Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor

Observers

•  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Please alert me if I may help with this mediation. I have tried informally to mediate a couple previous disputes related to Ukraine; I sometimes revert vandals edits about Lviv---such as attempts to remove mention of one nationality/ethnicity/etc.

Sources

Staline wrote

The most important thing now is Ukraine. The current situation in Ukraine is terribly bad. It’s bad in the Party. They say that, in two regions in Ukraine (Kiev and Dnieprepetrovsk), some fifty district committees have spoken against the collection plan, declaring it unrealistic. Things are no better in the other district committees. What does it sound like? It’s no longer a party, it’s a parliament, a caricature of a parliament. Instead of leading, Kosior has been maneuvering between the directives of the Party Central Committee and the requests of the district committees: Now he’s squeezed into a corner. Things are bad with the soviets. Chubar is not a leader. The situation with the GPU is not good. Redens is not up to leading the struggle against the counter-revolution in a republic as large and particular as Ukraine. If we do not immediately take charge of straightening out the situation in Ukraine, we could lose Ukraine. Bear in mind that Pilsudski never rests, his espionage capabilities in Ukraine are much stronger than Redens and Kosior realize. And remember too that, in the Ukrainian Communist Party (500 000 members, ha ha !), we find no few (no, no few!) rotten types, conscious and unconscious ‘petliurites’, as well as direct agents of Pilsudski. As soon as things get worse, these elements will lose no time in opening up a front within (and outside) the Party, against the Party. The worst of it is that the Ukrainian leaders are oblivious to these dangers (Khlevniuk, 2001: 273-274). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.154.30.110 (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Werth's conclusion

Two fundamental issues need to be considered in defining the Ukrainian famine of 1932-33 as a genocide, along lines set by the December 1948 United Nations Convention: intention and the ethnic-national targeting of a group (Article II of the Convention recognizes only national, ethnic, racial, and religious groups, not social or political). In the case of Ukraine, sufficient evidence exists to demonstrate intention. A crucial document on this point is the resolution of January 22, 1933 signed by Stalin, ordering the blockade of Ukraine and the Kuban, a region of the Caucasus with a majority-Ukrainian population. The blockade intentionally worsened the famine in Ukrainian-populated areas and in these areas alone. On the question of target group, i.e. whether Stalin viewed the peasants of Ukraine and the Kuban as peasants or as Ukrainians, which is key to justifying use of the term genocide, scholars disagree. For some historians (Martin, Penner), the famine’s primary objective was to break peasant rather than national resistance. Others (Serbyn, Shapoval, Kulchytsky, Vasilev) argue that the peasants of Ukraine and the Kuban were targeted first as Ukrainians: For Stalin, the Ukrainian peasant question was “in essence, a national question, the peasants constituting the principal force of the national movement” (Stalin, 1954: 71). By crushing the peasantry, one was breaking the most powerful national movement capable of opposing the process of the construction of the USSR. As the famine decimated the Ukrainian peasantry, the regime condemned the entire policy of Ukrainization underway since the early 1920s: The Ukrainian elites were rounded up and arrested.

This specifically anti-Ukrainian assault makes it possible to define the totality of intentional political actions taken from late summer 1932 by the Stalinist regime against the Ukrainian peasantry as genocide. With hunger as its deadly arm, the regime sought to punish and terrorize the peasants, resulting in fatalities exceeding four million people in Ukraine and the northern Caucasus. That being said, the Holodomor was very different from the Holocaust. It did not seek to exterminate the Ukrainian nation in its entirety, and it did not involve the direct murder of its victims. The Holodomor was conceived and fashioned on the basis of political reasoning and not of ethnic or racial ideology. However, by the sheer number of its victims, the Holodomor, seen again in its historical context, is the only European event of the 20th century that can be compared to the two other genocides, the Armenian and the Holocaust.

taken from http://www.massviolence.org/The-1932-1933-Great-Famine-in-Ukraine?artpage=1#outil_sommaire_0

Man-made

@Volunteer Marek. If the dispute was about calling this famine "man-made" and "genocide", it would be easy to resolve. "Man-made" means simply "made by man" (confiscation of grain, preventing movement of people from the area of disaster, etc.), as opposed to "made by nature" (e.g. poor weather conditions). Some famines in history were obviously "made by nature". Others did not. All books I read about this tell that all famines in the USSR during this time (including Kazahstan and other areas) were mostly "made by man". The only difference of Holodomor is obvious: it has been recognized as a genocide by some historians and Ukrainian government. So what? Just tell it was recognized as genocide by such and such parties, but not other parties (and provide arguments by the parties). End of story. No need in definitive answer.Biophys (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

