticias_detalle.aspx?prmid=28589 . Again it says "Cámara pide reconocer hambruna en Ucrania en 1933", that is "the lower house of parliament asks for the recognition of the 1933 starvation in Ukraine", but there's no sign of an approval. Even for Poland there aren't sources corroborating an approval.21:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)84.223.132.138 (talk)

OSCE

The 2008 OSCE event is cited from Russian news. I think that it must be sourced directly from OSCE documents (which I am sure are public). I doubt Russian press neutrality is retelling the event. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

References about countries which recognize it as genocide

This list is included twice in the article: in taxt and as a template.

  1. Duplication must be removed.
  2. References must be added.

The second point is especially important, since from this talk page it is seen that misinterpretations may happen. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Per NPOV policy, I suggest instead to create a table which lists the states whose governments considered the issue, in the following columns:
<State | time frame | resolution/comment | reference> Staszek Lem (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Per my talk page post, the source doesn't say those countries support the term "genocide". Stix1776 (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Holodomor World recognition.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Holodomor World recognition.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Holodomor World recognition.png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Holodomor in modern politics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Checked Confirmed as correct. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Holodomor template icon

Created by User:Alex Tora. – Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the graphic was simply invented by a Wikipedia user who likes playing in Photoshop; a personal statement, with no historical significance whatsoever pasted in dozens upon dozens of articles as a kind of self-promo. Poeticbent talk 06:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  • The graphics seems to be quite good and serves the purpose. I am unaware of any requirements to navigational template icons other than be free and non-controversial. Any suggestions for a better image? Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I thought first that it was an image of historical significance. I went to see where it came from (historically). I was expecting to be pointed to a source where I could learn more about Holodomor symbolism. Imagine my disappointment. Poeticbent talk 06:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
In which case, it should be removed as WP:OR. We're just engaging in creating our own iconography if it remains. As it is, I thought it pertained to some sort of logo/emblem. I wasn't keen on it because it is essentially religious iconography, so it did strike me as being potentially an emblem used in Canada. Why I thought that iconography from Canada is okay is another issue (i.e., I'm a twit). There's no value in even treating it as a WP:DECORATIVE issue when it's not emblematic of anything other than one person's imagination and photoshop. It just reminds me of Template:Slavery being treated as if it were a school project.
I !vote that it goes. It fits in neatly with discussions on various genocide related articles raising concerns about the trivialisation of the subject. Thanks for your investigative work, Poeticbent! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

<sigh> Guys, due diligence, please.

. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Staszek Lem, I was hoping for something like that. Still, the stamp, which by design is in the public domain in many countries, does not explain the origins of this religious symbol as Iryna Harpy has already observed. I have no objections against keeping it in anymore, but the question about its actual meaning remains open. 02:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
This is not exactly a religious symbol. It does not symbolize religion. It symbolizes suffering, death, and burial. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
It is crucified Christ superimposed on the silhouette of Mary.
The gravestone cross is outlined in the background. I don't know what kind of cross it is in terms of shape, but your feedback is appreciated. Poeticbent talk 03:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Having looked at the stamp image, it's specifically for the 60th anniversary (which is why it has 1993 at the bottom of the stamp). Being one of many commemorative images doesn't turn it into an issue for editor discretion. The issue of editorial discretion for images of this calibre was thoroughly discussed at the WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES RfC.
It certainly isn't any more emblematic of Holodomor than other stamps or associated imagery. I'm sorry, but I think it's still OR. I'm certainly not aware of literature, films or anything surrounding the Holodomor using this as a universally recognised emblem. There's a huge gap between the concept of 'an' emblem and 'the' emblem. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually we have a chance to get a standard emblem: "PRESIDENT COMMISSIONS GOVERNMENT TO CREATE GRAPHIC EMBLEM OF 1932 TO 1933 HOLODOMOR". It was in 2008. Remains to check out whether it was done or died in bureaucracy. 21:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Current UA President's website [www.president.gov.ua/search?query=голодомор& does not have anything about голодомор]. Reportedly there was a Holodomor portal prior to 2010 (under Yushchenko) Staszek Lem (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
search 'емблема Голодомору конкурс ' did not give anything. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Here & here you see a monument to Holodomor with this emblem at the National Museum "Memorial to Holodomor victims". Therefore I a inclined to conclude that it is not a random emblem, but rather widely accepted. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Here it is called "traditional emblem". Staszek Lem (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

This would be my personal preference (unfortunately fails WP:GNG). Staszek Lem (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

There's been no state recognised outcome of the emblem competition. There are various memorials used for the purposes of ceremony (i.e., lighting candles, food offerings, laying of flowers/wreaths). The forum you've pointed to is an opinion piece by a woman who frequents the forum, so the fact that she calls it the "Традиційна емблема жалобних заходів за жертвами Голодомору" ("The traditional emblem of mourning for the victims of the Holodomor") is merely her opinion. For all we know, the idea has been implanted in her mind due to its use on English language Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Until/unless we can find reliably sourced information on any emblem being recognised, we're flying by the seat of our pants and are creating our own urban myth, which is unencyclopaedic and is not something at our discretion to engage in. NOR means NOR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
So what this boils down to is that we don't know who created the icon. The post stamp was published in 1993 without the name of a graphic artist (or a sculptor) which is often the case (not always), two years after Ukraine gained independence from the Soviet Union. Can anyone find out please (as closely as possible) when and where did this symbol appear for the first time? Poeticbent talk 00:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
If I'm understanding your concerns correctly, Poeticbent, we've identified a potential double whammy in using this image. Not only is it OR, but it's highly likely to be COPYVIO if the image is still the property of the artist. The anonymous uploader of the image merely replicated a copyright protected artwork (whoever actually has copyright). Without attribution, while the stamp can remain at Wiki Commons (and can be used in the body of a relevant article), but the replicated image in use here should be deleted from Commons. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
According to the Article 10 of the Law of Ukraine on Copyright and Related rights postage stamps (section d), coins and banknotes (section e), are in the public domain within Ukraine; however, anything that falls under sections (d) and (e), unless officially approved, is under copyright. See: Wikisource:Ukraine. Law on Copyright and Related Rights (quote): "The drafts of the official symbols and signs specified in points (d) and (e) of part 1 of this Article shall, prior to their official approval, be regarded as works and shall be protected pursuant to this Law." (end of quote). You're free to apply your own interpretation of what "officially approved" means.
The postage stamp (per above) was published in 1993, therefore it could not have been the emblem of the Holodomor which President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko considered appropriate to create in connection with the organization and support of publishing and other projects worthy of the 75th anniversary of the Holodomor. As noted in the letter of Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, the government was to ensure the organization and the competition for the creation of such emblem in the first half of 2008; that's 15 years after the publication of the postage stamp with this logo.[1] Does anyone know what happened next? Poeticbent talk 05:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Holodomor in modern politics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Problem with article lead

(Comment moved from my own talk):

"The information restored to the page is incorrect (see United States (1988), Investigation of the Ukrainian Famine, 1932-1933: report to Congress. Washington: U.S. G.P.O. pp. vii, xxiii, xv, 517).

In addition Congress has passed at least one resolution recognizing Holodomor as genocide (see "Resolution of the House of Representatives of the US (HRES 356)," U.S. Government Printing Office. 20 October 2003).

The page, thus, currently inaccurately represents the position of the United States and ought to be changed. Rbudel1 (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)"

The relevant edit by Rbudel1 is here. My revert - here - was based on the removal of what has become default consensus content without any form of edit summary. The content itself is WP:WEASEL: unacceptable for the content of an article anywhere in the body, but appalling and misleading for the lede of the article.