If the dispute was about calling this famine "man-made" and "genocide", it would be easy to resolve. - you would think!!! But things which it seems like "would be easy to resolve" are not, on Wikipedia. The dispute over this was a genocide or not is down the road - even getting folks to admit that it was "man-made" is a struggle. It's an old tactic in diplomacy; start an argument about something trivial, nonconsequential and even obvious, so that you don't have to discuss the real issue which you might loose. Volunteer Marek  02:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this is unrelated, but I found the involvement of Jacob Peters rather interesting in the context of this mediation. Actually, that was a subject from which he started as an IP [1] and named account. Biophys (talk) 01:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

As I already said to Stradivarius, this mediation is waste of time, just as most other mediations. This is for serious reasons. Collaborative writing is difficult, even for two authors who are good friends and know the subject. One of them must take a lead. Other(s) may prepare some parts of the text. Each chapter in scientific books is usually written by only one author. But the collaboration becomes impossible when people are writing about a political controversy and hold opposite ideological positions. That's assuming the willingness to negotiate and to respect the RS/NPOV rules by all parties, which is usually not the case. If one wants to contribute and do not have a lot of time, his best strategy is to avoid any talking and especially conflict resolution with editors who disagree with him for whatever reason. Biophys (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I mediated a tough case back in 2008, on Prem Rawat. It was hard work and took many months but progress was made. Don't be too quick to doubt our chances :) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 20:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully if we're going to spend some time on this we can actually resolve some of the lingering major issues and not just the trivial points like 'man made'. Next will probably be back at whether the Kuban counts or if published primary sources count as RS...ugh..--Львівське (говорити) 07:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If we still hope to achieve something, this can not be done along the lines proposed by Mr.Stradivarius [2]. We can not make choices between positions "a" or "b" because some sources tell "a" and others tell "b". Moreover, we should not make any choices, but simply describe positions "a" and "b" per RS, and most important, include arguments by historians in favor of positions "a" and "b". Biophys (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Opening statements

Opening statements are here.