Statement currently in the lead: "Some, such as the United States and Europe, recognize that the Holodomor was an attack on the Ukrainian people, but do not recognize it as a genocide."

A) As noted by Rbudel1, dependent on the venue in which 'Holodomor' is evaluated by the US, mixed messages have been sent. The difference between internal and global political 'positions' is substantive (as is indicated by various actions). B) "Europe"? Hungary, Poland, Spain, etc. are not European countries? Perhaps this is meant to refer to the 'findings' of the European Parliamentary report a few years ago? Even if it were, the findings came with a big question mark in the form of urging for the opening up of archives and cooperation between ex-Eastern block countries (see European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2008 on the commemoration of the Holodomor, the Ukraine artificial famine (1932-1933)). Due to the complexity of the nature of the subject, and the brevity of the article itself, it's understood that a single paragraph lede is probably the format to maintain, but it needs to be accurate. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Material moved here from Holodomor genocide question

Hello, I've moved the material in the section "positions of governments" from the article Holodomor genocide question to here because most of the content here duplicates the content there, and it seems better to have two specific articles (one scholarly, one political) than one broad and one specific. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Inconsistency

The list of countries that recognise the Holodomor as an act of Genocide in this article does not correspond to the map Holodomor World recognition.png shown in the same section. Is the map out of date? or is the list not accurate? Perhaps a new map should be created, or the list should be reevaluated. Underneaththesun (talk) 09:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. There's be a lot of POV pushing taking place over the past year. I noted as much on the Holodomor genocide question only yesterday. These articles need a WP:NPOV overhaul pronto. Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh yes. With edits like that... There is no dispute it was "man-made". My very best wishes (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
There isn't a single serious source claiming that it fell into the pattern of droughts and famines in the past. Yes, in other parts of the Soviet Union, there were droughts and failed harvests, but not so in Ukraine. There is ample proof that Ukraine produced a bumper harvest enough for their to be a glut of food for the inhabitants... but it was taken away and distributed amongst more important members of the USSR, along with propaganda about the greed of the kulaks. Whether it was intentional genocide on behalf of Stalin (anything that would incriminate him would have been destroyed by the NKVD decades ago), gathering further momentum from ignorant, angry people who wanted to blame someone for atrocities perpetrated against their people, or whether it was democide with a touch of cultural genocide thrown it, there is no doubt that it was man made. Modern academics are hard for me to take seriously because they are so many decades far from the incident, and working off salvaged NKVD paperwork (and whose articles are sponsored by Russia) it's difficult to sort out fact from fiction. Personally, I'm not comfortable with this Western word adopted (Holodomor) because I grew up with it being known as 'The Great Famine' as it was in the Soviet Union. The politico-economic wars that have emerged have nothing to do with wanting to understand the truth, but it's been thrown into the field, and we have to work with its usage in as neutral a manner possible. Attribution and high status academic thought in the field has to be sorted through with great care. As for numbers of countries who recognise Holodomor as genocide, I've definitely counted over 20 without retractions. It all seems to be contingent on who's an American client state, and who is a Russian/Chinese client state. I'm going to sit down and do a recount from RS in the next couple of days. Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
This is great to hear. Please pay attention to Ukraine section. Welcome to revert my last edit if you or someone else adds what had happen after removal of Yanukovich. My very best wishes (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Most of those countries listed do not "recognize the Holodomor as genocide" as stated in the source

I challenge anyone to read an English source on that UN resolution (https://ukraineun.org/en/press-center/361-ukraine-initiated-at-the-un-the-declaration-on-the-eighty-fifth-anniversary-of-the-holodomor-of-1932-1933-in-ukraine/). The word "genocide" is never used in the resolution, although they "condemn the cruel policies pursued by the Stalinist regime". Also they "welcome the efforts of the Member States who recognized the Great Famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine (Holodomor) as a man-made deadly famine" which to me stops short of officially recognizing it. Stix1776 (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Putting an NGO in a heading with the UN doesn't make any sense

Ones a world government body, the other is a non government group. It's also misleading for readers. It's just more honest to put them separately. Stix1776 (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Does this mean UNESCO? It is a UN agency and technically not an NGO. —Michael Z. 20:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
It was referring to Ukrainian World Congress. Someone moved this away from the UN heading to International Commission of Inquiry Into the 1932–33 Famine in Ukraine, which is an improvement. I'm not sure who did.Stix1776 (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Working on adding and updating references

I am currently working on adding updating references.  // Timothy :: talk  18:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

So far, none of the sources you listed say "crime against humanity". Stix1776 (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

You obviously didn't bother to read the sources.[1]
I have objected to your changes. Per BRD and ONUS, you need to gain a consensus of editors to change the existing content in the article. There is no deadline on Wikipedia, whether there is an in use tag on the article or not. Removing the in use tag when another editor has twice posted to you (here and on the your talk) that they are working on this is extremely rude.  // Timothy :: talk  11:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P6-TA-2008-0523&language=EN

The tag text literally says "Please remove this template if this page hasn't been edited in several hours", which is what I've done. If you need more time ask for it specifically. Neither this source nor the one you posted says those countries support the definition. Voting in an EU parliament does not equal official national support nor does your source specify how the counties vote. The wording "The following countries recognize the Holodomor as genocide and/or a crime against humanity" intentional obfuscates the text and meaning of your sources. Stix1776 (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Governments instructing their reporesenatives to vote in favor of a declaration equals official national support. The claim that it is not and the rest of the above is nonsense and I'm not going to play semantics and word games. The content is appropriate together because the declarations include statements referring to genocide and crimes against humanity, even if they don't always use the English expressions. Some of the resolutions referenced were sponsored by Ukraine and when Ukraine uses the word Holodomor they mean genocide, there is no ambiguity about this, and for the UN to repeatedly use the word to describe what happened shows support for Ukraine's position on it being genocide.
You are welcome to try and change consensus here, you are welcome to start an RfC, but observe BRD and ONUS and do not change stable content unless you have a consensus.
Regarding your removal of the in use tag, you certainly can remove the tag, but that does not mean that it is not a rude gesture toward an editor that has left multiple posts about the issue.  // Timothy :: talk  15:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The question of genocide is a specific one, and it doesn’t help this article to introduce the category of “genocide and some other less-well-defined bad things.” It’s a central issue, and this article should make the facts clear.
Using or acknowledging the name Holodomor is not an act of recognizing genocide because the UN has a legal definition of genocide, but not one of Holodomor—if you disagree, please show us reliable sources that clearly say so. (That said, there are also academic definitions of genocide, some discussed in another article, and an official recognition doesn’t necessarily mean either of these.)
But other recognition is significant too, and may be a degree towards recognizing genocide. If a state made a statement that this was immoral, or criminal, or a crime against humanity, then just state that in the article, instead of arguing over our own invented categories that may constitute original research. Or quote a secondary source that says something worth quoting about this.
Anyway, specific states did categorically recognize the Holodomor as a genocide, or as part of one, and this article should clearly say which ones did so when, with references supporting each. I will clean it up to that end if I must. —Michael Z. 15:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Michael, TimothyBlue's editing is original research. An editor shouldn't be putting their own interpretation on the sources. No source says anything what you're proposing. Even if Albania voted on that EU referendum, nothing in your source states that. Also TimothyBlue, please read WP:BRD-NOT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stix1776 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I didn’t say “his editing.” —Michael Z. 01:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

United Nations

TimothyBlue is engaging in edit wars. He added the text about the UN (on edit 18:08-18:12 on 31 January). These should be reverted as I've already undone them as poorly sourced new content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stix1776 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

What’s wrong with that edit? If it needs a better source why not add one? —Michael Z. 01:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
No source says "United Nations has *passed multiple resolutions* acknowledging and commemorating the Holodomor" [my emphasis]. I can't find a source that doesn't exist. The UN almost certainly hasn't passed any resolutions on Holodomor. I'm waiting the reference that says otherwise. Stix1776 (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I see. A number of declarations by multiple UN members were not UNGA resolutions. —Michael Z. 02:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Wording has been clarified. If you had been specific about your concern it would have been fixed earlier. This was easy to fix and your lack of clearly stating your concern made it take longer than necessary. I'm not alone in not seeing your concern. // Timothy :: talk  09:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I only explained it in the edit and article talk page and the admin report page you made on me. If you're unsure, make a question in the talk page. Please don't just revert and make edit wars. Stix1776 (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Misidentification of graphical materials

What’s the connection to modern politics? This section should find a home in an article where it’s relevant, or be deleted. Perhaps it belongs in Holodomor denial. —Michael Z. 02:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. This has been put more succinctly in other pages. Stix1776 (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
No objection to removal.  // Timothy :: talk  09:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

"The following countries have recognized the Holodomor" controversy

Many of these countries don't seem to have an official position on the Holodomor. For example: Albania, Argentina, Azerbaijan, etc. If they did, it would be simple enough to find a source that states "Albania's X official body states Y about the Holodomor". Co-signing a vague letter to the UN seems far off from official recognition. No other source lists them a countries that acknowledge the Holodomor (https://holodomormuseum.org.ua/en/recognition-of-holodomor-as-genocide-in-the-world/). Albeit this source refers to genocide.

Can we try to have reliable sources that say explicitly what editors are putting in the article, please. Otherwise this becomes WP:OR Stix1776 (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

You are ignoring the statements, declarations, etc they have signed at the United Nations, European parliament etc. These are not vague letters. This is a complete mischaracterization. This is currently sourced and editors are working on finding even more sources. You do not have consensus to remove the content.  // Timothy :: talk  19:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I didn't remove any content on this issue. I just added references and put in this discussion. We can keep dispute tag on this section until consensus is reached. Feel free to add more sources.Stix1776 (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
What controversy? Co-signing a letter filed at the UN for posterity is precisely stating an official position. The letters are not “vague,” but declare commemorating, condemning, paying tribute, and so on, according to their language. It is not merely “recognizing the Holodomor,” but in fact making a “solemn declaration” about it. There’s a block quotation sufficient to give readers an idea of what these declarations state.
Sure, let’s improve the wording if you’re finding anything about this unclear, but there’s no point in denying facts clearly attested by sources a link away at UNdocs.org.
This is basic stuff. What we need to find is more analysis about these declarations, the states’ positions, and synthesis that relates to broader politics. —Michael Z. 19:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
To clarify with the broader article content in mind: I believe the section about UN declarations is valuable and should remain. I don’t think it’s necessary to list every member that signed them, since this is not too hard to find in the references. I think the stronger and more controversial question of recognition as genocide is something that should be available to readers of the article. I don’t love the long list of flags interrupting the article, but what is a better solution? Perhaps a collapsible list, or standalone list article. —Michael Z. 20:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the above. Having the information in the list is important, but it is an awkward placement. I especially agree that the article needs to be expanded beyond being just a recitation of who's said what about the Holodomor. Mzajac if you have time could you check/edit the material I have added under United States.  // Timothy :: talk  21:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
The strongest statement in the letter is "Recalling in this regard the joint statement... recognizing the Holodomor as the national tragedy", which refers to a previous declaration these nations didn't sign. Why are we unable to find a source that says "Albania recognizes the Holodomor"? Because if we can't, this is original research.
I think having a list of who officially recognises it as a genocide is more valuable. Stix1776 (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
You are again removing and arguing more the removal of more sourced content.  // Timothy :: talk  04:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Do you actually read the stuff other editors read? Look at the outside opinions. [[2]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stix1776 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Stix1776, Feel free to take me to the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism if you think you can defend your word games and removal of sourced content.  // Timothy :: talk  08:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

Just a few things that are entirely not supported in the sources.
1) Most of those countries in the list did not officially "recognized the Holodomor".
  • Response: Untrue. There support is referenced.
    • Response's response: Your citations are original research. You need a source stating that "Albania recognizes Holodomor", or something similar.
2) Despite the House of Representatives and the Senate adopting resolutions recognizing the Holodomor, the line 'The United States government recognized the Holodomor as a "famine-genocide" in Public Law' is not written in the source.
  • Response: It is stated in 120 STAT. 1864 PUBLIC LAW 109–340—OCT. 13, 2006, which is referenced.
    • Response's response: it seems that this was cleared up already
3) Stating the the US officially does not support the Holodomor is well sourced, yet is not in the article [[3]]
  • Response: This is untrue. The United States recognized as a famine genocide in 120 STAT. 1864 PUBLIC LAW 109–340—OCT. 13, 2006 which is referenced in the article.
    • Response's response: This Public Law is only about the establishment of a Holodomor Memorial. The words "officially recognize famine genocide" are never in the law.
4) The 10 November 2003 is written twice.
  • No idea what this means
    • The UN resolution on 10 November is mentioned twice, which just seems like padding to me
5) Nothing is written that most countries do not (officially or otherwise) recognize or have an opinion on the Holodomor.

Do you have a source for which countries have stated they do not recognize the Holodomor and which ones have stated they have no opinion? Otherwise its original research and opinion on your part. Also:

    • Response to response: Yes I do [4][5]
6) Much of the block statements are redundant and make the article unreadable.
  • The block quotes look great.
I don't have time for an edit war.
The RFERL ref tells: "In the U.S. Congress, simple resolutions are nonbinding, passed by only one chamber of Congress, and don't become law." I am not sure this tells it was officially recognized by US as a genocide. My very best wishes (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
The RFERL ref is talking about a Senate resolution in 2018. The public law was passed by both houses of Congress and signed by GW Bush in 2006 and explicitly states it is to memorial to remember the victims the famine genocide. The project is authorized by law allowing the US and Ukraine to jointly establish a memorial together which is developed and run by the National Park Service. In the project proposal from the National Park Service it states the purpose is to educate the American public about the famine-genocide. [6]. The inscription reads, "Famine-Genocide in Ukraine. In memory of the millions of innocent victims of a man-made famine in Ukraine engineered and implemented by Stalin’s totalitarian regime."
Yes, the US government authorized building of the privately funded memorial with "famine-genocide" inscribed on the wall. But does it mean an official recognition of the famine as genocide by US government in 2006? I guess this is the essence of the disagreement. Personally, I do agree it was an intentional genocide.My very best wishes (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Responding to the concerns.