Statement by Paul Siebert In my opinion, the dispute is focused mostly on the following main points: (i) Holodomor was a part ("an epicenter", according to some authors) of the Great Soviet famine, or (ii) it was a separate phenomenon unrelated to the concurrent famine in other parts of the USSR. (i) Holodomor affected primarily major grain producing areas, or (ii) it was a genocide directed against ethnic Ukrainians. (i) Holodomor was an unexpected result of the Soviet policy of collectivisation, or (ii) it was a deliberately designed and consciously organised famine directed against (Ukrainian) peasantry. (i) Holodomor was a "man made" famine similar to most other great famines in recent human history, so, instead of describing it as "man made" (which implies some uniqueness), one should explain concrete causes (industrialisation, collectivisation, food requisition, poor weather conditions, infestation of grain), or (ii) it is necessary to specify that it was a "man made" famine, which is its distinctive feature. In my opinion, the article should make stress on "i"s, although the reservations should be made that significant amount of sources share the "ii"s viewpoints, and some sources advocate a point of view that is a synthesis of both points. If my description of the subject of the dispute is incorrect, especially, if I described "ii"s incorrectly, please, let me know, and I'll try to fix my description of the subject of the dispute accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC) It would be helpful if you could provide cites for the points expressed in the "i's" and "ii's", so that this discussion can be rooted in what has been published in reliable sources. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC) At this time, citations aren't required. This is an opening statement asking for opinions of the editors. Additionally, I'd appreciate it if we can not comment in each others sections. There will be time for discussion and debate later. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 22:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC) My interests in regards to the Holodomor article is to remove political and nationalist bias from this article. In my opinion, that can be achieved by making an emphasis on the peer-reviewed English publications authored by leading historians. I declare that I have no conflicts of interest. In my opinion, the major problem that have caused this dispute is the desire of some users to represent Hololdomor as a deliberately engineered genocide of ethnic Ukrainians. The list of the issues is presented above. During this mediation, I hope to achieve a consensus between all major contributors that, whereas different viewpoints exist on Holodomor, all of them should be represented in the article fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, and the priority should be given to the viewpoints presented in the recent peer-reviewed English sources. The need to focus on the recent sources is dictated by the fact that many good books and articles written before so called "archival revolution" (massive release of formerly classified Soviet archival documents) are somewhat outdated now, and many authors re-considered their views of Holodomor during last two decades. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC) On TransporterMan's table. I am not sure the table summarises all possible viewpoints. The obvious omissions as as follows: The discussed event is seen as static. In actuality, serious authors discuss several phases of the famine. Depending on the phase, the situation could be described by 2B, then by 4A, then, probably, 4B, and sometimes even 4C, and, by the end of the famine, 2A. Similarly, it is hard to give a simple answer about the anti-Ukrainian nature of the famine. The opposition to collectivisation was common for all Soviet peasantry, however, since most grain producing areas in the USSR were populated by either ethnic Russians or ethnic Ukrainians, the peasant resistance in Ukrainian populated areas had assumed national forms, and the government actions, accordingly, became simultaneously anti-peasant and anti-Ukrainian. (Obviously, that specifically anti-Russian actions and nationalist Russian resistance were impossible for an obvious reason: the authorities by no means could the Russian peasantry as some minority, and the peasants didn't see the central authorities as some alien force). Accordingly, the famine in Ukraine, by the moment of its apex was directed against the Ukrainian, both because the major part of Ukrainian peasantry was ethnic Ukrainians, and because the resistance to collectivisation adopted national/nationalist forms. In summary, it is hard for me to formulate my position based on the table prepared by TransporterMan, because it does not take into account some important nuances.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Statement by Vecrumba I was writing my own assessment, which I can still complete and provide. However, for the purpose of framing the debate, I’ve responded in a manner which I hope will facilitate comparison and dialog. At issue are intent, means, and consequence. (a) Holodomor was a part ("an epicenter", according to some authors) of the Great Soviet famine, and (b) it became a separate phenomenon in the focusing of famine consequences on the Ukrainian people. (a) Holodomor affected primarily major grain producing areas—Ukraine being the “breadbasket of Europe”, and (b) in being focused on the Ukrainians, in particular, the resultant scale of death became a genocide against the Ukrainian nation. Elimination of Ukrainian resistance to collectivization started at the top, commencing shortly after its announcement with show trials in 1930 and 1931 followed by the destruction of nationalist-leaning Ukrainian communist leadership in 1932-1933. (a) The Holodomor was neither an “unexpected result of collectivization” nor was it (b) “deliberately designed and consciously organised famine directed against (Ukrainian) peasantry.” (a) understates and misdirects so-called “expectations” regarding inevitable results of confiscating both grain and food (unrelated to collectivization) while (b) overstates pre-planning versus taking advantage of an opportunity once elimination of Ukrainian nationalism as a prerequisite to achieving collectivization was already (i) a priority and (ii) underway since 1930. (a) The concrete factors contributing to famine conditions (similar to the prior famine in which the USSR did request—and receive—international aid) were similar to other great famines in recent history, and (b) the focusing and “man-made” amplification of famine upon the Ukrainians (e.g., confiscation of family food stores, not permitting Ukrainians to flee their territory once there was neither grain nor food) made it uniquely “man-made.” Regarding the chart mentioned below, "5C". Once a deliberate course was taken which included forcibly emptying Ukrainian households of even personal food stores even while grain was exported, other scenarios (focusing on stages or nuances) are side shows. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Apologies for not answering the questions, briefly: Interest: I discovered Holodomor as one of the many articles editor Jacob Peters was rampaging through back in early 2007. My interest is the historical portrayal of the Soviet legacy. I have no conflict of interest. Locus: The "dispute" is whether or not Stalin facilitated the deaths on a genocidal scale of Ukrainians (in particular, as they were the most resisting of collectivization), or if it was just all a terribly unfortunate confluence of circumstances, after all, there is one documented case in particular where Stalin responded to a personal request for aid. And if there is not incontrovertible archival evidence Stalin planned this all in advance, it logically cannot be intentional, etc. Lastly, the contention by some that this ultimately boils down to just politicized attempts to drive apart the Ukrainian-Russian family and to smear Russia's image in the post-Soviet era. Issues: Per mine above in apposition to Paul Siebert's which, in my view, could not be more clear in having proposed a false set of choices. Stages, nuances, and claims of biased politicization are informative but not material once international aid was refused and the food cupboards of Ukrainian families were being forcibly emptied. Post-archival sources make for interesting reading but do not change the applicability of older sources which deal with circumstances on the ground, which archival sources do not change. Hopes: An article that reputably represents historical circumstances. The evidence of willful action focused upon the Ukrainians, with catastrophic results on a scale accurately described as genocidal, is voluminous and incontrovertible. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC) If this might move along definition/resolution of positions (although how I became an apparent spokesperson is still unclear), to Paul Siebert's: "Accordingly, the famine in Ukraine, by the moment of its apex was directed against the Ukrainian, both because the major part of Ukrainian peasantry was ethnic Ukrainians, and because the resistance to collectivisation adopted national/nationalist forms." The meme presented is that "direction" was a confluence of circumstance outside intent with just the ever slightest whiff of victim blaming (Ukrainian nationalist resistance to collectivization). Since we appear to now at least have agreement that circumstances alone concentrated (as opposed to a willful direction) famine suffering upon the Ukrainians, the next step is, from my viewpoint, to establish the use and role of policy targeting Ukrainians (failure to request international aid in stark contrast to prior famine, confiscation of grain, confiscation of family food stores, restriction of movement, shooting children for stealing a handful of grain, etc.) to actively focus and amplify the famine beyond circumstances into a man-made catastrophe inflicted upon the Ukrainian nation—the elimination of whose nationalism had commenced in tandem with the launch of collectivization. A note on Conquest. As long as I have been involved in the article, there has been an activist movement to not just suppress but eliminate Conquest as obsolete and irrelevant, and more recently, to represent him as having changed his views, all of which are incorrect. In particular, Davies and Wheatcroft have been cited in the past as debunking Conquest, yet D&W in their seminal work on the famine explicitly state their recognition and acknowledgement of the value of Conquest's work and contributions—meaning Conquest continues to be pertinent(!). (I should mention I shelled out the $150 or so for whatever it was at the time for The Years of Hunger when I could tell just by editors' contentions it was being grossly misrepresented.) So, Conquest = good enough for D&W = good enough for the article. While I don't suggest editors respond to each editor per se, I think that if editors refine/expand their statements as more viewpoints come on board, that will present a more complete picture as we move to next steps. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Statement by The Last Angry Man What are your interests in regards to the Holodomor articles? How did you discover and start editing the article? Do you have any potential conflicts of interest? My interest lies more in the legacy communism left behind of which Holodomor is a part. The denial of the man made aspects of this genocide has irked me to quite some extent. There are no conflict of interest. What problems you think have caused this dispute to require mediation? Russian nationalist views and communist apologists who deny the facts of Holodomor, id est, Stalin used it to crush the people. What is your view of the dispute at present, and what issues need to be addressed in this mediation, that would help resolve this dispute amicably? Give a list of issues, if possible. The dispute is obvious, the removal of the man made aspects of Holodomor, be it the theft of seed grain, the theft of most anything edible in fact, the turning of people back at the borders, the shooting of people trying to leave the area, the denial of the famine to the world at large, and the point blank refusal of Stalin to render aid to the stricken people all point to a deliberate attack on the people of Ukraine, and this view is backed by the majority of reliable sources. What do you hope to achieve through mediation? An accurate article would be nice. Regarding the chart [3] I am of the opinion that 5C is the only possible response based on the sources. The harvest was not so bad that the populace would have been unable to feed themselves, the excessive requisitions of grain and specifically taking seed grain was the cause of the famine, the fact that the Soviet Union were exporting grain at the height of Holodomor is proof of this. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Statement by Greyhood Here are my answers for the questions. Interests. I was long aware of the disputes in this area, both on-wiki and off-wiki, but until recently I've avoided participation in such discussions, being just a watcher. Once I've actually read the current Holodomor article more closely, I was bemused by a fact that certain statements there not only are POVish when it comes to history representation, but also are problematic from a purely logical point of view. This spurred my participation in the dispute. My interest is to fix those logical problems, to make the article less-biased and to represent all points of view accurately, fairly and neutrally. I have no conflict of interest here. Basis of dispute. Paul has already named an immediate reason of the dispute. Speaking on a larger scale: unfortunately, there is a political demand and campaigning in Ukraine, supported by some other countries, seeking to present Holodomor as a kind of Holocaust against Ukrainians. This leads to the fact, that much of what was written about Holodomor has a political nature, not a scientific on. What real scientific discussion could be there when Ukraine almost legally prohibited the Holodomor denial (what a joke of an article, by the way, judging by the image captions alone)? So, the topic should be dealt with very carefully. Issues. Again, Paul named the primary issues, and I share his approach to fixing them. "Man-made" should not be used as a black box label, it should be properly clarified; it should be explained what is meant under that characteristic. Among other typical issues related to the subject are the following: 1) The question of controversial victim figures - often the numbers are inflated by including migration, mortality from other causes and estimates of unborn children due to the much lower birth rate. Could be solved by presenting any figures only alongside with the explanation of counting methods. 2) The question whether relief was provided or prohibited by the state. Could be solved by unbiased presentation of available sources. 3) The question of dubious photographs illustrating Holodomor. There are very few, if any, real photographs of the 1932-33 hunger with 100% provenance. There were multiple scandals when Holodomor researchers or activists used the photographs of the Russian famine of 1921 presenting them as Holodomor photographs. Those of the supposed Holodomor photographs, which were not proven to be from 1921 (like the current lead image), were published originally in the books alongside hoax photos. The problem could be solved by making very accurate and extensive captions to such photographs, explaining the problems with provenance, or by not using dubious pictures at all. Hopes. I hope to fix at least the primary issues which led to this dispute, and, if possible, other issues named by me above. I hope also that we will find a good mechanism to collaboratively work on this article (and related ones) in future. GreyHood Talk 12:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC) As for the chart, I'm not sure that it fully summarizes all aspects and all options, but 2B is the closest hit in my opinion. GreyHood Talk 12:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC) I agree that the entire article should better be checked and rewritten. BesterRus named many issues that could and should be addressed - in fact I was going to talk about some of these as well, but feared it would make the scope of the discussion too large. But perhaps it is indeed the only solution, since the lead should summarize the body of the article. GreyHood Talk 20:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC) Sources. Some editors here, e.g. Biophys, suggest discussing sources and complain that other participants of discussion often discard supposedly good sources "only based on various technicalities". I'd like to discuss sources in more detail later, when mediators would find it appropriate. Now I'll just state that in the late 1980s and in the 1990s there was so called "archival revolution" in the USSR and later in Russia, when much of previously inaccessible archival data was opened to researchers. This rendered many (in fact most) of the previous works on the controversial Soviet subjects obsolete, even though the tendency to disregard the new data continued well into 1990s and sometimes even up to this day (because of inertia in the field of study and also because of the political conditions). However, by now even some of the top scholars who have written highly critical works on the Soviet history have partially reconsidered their views, including Robert Conquest himself. And Biophys is well aware of this fact (several editors in a number of discussions have informed him and presented the sources), and I really wonder why he calls suggestions not to use obsolete sources or to use them only with reservations a technicality. We'd still believe in geocentric system if we always would stick to obsolete things, disregarding new data and fresh arguments. The Harvest of Sorrow, published in 1986 by Conquest seems not to fall in the category of up-to-date sources and should be dealt with very carefully