  1. 70 countries signed at least one of the four UN statements. The last three all refer to the first one, and to the UNESCO resolution. The latest, 2018 statement says, in part “recalling in this regard the joint statement on the seventieth anniversary of the Holodomor of 1932–1933 in Ukraine of 7 November 2003 . . . , recognizing the Holodomor as the national tragedy of the Ukrainian people, caused by the cruel actions and policies of the totalitarian regime, . . . .” It is not reasonable to dispute that they “recognized the Holodomor,” for what that is worth. Is that so important? What states don’t “recognize” it? No one disputes that the famine took place, and no one disputes that it was the result of Soviet policies, so whatever “recognizing the Holodomor” means is not worth a big argument over. I think it is better to quote who stated or signed what. Perhaps the list of 70 in total, or four separate lists counting 138 signatures, should appear in the UN section, either as an expandable list(s), in an explanatory note(s), like note [m] in that section.
  • Response: Here's the issue with using language from a UN resolution. This declaration recalls another declaration that recognizes the Holodomor. Why can't anyone fine a source, primary or secondary, that states that one of these countries "recognizes the Holodomor".
  1. So be specific. Say exactly what the US government did and didn’t say and pass, including the publication of the 1988 report of the commission, and the non-binding senate and congress motions. State clearly that Congress passed a non-binding resolution calling the Holodomor a genocide, or whatever, and state who doesn’t consider it US government policy.
  • Thank you. I think this was cleared up.
  1. Here the complaint is breaking down due to imprecise language. “The US officially does not support the Holodomor” is not a meaningful or factual statement. “The US officially supports the Holodomor” does not appear in the article, so I don’t know what change it seeks. If this point addresses some text in the article, please specify.
  • Response: The US and other countries' positions are noted, and many secondary sources state it, therefore the US position should be mentioned. Why are we splitting hairs over interpretatios in primary sources, Twitter and Facebook posts, while excluding text from multiple secondary sources.
  1. Please quote the offending text. Suggest a remedy. Thanks.
  • Response: "On 10 November 2003, the Ukrainian ambassador to the United Nations ...." and "2003, 10 November: Joint statement on the seventieth anniversary of the Holodomor of 1932–1933". This is written twice.
  1. What?
  • Per MOS: QUOTE, don't overuse quotes. It just makes this page unreadable.

This dispute is needless. If someone doesn’t want a big vaguely defined list, then we will end up with a half-dozen neater, more specific lists throughout the article. So be it. —Michael Z. 20:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The US government only authorized the building of a memorial in 2006 [7], but it did not officially recognize the event as genocide. That is what the RFERL reference say [8]. Is not it? My very best wishes (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
It is, but your source makes it clear that is only part of the story. —Michael Z. 15:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Congress passing legislation and the President signing it allowing a memorial on public land that is specifically for the purpose of honoring the victims and educating the American public about the Holodomor, calling it a famine genocide, is recognizing the Holodomor. Construction was privately financed (so is the World War II memorial), but it is still a public memorial on public land making a public statement, and is administered and approved by the government. The United States government is recognizing the Holodomor.
If not the above what is the legally prescribed process to "recognize" something? how is this different to prevent the common usage? Why is the common English usage here unacceptable? Would the word acknowleged be better? I'm open to suggested changes. // Timothy :: talk  22:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
My understanding is that Armenian genocide, for example, was officially recognized by US only in 2019. I am not an expert, but RFE/RL tells in 2018 that "The U.S. government has not recognized the Ukrainian famine as a "genocide," instead labeling it as a "criminal act of the Stalinist regime" against the people of Ukraine.". But telling about building the monument and about the non-binding resolution by US Senate in 2018 is obviously fine. My very best wishes (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Saying that (please check page United States recognition of the Armenian Genocide for comparison), I do not mind if you revert my edit, rephrase or whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I added my responses to those responses above. I should point out that most countries still do not officially recognize the Holodomor, and this should be mentioned in this article [9][10]Stix1776 (talk) 05:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@Stix1776. According to the lead, "the event is considered a genocide by Ukraine and fifteen other nations" [refs]. The Brittanica (EB) page you linked to say the same: "By early 2019, 16 countries as well as the Vatican had recognized the Holodomor as a genocide, and both houses of the United States Congress had passed resolutions declaring that “Joseph Stalin and those around him committed genocide against the Ukrainians in 1932–1933." So why did you restore the tag? Want to fix something? Please do. My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi My very best wishes. I understand that you may not been in the recent debates on this Talk Page, but if you look above, my issues do not relate to what you are saying. Let me resummarize from above and remove topics that I feel are solved:
1) There are still no secondary sources stating that those countries recognized the Holodormor. The sources so far are a Twitter post [11], a press release [12], and a NYTimes article that doesn't mention anything about those countries [13].
2) I feel this was fixed and I can move on.
3) Despite a source [14], the US government's official position of not yet recognizing the genocide is unclear, although the language has improved.
4) The 10 November 2003 resolution is written twice.
5) Despite a source [15], the language 16 out of 196 countries recognize the Holodomor as genocide
6) Per MOS:QUOTE, there are too many blockquotes in this article and it makes it unreadable. Much of what's quoted can be summarized.
7) See the "The List" subheading. There are no secondary sources for the "69" number.
You might be wondering, why doesn't stix1776 just be bold and edit himself. Believe me, I tried. Literally everything that wasn't a minor revision got reverted. I'm genuinely happy to start editing again if other editors genuinely want to work with me.
I don't mean to be aggressive, but please leave the tags up for now. I think a good policy for removing tags is for 1) me to agree, 2) me to disappear for a month or more (therefore making the tag stale), or 3) one admin or an abundance of editors to agree to remove it. Thanks Stix1776 (talk) 05:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeh, I see old ANI discussion. Number 1 - no, one can use primary sources for this per WP:PRIMARY. If no one is going to fix anything (most people just because they do not see any problems), these tags are useless and therefore should be removed (you say they are "stale" - yes, sure). It seems you are using these tags as a "badge of shame" after loosing the dispute and seeing that WP:Consensus in not on your side. My very best wishes (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Regarding point 1: WP:PRIMARY tells us that “primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia,” and “a primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.” The text of the 2018 letter is published by the United Nations itself,[16] as an agenda item and annex. The list of countries in it is a straightforward descriptive statement of facts, and so is the notation that it was to be distributed in the UN General Assembly, and as far as can be told remains undisputed by the signatories or any other state.
Points 4 and 6 don’t seem to justify the NPOV tag. Point 7 in my opinion has been mooted; please see the following section. I may try to address more of these later. —Michael Z. 00:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
You're misrepresenting my position on point 1. My issue isn't primary sources, but using Twitter posts and press releases to determine that a country "recognized the Holodomor" is a big leap. Using a Primary source like "Bob's Big Book of Holodomor" is quite a different matter to a Twitter post. The link you're referring to [17] doesn't open and I can't seem to find it in the page.
Per [18], consensus of editors here or on the NPOV Noticeboard is required to remove the tag. Timothy already tried the latter, and I welcome you to try yourself. In the meantime, my critiques are here to stay.
Is there any reason NOT to add "16 out of 196 countries recognize the Holodomor as genocide"?? Stix1776 (talk) 02:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
This is the right link It is an official UNGA agenda item, published by the UN. —Michael Z. 13:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Point 1,3,4,5,6 & 7 still stand, and no one has bothered to answer to them. I'll be happy to fix them if someone says that my edits won't get reverted in an edit warring fashion as before. Stix1776 (talk) 09:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Mzajac, I forgot to respond to your UN document. This resolution doesn't explicitly recognize the Holodomor. I'd much rather a secondary source stating "Israel recognizes the Holodomor". You're welcome to go over my head and make a RFC or admin forum post, but I can't see a neutral editor taking your side with this. Sorry. Stix1776 (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I’m not sure if every single point has been addressed, but I believe most have, while you disregard some of my comments above me in the following section. There is clearly a disconnect between your view and that of other editors here on satisfying your requirements. Please call an RFC or otherwise get some neutral opinions. —Michael Z. 13:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome to ignore my opinions, or your can discuss. Just please don't remove the tag without discussion. I welcome an RFC. I'm just really hesitant to get really involved with editing after the amount of edit warring that happened. Stix1776 (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Unfair. I responded to points 1, 4, 6, and 7, and you declined to acknowledge some of that and rejected the rest. The tag is not intended to remain on an article indefinitely, and I am not inclined to keep banging at this and be told “no one has bothered.” Let’s gauge consensus, or get more input. —Michael Z. 18:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough, I will respond to your text above. Please give me 12 hours, as I'm failing behind with work. I've already said multiple times that I'm very OK with a RFC. My fear is that, if I create it and no one responds, the lack of response will be interpreted. Can someone else make the RFC? The burden of proof should be on the editors insisting on changes (The List, 69 countries, recognition of the Holodomor). Thanks. Stix1776 (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Edit: I'm OK with removing the second tag, with my changes. It may not be perfect for you, so I welcome any changes.Stix1776 (talk) 04:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I took a few minutes and did some bold. You may not be happy with my changes, but this is not very far off from me removing both tags. Heck, it could happen today. Just please don't remove my tag without consulting me.Stix1776 (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Editors don't need to be 100% OK with my recent edits. I'm happy to have these adjusted. But the edits that I've done yesterday is roughly what I'm looking for. I'm pretty OK with removing the tags, although I'll go and make a RFC for the "sixty-nine countries" issue at some point. Stix1776 (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The List