if used at all. As for the preference to non-Russian and non-Ukrainian sources, this is not a solution. Russian and Ukrainian researchers have the better access to the archival data, and much as I doubt in fairness and neutrality of sources from those countries, they should not be disregarded, also because there are no strong reasons to believe that the post-Cold War historiography, say, American or British, would be less biased or better provided with data. GreyHood Talk 22:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC) Statement by Biophys Interests. I came to comment because I was asked by Mr. Stradivarius [4]. I am also concerned about the general tendency of removing well sourced texts and discrediting good sources in this subject area (e.g. here), and Holodomor is only one example. I talked already with three participants of this mediation about it [5][6] [7] [8]. The problems. This is a problem for arbitration enforcement, not for mediators. I think so for several reasons. Two participants of this mediation have been topic banned at AE already and rightly so. Others move in the same direction [9]. Instead of releasing tensions, this mediation only makes things worse. There are already two threads at arbitration pages about this. Although the initial statements were very much reasonable, one of the sides saw this as an opportunity to demand sanctions and criticize Arbcom [10], [11], while willingly violating their own editing restrictions [12]. None of the editors here made significant content contributions to the article under mediation. There are simply two or more groups of editors who stalk each other, create enormously long talk pages, conduct edit wars, and make editing impossible for others. They do it in many articles. At least one of the "sides" make editing impossible for third parties by violation our core RS and NPOV policies. I personally could never edit this article because this side refused to accept academic sources on the subject, and in particular the book "The Harvest of Sorrow" by the most prominent western historian of Russia Robert Conquest (a publication by Oxford University Press). This is not a partisan source. The whole book was written specifically on the subject of this article. Of course this "side" did not discard this source completely and directly, but only based on various technicalities. A few years ago it looked like that (see edit summaries)[13] [14]. Now it looks like that: [15][16]. Looking at the discussion (for example here), it's apparent that instead of using statements made by Conquest himself in his books, this "side" claims that he changed his scientific conclusions. However, Conquest never officially retracted his Holodomor research. To the contrary, he reiterated his position in his more recent books, such as "Reflections on a Ravaged Century". If Conquest changed his position, this must be referenced to a later RS by the same author. Here is first response. No one objects to using newer sources or later publications by the same historian if he retracted his previous scientific findings. But an attempt to dismiss the entire most detailed academic book on the subject as an "obsolete source" is precisely the problem I am talking about. Biophys (talk) 00:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC) Expectations. Nothing good. There are two common misconceptions here: Some think that discussing content disagreements is always good. No, the prolonged discussions with repeating the same arguments over and over again is only waste of time and hurt the project. This is winning content disputes by ad nauseam. This can be also a variety of trolling. Some think that dispute resolution is always a good idea. No, the dispute resolution frequently leads to development of conflicts and banning good content contributors. This is a necessary evil at best. This is something to avoid.Biophys (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC) Statement by BesterRus Interests. My only interest is historical integrity. I want people to know what really happened. I have no conflicts of interest. The problems. What caused the dispute to require mediation is that there is no formal consensus on the subject even between historians. The reason for this is because this famine was used most irresponsibly in anti-soviet propaganda, in attempts to separate Ukraine from USSR, in attempts to smear communism, in attempts to seed hatred between two brother nations, and so much more. Numerous lies have been proven to be just that. The overwhelming amount of distorted information combined with blatant lies led honest people like some participants of this discussion to believe something that simply isn't true. What made the situation even worse is that some writers blatantly abused of their status to spread their opinions, based on no factual evidence, but rather on hearsay or simply on their own intuition (Robert Conquest comes to mind). Hopefully, this discussion will help clear things up. Current dispute. Everything needs to be addressed from A to Z. The article has to be heavily rewritten. Truth be told, I wouldn't know where to start. What I think is underrepresented in this article is this: the climate conditions - the heavy rains that drenched the crops and caused too much weed, the drought, the locust infestation. (even if there's another article for this) the numbers of grain production by years that show tendencies (production went drastically down). the numbers of livestock in Ukraine by years. the context of collectivization - for example: policy forced people to give up their horses and oxes to the Kolkhoz, so they slaughtered and ate them instead. the industrialization context - some amount of crops had to be sold, it was the only source of revenue to buy heavy machinery, and the industrialization couldn't be stopped once it had started. The West wasn't accepting Soviet gold since 1925 till after 1933. the help that was provided - how many people were relocated from the drought area, how much bread was sent to relieve the famine. In numbers. the lack of any factual evidence in the unsealed archives that'd prove that the famine was intentional or wasn't to be relieved, while the term genocide requires proven intent. the victims - how many % were actually Ukranians, and how many % were other nations. Sheer numbers. the precedence - famines ravaged Russia from the Peasant Reform of 1861 till the famine of 1932-33 (if we don't take into account the post-war famine of 1946-47). And they weren't called man-made, only this one. the myths - the article is full of them, they have to be debunked and removed. Some of them are revolting, but impossible to disprove, even though they're not proven either. Let's just agree that it's an issue that has seen so much propaganda that in order to bring in new information, such as "youth brigades that ran around Ukraine raping women", we need to have heavy proof. No frivolities should be accepted. Baseless accusations should retire into a small section instead of being the article. What do you hope to achieve through mediation. Truth. Sorry, I think I went over 250 words, but it's a vast subject. My position on the chart is 2A with the understanding that if crops were redistributed differently, it'd be the army, for example, who'd suffer the famine, leaving the country completely defenseless, or another region would suffer the famine. BesterRus (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC) Removed reply from uninvolved editor. Please use the talk page for discussion. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC) Statement by Volunteer Marek What are your interests in regards to the Holodomor articles? How did you discover and start editing the article? Do you have any potential conflicts of interest? - the article falls in the scope of a topic area which I edit regularly. I "discovered" it by typing in "Holodmor" into Wikipedia's search feature. I have no conflict of interest, potential or otherwise here. What problems you think have caused this dispute to require mediation? - there's actually two problems here. One is a perennial one which is that this article is a prime target for editors who wish to engage in Stalinist apologetics. This is basically constant here and has been ever since the article has existed. These editors introduce unreliably sourced material, remove reliably sourced material etc. the usual stuff. Most of these kinds of editors end up getting themselves banned in one way or another pretty quickly and none of the parties, AFAICT, of this mediation falls under that scope. Still, the frequent arrival of such editors tends to constantly re-inflame issues which should have already been settled. The second problem, which is more directly relevant for this mediation is related but different. As Paul Siebert above says we should use only high quality academic sources on a potentially controversial article like this one. The thing is, high quality academic sources are pretty explicit here but these same editors are just refusing to acknowledge in what these sources say or try to interpret them "creatively". The dispute has arisen because, honestly there's only so many times you can say on the talk page "high quality academic source says Holodomor was a distinct phenomenon from the general Soviet famine" only to have other editors keep repeating "please provide high quality academic sources for this contention" as if you didn't just waste reading a number of scholarly articles on the subject. So um, the problems is stubbornness and unwillingness to admit something, even while paying lip service to use of high quality sources. What is your view of the dispute at present, and what issues need to be addressed in this mediation, that would help resolve this dispute amicably? Give a list of issues, if possible. - at this point there's two main issues. 1 - was Holodomor a distinct phenomenon from the Soviet famine. Nobody's denying that a famine in other parts of Soviet Union happened at around this time, but most high quality academic sources do treat the Holodomor as a separate subject because there were many unique features associated with it, which were not present in regard to the Soviet famine. 2 - was Holodmor "man-made". The question lurking in the background here is "was Holodomor a genocide". However, "man-made" does not imply "genocide". Roughly speaking the famine in the Ukraine started out as a famine similar to ones which were taking place in other parts of SU. All of these were "man-made" in the sense that they were mostly the result of man-made policy (harvests, weather all that crap, had little if anything to do with it). But 'additionally in mid to late 1932 Stalin and others realized that they could use this famine in the Ukraine to suppress Ukrainian peasants who had some notions of independence. Sources are pretty clear about this. The question is whether this is enough to make it a genocide. But that is not the problem here - the problem is over whether the famine can be described as "man-made". Which it obviously was, one way or another, genocide or not. What do you hope to achieve through mediation? Hope? Well... let me "hope" for a second. I hope to have the present disputes resolved as they pertain to the problems described above. Even that is extremely optimistic. However even if by some miracle this mediation is successful, I am 98.675% sure that one of two things will happen anyway: a year from now or so, some new editors will show up and restart exactly the same arguments, and if somebody points to this successful (let's "hope") mediation they will say that that was different, "consensus can change" blah blah blah, it's gonna be the same thing all over again, just new faces. If that doesn't happen, then I'm pretty sure (see % above) that one of the editors involved in the present dispute will fancy to restart the debate once the "mediators and admins have lost interest" and try, once again, to get their way (that's basically the history of this article so far). Maybe it won't be one of the parties involved in this mediation but rather one of the editors who were involved in these disputes shortly before but who decided, for one reason or another, to lay low during this mediation. I don't know. But I do know that this is exactly what will happen. I'd love to be proved wrong and hence my honest and good faithed participation in this mediation.  Volunteer Marek  22:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC) WAIT. Why is BesterRus part of this mediation? As far as I can tell he has not edited the Holodomor article, he has not participated in the discussion there, he just sort of jumped in here all of sudden (the fact that he somehow knew how to find this is a bit strange). Part of the reason why I agreed to this mediation is that I regard the people who disagree here with respect so I do have some hope of maybe achieving something. This is someone running in from the street, and if you're at all familiar with the history of this article or topic area, you should have a pretty good idea of why that is problematic. The user's statement above raises the eyebrows even further. Volunteer Marek  23:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Statement by Galassi Under extreme duress - I largely second Biophys' sentiments here.--Galassi (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC) Statement by Lothar von Richthofen Another short one; I haven't the time at the moment for a well-thought-out statement, but nevertheless wish to throw my hat in before the deadline. I was the editor who requested the full-protect, as that was the action that allowed us to resolve last year's dispute. Personally, I would align myself mostly with Biophys and Volunteer Marek. And like VM, I am apprehensive of BesterRus's entry into this process. While there are no rules against his entry, and I suppose that he is welcome to participate, I find it a bit concerning that he has never before participated in any discussion on the topic. This was a dispute amongst a more or less defined and constant group of editors, and his entry changes the nature of this dispute a bit. His statement is also a cause for some suspicion, as it betrays either a lack of knowledge of or lack of focus on the specific issue that we came here to settle. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC) Statement by Lvivske [May be a work in progress before the 'deadline'] 1. My interests in regard to the Holodomor articles relate to my overall interest in Ukrainian, Soviet, and Russian history. I mostly stayed away from the article in past years, holding off on really understanding the topic until I was able to do my own extensive personal research on the topic for a Soviet history course I happened to be in at the time. I'm a bit of a trouble maker when it comes to papers and generally like to argue against the generally accepted historiography....in this case, it just wasn't there. The 'Russian' or 'Soviet' national narrative just didn't, in my findings, add up to the reality of the situation. As a 'Ukrainian nationalist' one would think I'd have a conflict of interest on historical subjects, but I've taken the same position of challenging in regards to topics like Ivan Mazepa, for example (another topic where Russian and Ukrainian narratives divide) and I almost entirely sided with the Russian view. I'm impartial the sides and just want to present the most accurate, objective, and even handed view of history as possible. 2. The problems, from what I have seen, stem from a clash between two historiographies that are also imbued as national narratives. The Ukrainian side uses this event as an exercise in state building, much like Israel and the Holocaust, because tragedy is a great unifier. The Russian side, however, sticks to the Soviet narrative that universalizes events as a common tragedy; in their view, the Holodomor did not happen as a singular event, but was a transnational 'soviet' tragedy (just as the Holocaust is presented as a transnational tragedy, and so on). The Russian side here is essentially revisionism. The Ukrainian side, if one moves beyond the numbers, generally lines up with the consensus of western historians. The orthodox Soviet interpretation is generally is only accepted in Russia. The biggest problem facing the content of the article is playing a balancing act between western/consensus historiography, and the Russian revisionist narrative. Undue weight from the latter adversely affects the article. 3. I think Biophys sums things up fairly accurately. I ended up walking away from this article for practically a year because it became too frustrating to work on for the exact reasons he stated.(Regarding the chart, the only acceptable answer is 5C). In regards to the bullet points: a) the famine should, by any narrative, be described as man-made. It wasn't a natural famine or drought, that it was man-made is not even disputable. b) I think it would be okay to describe it as happening 'during' the greater soviet famine, just as the holocaust happened during WW2. The Holodomor is an event that stands alone and its circumstances and causes were greatly different from the (in comparison) smaller famine that happened concurrently in the east. c) Why shouldn't the relief parameter be filled out? If relief was denied...that's a fact. 4. An impartial representation of events with due weight given to the consensus of reputable historians and scholars. edit: After now reading through the statements, I'd like to point out that I agree with VM and Lothar's assertion that BesterRus's inclusion in this mediation may be problematic --Львівське (говорити) 20:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC) Statement by Faustian Too busy now to be very active, but basically I agree with VM. I find Siebart's statement to be quite reasonable. Faustian (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC) Statement by Fifelfoo I was under the impression this mediation was only covering the lede. I have an involvement with archives, structure and weight, and sourcing quality (issues 3, ?7, and some of the others). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