People are giving the word "recognize" some special meaning, "Recognize" is a normal English word meaning acknowledge something. In any case a new list format may help.  // Timothy :: talk  21:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I was thinking of something like the following, except less prominent: without the boldfacing and no borders, etc. But for the four UN statements I have already added explanatory notes, and maybe that is sufficient. —Michael Z. 01:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
36 members signed the Joint Statement on the Seventieth Anniversary of the Great Famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine (Holodomor)
Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Egypt, Georgia, Guatemala, Islamic Republic of Iran, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Nauru, Nepal, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Tajikistan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Moldova, the Russian Federation, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, the United Arab Emirates, the United States of America, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan
Are there any other controversy pages that include collapsing lists for 'Joint Statements' like this? It just seems like an effort to make the largest list possible to be a battleground. Stix1776 (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • This is inmaterial, every article stands on its own merits, the content is sourced and their is no support to remove it.
I'm continuing expanding the article with a section for each entity with their details as I recieve them, and I have been considering an RfC to rename it "Recogition of the Holodomor" after this; a split will facilitate expanding this article further into a WP:SUMMARY style article which could include non-political orgs and then writing individual child articles for many of the entry (eg: "Recognition of the Holodomor in Australia", etc).
Then there can be a separate new article about the Political debate on the Holodomor, but again before I'd do this split, I'll get support through an RfC. @My very best wishes and Mzajac: I'll keep you in the loop on any RfCs, proposed splits or renames before I do anything like this.
There are a lot more sources out there, but foriegn language sources can be time consuming to track down. I've been receiving more informaton, but research librarians at UCLA and Harvard's Ukrainian studies are backed up on requests.
The article and subject continues to be improved and expanded.  // Timothy :: talk  18:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I was just finishing up an edit as you posted that. Sorry if there’s an edit conflict. Thinking along similar lines, I turned most of the article into a “Recognition” section, with a summary at the top. I think the disputed list (now more compact) is now redundant, and can be removed (but check if anything should be salvaged, e.g., specific references that only occur there).
Recognition is only a part of the politics, and what is here is mostly purely documentary. I think the article still has the potential for a lot more meat about the politics that goes beyond this. (Also, this article and Holodomor genocide question are weirdly floating apart, when there ought to be a fair bit of overlap.) —Michael Z. 19:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Mzajac, Very nice clean up.  // Timothy :: talk  19:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I restored the dispute tag. To be clear, the original “recognized” list is what has been disputed, and the tag should remain until this is resolved. I feel I have rendered it redundant by adding the more-specific paragraphs about recognition as genocide and recognition as a deliberate act, so it can be removed to resolve the dispute, I think without the loss of any material. I only left it so it could be double-checked. —Michael Z. 19:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Looking more closely, I see that section has at least a couple of references that are not elsewhere in the article. I will check it over in a day or two, and hopefully tie this up. —Michael Z. 19:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
This list is better, although the statement "[t]he following countries have recognized the Holodomor" is very much original research. Stix1776 (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
The one paragraph that starts with that phrase is exactly the same as before, only I got rid of the flags and bullets. I’m planning to delete it, once I go through its references. I believe its content is likely redundant to the two preceding paragraphs. —Michael Z. 03:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the paragraph that says "[t]he following sovereign states have recognized the Holodomor as an act of genocide"... seems much better. I'd be very happy having the second paragraph deleted. Thanks. Stix1776 (talk) 04:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I would delete the third graf in the section: the one below the notice. —Michael Z. 06:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I second this Stix1776 (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Although I missed someone putting in "The Holodomor was recognized as a deliberate act against Ukrainians in statements at the UNGA signed by at least sixty-nine states". This is also original research. Can we try to stick to what's said by secondary sources please. Stix1776 (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
How would you describe these statements collectively? This is a descriptive summary of their language, not analysis, and they are grouped as statements about the Holodomor that did not call it a genocide. One could quote each separately, but that clutters the article and repeats more material already present below. —Michael Z. 14:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Here are partial quotations. I don’t think we have to cite secondary sources for uncontroversial, self-evident facts or literal statements, and the text of these is all cited in the article.
  • EP: “Recognises the Holodomor (the artificial famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine) as an appalling crime against the Ukrainian people, and against humanity”
  • PACE: “Millions of innocent people in Belarus, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine, which were parts of the Soviet Union, lost their lives as a result of mass starvation caused by the cruel and deliberate actions and policies of the Soviet regime.”
  • OSCE:”Pays tribute to the innocent lives of millions of Ukrainians who perished during the Holodomor of 1932 and 1933 as a result of the mass starvation brought about by the cruel deliberate actions and policies of totalitarian Stalinist regime” and “strongly encourages all parliaments to adopt acts regarding recognition of the Holodomor.”
  • UNESCO: “Recalling the Joint Statement . . . in which Holodomor was officially recognized as the national tragedy of the Ukrainian people, caused by the cruel actions and policies of the totalitarian regime”
 —Michael Z. 14:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I swear, I've read the text maybe ten times and I'm unable to figure out where the number sixty-nine from "signed by at least sixty-nine states" comes from. If it's really uncontroversial and self-evident, than I am honestly quite dumb because I really can't see the connection. Also the paragraph references other parts of this Wikipedia article, which is clearly against WP:CIRCULAR.

I already mentioned previously that many blockquotes saying the same thing renders this article unreadable. I understand your need for a summary. Why not include numbers under headings inside the article? Stix1776 (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: Agree with Mzajac about the above. There is nothing wrong with using the wording or sources provided. I will bundle refs when Mzajac is done for readability, as I work on the sections below.
Stix1776 in the past you've objected to content that was summariezed, claiming the wording is inaccurate, this has been clarified; you've objected to content because you wanted better sources, now they've been provided (with more coming); you've objected to content because you claimed the source doesn't state what is in the article and now links to the documents to show exactly what wording is used are present. "This is also original research" is untrue, stating facts from documents is not OR; "Also the paragraph references other parts of this Wikipedia article, which is clearly against WP:CIRCULAR" is untrue, articles reference other sections with more detail and references all the time, its entirely proper; and "Can we try to stick to what's said by secondary sources please" is only an excuse to try to remove content that doesn't fit a particular POV, as Mzajac stated there is no need or requirement to cite secondary sources for uncontroversial, self-evident facts or literal statements. It is hard to AGF when you're objecting to improvements you've asked for and everything you are stating seems aimed at removing content that doesn't fit your POV.  // Timothy :: talk  10:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Timothy. I'm making an effort not get personal. I feel like arguing about the past is unproductive.


Can someone please explain how the sources show where the "sixth-nine states" comes from? I swear on my life I am unable to see where this comes from. Is there a link I'm overlooking?


I'm unaware of the Wikipedia policy that states "there is no need or requirement to cite secondary sources for uncontroversial, self-evident facts or literal statements". Can someone enlighten me? Thanks for your patience. Stix1776 (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Stix1776 your history follows you as does mine and this problem is not "in the past". I explained my myself and my support for Mzajac edits very well above. Mzajac has explained himself very well (and with a lot of patience); I stated above why I think you are POV DE. What you should be concerned with at this point are WP:BLUDGEON, WP:LISTEN, and WP:DROPTHESTICK.  // Timothy :: talk  11:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Mzajac, when you have a moment, can you please explain to me where the 69 states come from. Thank you. (edit: I apologize in advance if I'm wrong and wasting your time) Stix1776 (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Albania, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Iran, Israel, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Nauru, Nepal, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Czech Republic, Macedonia, Netherlands, South Korea, Moldova, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United States, Uzbekistan.
You can very clearly count these and they are very clearly in the footnotes. Stop wasting time. You can apologize by ceasing your POV DE.  // Timothy :: talk  13:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The only references for most of these I'm seeing are the ones way down in the United Nations section. I managed to verify a few, but I'm unable to see Croatia and Qatar. Honestly they might be there, but the footnotes are not obvious. Stix1776 (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
    Croatia signed the 75th, 80th, and 85th-anniversary declarations, Qatar the 70th. 69 states in total are listed in the references under “Declarations accepted by the United Nations General Assembly.” Redundant citations can be omitted per WP:LEADCITE, but I see the source for the info should be made clearer here. —Michael Z. 14:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry I missed these numbers and countries. I genuinely found it confusing, but I'm on mobile.
  • Isn't the lead the very top of the article?
  • I'd really prefer to see an actual source that said "The Holodomor was recognized as a deliberate act against Ukrainians in statements at the UNGA signed by at least sixty-nine states" [my emphasis]. I do think that combining multiple sources into one idea really is original research. Stix1776 (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The consensus of editors and Wikipedia guidelines does not support what you "prefer". This is geting very tiresome. I'm letting you continue, but this will go to ANI for DE TE (again) if you continue to bludgeon. I really don't want to do this, I'm sure you don't want to, please stop and we will not have to. Again just for emphasis I don't want to do this, I've been through two POV DE ANIs this month that resulted in editors being blocked, I didn't like doing it, I don't want to do it here, please stop before it becomes necessary.  // Timothy :: talk  15:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm trying to be nice, but the 69 states thing really is WP:SYNTHESIS. You've already tried to report me, and editors agreed with me. I'm not concerned if you do this again, as this is blatant original research. Nothing in any source says "sixty-nine states". Stix1776 (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Synthesis is implying a conclusion. What conclusion is “69 states” implying? In fact the statement is clarifying, and preventing readers from drawing a false conclusion. Did the same bloc of states sign them all, for 38 in total? No. Did different states sign each one, for a total of 138? No. The fact is a bunch signed one and a bunch signed the other three, and a few signed them all, and some more joined in each year. Counting the total is a calculation. We can add a freakin Venn diagram to illustrate these uncontroversial facts, but I think that would be overkill. If you think the way it is stated is misleading or implies some wrong or controversial conclusion that you can describe to us, then just go ahead and rewrite it in a better way. —Michael Z. 04:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I was unaware of WP:CALC, and it can see why it applies here. It still requires the consensus of editors, which I'm in no way giving a hard **no** to. I'm still iffy about placing it in this article, given that it's not in any source. Can we involve someone who's not active in this discussion? Or possibly another article that does this? Honestly the text below in the United Nations section seems less controversial than the summary section.

To clarify my position, I'm uncomfortable with: X number "recognized as a deliberate act against Ukrainians". This would be much better if we had a source for it.


We debate adding numbers, and tbh in ok with the debate. But still the text "16 out of 195 countries recognize the Holodomor as genocide" [19] is not in the article, despite an actual source.

"If you think the way it is stated is misleading or implies some wrong or controversial conclusion that you can describe to us, then just go ahead and rewrite it in a better way."

  • I'd honestly like to, but literally all of my edits get reverted by Timothy. So here we are, hashing this out in the talk page.

Stix1776 (talk) 08:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Stix1776, here is where things stand, in the above conversation you've demonstrated, you do not understand:
and you're still arguing with editors that have far more experience, and repeatedly accusing us of inserting OR/SYNTH,[33],[34],[35] when you were "unaware" of CALC,[36] which is a pretty basic part of WP:OR. You've shown the only thing you have been here to do is remove content you don't like and that you keep changing your reasons for removing this content,first its OR, can't figure out where number 69 comes from, can't find two out of 69, you want another source, now you claim its SYNTH, you dont think it has a consensus, back to erroneously claiming there its not sourced shows you have a definite POV and are trying any argument to insert that POV to remove sourced content you do not like.  // Timothy :: talk  09:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Personal attacks are not helping to build consensus, which is a stated requirement of WP:CALC. I don't enjoy the finger pointing. Stix1776 (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I wasn’t aware of CALC either, but I am grateful it was pointed out, since it is a good concrete expression of the principle that self-evident facts are nor OR. I do see how tying it to recognition as a deliberate act is a step up, and maybe calling an RFC is not a bad idea. I’m thinking that if we can make a clear statement about each declaration’s substance, then count the total for the reader, it is just calculation.
    • Timothy, Stix1776 is sceptical but clearly wants to improve the article in good faith. Satisfying the hard questions with references and reaching agreement on conformance tips guidelines only improves it all the more. Let’s try not to be frustrated with each other and sink into a battleground while we are making this better. This is all good work. —Michael Z. 14:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Stix1776, one thing that needs to be done in the article is a section of recognition of the Holodomor by the Vatican, I haven't done any work on this, if you'd like to add this section, please do. There is also probably a good deal of information regarding recognition in the various official state Eastern Orthoxdox Churches. 10:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I see from the latest post in the preceding section that Stix1776 is still not happy with including the number 69.

It sounds like the wording of the statement is acceptable, but just in case, I’ll point out that all four of the statements refer to the “Holodomor,” as a “national tragedy [for/of] the Ukrainian people,” caused by the “cruel actions and policies of the totalitarian regime.” The first statement actually recognizes this, and the other three refer to the first literally as “recognizing“ it.

WP:CALC says adding is okay as long as editors’ consensus is “that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources.” The guideline doesn’t care whether you like the number appearing in the article. It doesn’t care whether the number appears in secondary sources (indeed its point is that the number is a verifiable fact even thought it does not appear). It only cares that you agree it is not wrong. If you think we miscounted or added incorrectly, I can post highlighted screenshots or something so we can all visually confirm the count of 69 UN member states.