External links?

Will these be discussed during mediation? The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll discuss whether this will be appropriate with the other mediators. But first, could you give me a rough idea of what your issues with the external links are? Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The one we were discussing in the section you collapsed, garethjones.org :o) It is a self published site and really has no place in the article. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The question of the RS aside, using self-published site as a source is different from using it as external link (only the first practice is directly not recommended in most cases). This site mainly contains articles by Gareth Jones (not self-published), a journalist who traveled in Ukraine in 1930s, as well as some other primary materials related to the topic of the article. Whether or not it belongs to the article is a different question, but the very fact that someone self-published a good collection of primary materials from 1930s does not prohibit it from External links section. GreyHood ^Talk 23:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Related pages

BTW, perhaps the article on Holodomor genocide question should be protected as well, as it's possible that there might be some 'spill over' into there. My understanding is that we will take up some issues specifically relevant to that article later on in the mediation. Volunteer Marek  18:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. Also, the article Ukrainians contains mention of Holodomor and (prior to the snafu that just happened there recently) was about to spill over there. Greyhood is also editing there...I think whatever we decide here should filter down to articles like this and conflict on external articles (esp. by members here) be resolved here and not on proxy articles.--Львівське (говорити) 19:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I was going to make a similar proposal. Holodomor in modern politics and Denial of the Holodomor (the captions in the photos of the last article are really amusing) are two closely related articles, and there are various mentions of Holodomor in the articles like Ukraine, History of Ukraine etc. GreyHood ^Talk 20:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Any amusement regarding the topic is ill-placed. Please state your issue with the captions in the form of a collegial discussion. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Just to let you know that the mediators are aware of this and are talking through it. We'll let you know when we decide what to do. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 03:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