So if you’re not saying that the number 69 is inaccurate, then I have to say that we have satisfied the guideline on this, and there is no basis for objection number 7) above, “there are no secondary sources for the "69" number.” —Michael Z. 20:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I've already stated that I'd be more comfortable with a non-involved editor OK'ing this or other examples of pages using this technique. To restate my position, the thing that troubles me is the "X number recognized as a *deliberate act against Ukrainians*". Not only is CALC involved, but a synthesis of much primary sources to get a conclusion. Again, I'm not giving a hard no to this, but I find it troubling. Stix1776 (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Okay I removed any whiff of synthesis. —Michael Z. 02:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for cleaning that up. Just so you you realize I'm not being insincere, I wrote a little Python script and I ran the names from the sources in the UN docs, against the names that Timothy listed above. You can see the code here [37]. The following countries that Tim listed can't be found in the UN docs:
  • Iran
  • Kuwait
  • Kyrgyzstan
  • Nepal
  • Peru
  • South Africa
  • Macedonia
  • South Korea
  • Turkmenistan
  • Uzbekistan
My Python script counted 61 unique countries. Possibly I'm off my one or two. If I'm wrong about the 69, understand that it's incredibly confusing how that number was reached, so I'm hesitant to give it an OK Stix1776 (talk) 08:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Looks like you missed the 2003 addendum. (That script is very neat. Do you compose the code in that website, or just use it to share?) —Michael Z. 14:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Can someone get the RFC that was mentioned earlier going? And can this become the active tense? Lastly, why can we count but not say "16 out of 196 countries recognize the Holodomor as genocide", given that it is sourced?
Mzajac, can you please ask My Very Best Wishes to stop removing my tag without consensus. Thanks. Stix1776 (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC, Is it OK to count number of countries that signed statements circulated in the UNGA without a direct source?

NO CONSENSUS
There is no consensus to include a count of countries without a secondary source directly making that count. SpinningSpark 14:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


There's been a difficultly amongst editors regarding the statement "Sixty-nine states have signed declarations in statements at the UNGA affirming that the Holodomor was as a 'national tragedy of the Ukrainian people'..." The issue is whether it is OK to count the number of countries from the UN General Assembly statements from 4 documents [38], [39], [40], [41], and [42]. No primary or secondary sources lists the count, however per WP:CALC routine calculations are allowed.

To be honest, I was the skeptical editor and didn't trust the 69 number for the longest time. It's an utter pain trying to calculate all the unique countries, so I wrote a Python script to do it[43]. I'm still not 100% sure if I'm correct. I've never seen a page try to do this, so I'm worried that it's OR.

There are a few options:

  • A: Keep the text as 69 (or 70), explicitly listing the number
  • B: Write "at least 69 (or 70)"
  • C: Change it to "many countries" or something similar Stix1776 (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Technical point: they are signed statements circulated in the UNGA, not UNGA resolutions.
Salient point:Stix1776 should give it a rest, already. They’re not arguing because they believe it’s untrue. They simply WP:DONTLIKE the undeniable fact. By the way the original article text used “recognize,” which is language from the sources, but they don’t like that word either, and changed it to “affirm,” which ironically is stronger. —Michael Z. 15:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Have you read the RfC or seen the Python code I wrote? The conclusions you guys got to 69 were incredibly confusing given the way the article was written. I've put in a ton of actual effort to confirm someone else's confusing conclusions, and I'm being explicit about this. I have heaps of issues with you guys that I'm not going to dump on this RfC. You really should "assume good faith". Getting personal in the RfC doesn't solve anything. Gosh, the RfC was literally your idea [44], and I thought I was being decent on following through. Stix1776 (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
You’re right and I apologize. It was my reflexive response to some of your wording that I disagree with, but not appropriate.
The number 70 is correct. I compared my count to your updated script in detail, and I had omitted the Netherlands for some reason I can’t fathom now. —Michael Z. 17:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
It's OK and I'm sorry that this is frustrating. Is there anything you disagree with in the writing of this or my edits? I don't expect either to be final? Stix1776 (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Remove the count (option C) as counting countries is misleading (due to different country populations). Change it to "some" countries and list those countries if desired. 06:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

I think opposition to the count on the grounds that national counts are misleading is a topic that requires a broader forum and shouldn't be considered here until there is a consensus for a change in said forum BilledMammal (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
It is not misleading. The count of signatures represents the number of governments signing the statement, no more no less. Implying that more populous states are more significant, while disregarding the presence or absence of democracy would be WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. (Rather bad OR.) —Michael Z. 15:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

D: "Seventy countries have signed at least one of four separate declarations in statements at the UNGA...". This allows us to document the total number of nations that have at some point has recognized it as a "national tragedy of the Ukrainian people" caused by the "cruel actions and policies of the totalitarian regime", without suggesting that this represents the number of countries that currently recognize it as so, as such position may have changed over time as it is possible that the omission of names included in earlier statements from later statements is indicative of those nations altering their public position on the matter. BilledMammal (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

That’s a good point: the description should be clear on what it does and does not represent. However, it does remain true that, for example, Uzbekistan recognized the Holodomor in 2003 (and has not since “un-recognized” it). Counting the countries that recognized the Holodomor since 2003 is as factual as counting the countries that recognized the Holodomor in the one 2003 declaration as long as it is presented as such. —Michael Z. 16:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Specific wording matters. Certainly it is accurate to say D. “70 member states have signed one or more of four declarations since 2003,” and much clearer than E. “36, 32, 32, and 38 members signed respective declarations since 2003.” —Michael Z. 16:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • C (although the ideal solution would just to be to find a secondary source.) If we're at the point of writing python scripts and arguing whether it's 69 or 70, it's not a routine calculation. The declarations are also not identical; lumping them together carries assumptions and implications that amount to interpretation and analysis, failing WP:CALC. Beyond that, this is a controversial enough topic that I would expect that if a total was meaningful and worth noting, it would have secondary sources covering it; the lack of one here is a bit startling and makes me reluctant to include it in the article until one can be found. --Aquillion (talk) 00:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Conclusion Although the response was small and non conclusive, two-thirds of the uninvolved editors chose option C. I realize this isn't consensus. But since WP:CALC requires consensus, and the majority of editors disagree with the count, I think it's fair to say that counting isn't acceptable. I'm going to change the text to "many", although this doesn't need to be the final wording of the sentence. I'm open to other wording. Stix1776 (talk) 13:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Stix1776: This doesn’t appear to conform to WP:RFCEND. —Michael Z. 17:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Mzajac: I apologize, but I've never done an RfC before. I just notice that Legobot closed the RfC. Would you care to close this or suggest a way forward? Thanks. Stix1776 (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
    No offence taken. But the number of votes is very small. Check that page, I think there is a procedure to request closing an RFC.
    Note that since part of the concern with the addition is that the numbers represent different statements, I anticipate that a remedy wouldn’t just be changing “70” to “many,” which would be beside the point and might open the door to adding them for an incorrect total, but that it would say something about the difference in the statements. —Michael Z. 17:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
    Indeed, the number of votes is very small. I'm open to other suggestions, I just don't think a count will likely go forward, given what other editors have said. If you don't have any other ideas, I'll request closing tomorrow. Stix1776 (talk) 18:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
    There may be an option to re-list the RFC, but I am content to have someone neutral asses it now, if you are. Might be a while before a closer volunteers. —Michael Z. 19:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
    I'm restarting the RfC, as the number of replies is limited. It would be nice to end it here, as the majority of editors don't agree with a count and WP:CALC requires consensus of editors. Some sort of compromise or solution would be ideal, instead of taking up the time of more editors. Thanks. Stix1776 (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment (Summoned by bot) I'm not going to vote on the direct RfC question, BUT the presentation of figures/lists throughout the article is very confusing, sometimes mileading or problematic. I thought I had a grip on which countries had endorsed what, but then realised that countries sometimes appear as 'recognisers' then later as "letter writers' then have their own detailed national entry. Statements like "is considered a genocide by Ukraine and fifteen out of 195 other nations" - in isolation in the lead, imply there is very little recognition. At other times the presentation appears to be attempting to boost impressions. I'm not sure how to fix overall, but the impression at present is of a series of competing implicationa, even if each singly is based on reliable assertions, they fail to present a coherent 'whole'. … … Second comment is what is the scope of the article? De facto it appears to be almost solely charting 'recognition'. However the title implies that the subject is the role that Holdomor has had on politics. Implicitly this would mainly be the impact on Ukr-Rus and Rus-Western relations, perhaps also on the national politics of countries with Ukr/Russian diasporas. These 'political questions' are barely covered at all. There appears to me to be a disconnect between the title and the content. Pincrete (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you for this. The article was written, in large part, by editors doing a lot of editing on communism. I stepped back after a spat of edit warring, but I can come back and start editing this again. It would be nice to add protests or comments by politicians regarding the Holodomor. Do you think the national level details are too much? I thought that was excessive, but editors involved in this page's creation wanted to keep them. Thanks for your edits. Stix1776 (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I go with what Aquillion is saying so C.Thelostone41 (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  • @Mzajac: Considering that WP:CALC requires consensus, and a plurality of editors disagree with the count, can we just drop the insistence on counting? I already requested closure, but I do feel bad for any uninvolved editor trying to weed through this mess. I can't see any way the pro-counting side will win. Stix1776 (talk) 08:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Option D - “70 member states have signed one or more of four declarations since 2003" - I saw this at WP:CR. I don't really have an opinion about any of this. But I would agree that D seems to be the clearest and more accurate, based upon this discussion of the references. - jc37 01:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Option C - WP:CALC is fine for routine and obvious calculations, but this clearly doesn't apply here, given the apparently difficulty that was caused in reaching the 69 or 70 number. And it seems like WP:SYNTH as multiple sources are used. Far better to just say "many" or similar, until and unless a precise number is found.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
    It wasn’t difficult, the wrong figure was a simple matter of miscounting (no python script was necessary). That’s why we can publish the confirmed number to help our readers. I could make a simple table that makes the count perfectly clear (wish I had done it before this huge conversation). —Michael Z. 18:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Multiple editors have been saying that this isn't a routine calculation, and is WP:SYNTH. This is really taking advantage of the routine calculations that WP:CALC were meant for. Just that you're lacking consensus (required for WP:CALC) should be enough to end this RfC. Stix1776 (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editors of this page may or may not find this source helpful: "the UN's 2003 Joint Declaration ... was supported by one-third of UN member states." SpinningSpark 15:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

What is the scope of this article?

Because I'm seeing discussions from historians listed here. How is this page different to the main Holodomor page? Stix1776 (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean the conference where historians “endorsed a resolution addressed to the Italian government and the European Parliament”? The relation to politics seems self-evident to me. —Michael Z. 16:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Well please explain. What's the scope of this article? How's it different from the main article? Stix1776 (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Title appears to be sufficiently explanatory to me. Why, do you want to merge this material into the main article?
The subject seems to have much more potential. See Andriewsky 2015 and sources cited there for issues related to politicization, nation-building, and memory politics, which have always been prominent in Holodomor Studies. The historiography also overview has a significant section on “The Politics of Holodomor Studies: A Few Words,” and says that “the politics of Holodomor commemoration can, by now, be considered a sub-specialty of the field.” —Michael Z. 14:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Obviously I disagree with the addition of historians to this article. It makes more sense to limit it to politics, politicians, and political news.
The section on "The Politics of Holodomor Studies" refers to the change in the academic field. "Politics" here isn't literal. It's like politicking in one's job, no one expects you to be named Prime Minister. "Holodomor Studies on Politics" would be much more useful. Stix1776 (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I don’t understand what you’re talking about. The short section of Andriewsky’s overview talks about presidents from 1991 to 2014, their domestic and foreign policies, and the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory. It belongs in this article. —Michael Z. 22:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
"The Politics of Holodomor Studies" is not "The Studies of Holodomor Politics". The first line of the next section after that topic is "Let us now return to our main questions—what have historians of Ukraine learned about the Holodomor?". This whole article is about the academic field studying the Holodomor. Shall I get a 3O? To me this is very obvious after reading this article.Stix1776 (talk) 10:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
There’s no article edits or content to get 3o about, but go ahead if you think it’s appropriate. You’re planning to find consensus that politics doesn’t mean “politics”? —Michael Z. 15:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
I think it needs to be cleared out. The current written and structured article's topic appear to be more a list of nations recognizing the Holodomor as genocide than what Andriewsky 2015, which I am reading and is interesting, is talking about; so far, it appears to be a good summary of Holodomor historiography than countries recognize it as genocide, with the only mention to resolution being that of the Coundil of Europe but is qualified and within the context of Ukrainian memories and politics to the Holodomor, which is what this article should discuss but focus more on national recognization of genocide (Council of Europe was about to consider a resolution recognizing the Holodomoras genocide of the Ukrainian people (a Yushchenko initiative), ...) The lead itself defines the topic as a List of nations to recognize the Holodomor as genocide, Worldwide recognition of the Holodomor as genocide, or nations to have supported resolutions condemning the Holodomor, when not outright saying it was genocide, or using other terms (crime against humanity). We should probably have two separate articles, one concerning nations views of the Holodomor, including recognizing it as a genocide, and one concerning what Andriewsky 2015 is discussing, how the historiography has been politicised, how Ukrainian presidents pushed for research and studies on the event, how Yanukovych reversed that, how his fall changed course back to the status quo ante, the Institute of National Memory, etc. From my reading and understanding, Andriewsky 2015 is about the historiography moving towards genocide recognition, not a list of nations recognizing it as such. Davide King (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
The request for a Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined) since more than two editors are involved in this dispute and 3O is only for disputes with exactly two editors. (The statement by Davide King was the third opinion in this case.) Since a merger appears to be the matter in issue, using the process described at WP:MERGEINIT may bring additional input from other editors. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC) (Not watching this page)

Germany just joined the club

German Bundestag officially recognized the Holodomor as genocide. 93.206.54.181 (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Bulgaria

Hey as the text in this Wikipedia page says Bulgaria recognizes the Holodomor as genocide on a national level and should be the same color as Romania, Estonia etc. 2001:1C05:2207:2A00:564E:B223:2F31:B9F2 (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Belgium

Belgium recognized the Holodomor as genocide on the 10th March 2023 and it should be updated on the map seeing that it has been updated in the text 2001:1C05:2207:2A00:8844:C77:D94E:6E44 (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Malta

All European Union member states are colored in light blue why is Malta then not colored as well? 2001:1C05:2207:2A00:8550:C101:271F:58 (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Holodomor_in_modern_politics/Archive_1&oldid=1221634292"