After discussing this, we have come to the conclusion that actual technical protection is probably not necessary for the articles. They are not edited all that frequently (aside from the Ukraine articles), and there haven't been any recent edit wars on them recently, so admins are not going to be rushing to protect them in any case. We did discuss implementing a "gentlemen's agreement" though, whereby there wouldn't be any technical protection, but where you would all agree not to edit the articles or sections which are affected by this mediation until the mediation ends. (I'm not sure if we have any ladies in this mediation, but if we do, please accept my apologies.) With this method there could be problems with new users, etc., changing the relevant content, but my feeling is that most of this can probably solved through normal processes, and that if in the unlikely event that other measures become necessary, we can consider them when the situation comes up. Let me know what you think about this. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If we've agreed to participate here, then mere courtesy dictates we should most certainly not be affecting the status quo in articles related to the Holodomor. Any changes, particularly if perceived as running against any developing consensus here or at said articles would lead to accusations of bad faith here and torpedo the mediation. That possibility has already been realized by Paul Siebert opening an AE request regarding activities involving other editors and himself at the Mass killings under Communist regimes article, which would be related to the Holodomor. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I quit

I am quite simply giving up on trying to edit wikipedia. Editors I have never come across are now calling me a sockpuppet, I get accused of conducting a smear campaign and called a troll and nothing is done about it. The atmosphere on this site is toxic, and I see no reason to suffer stress just because I wished to contribute. I`m going back to finish my book which I have neglected while being on this site. I should like to thank the mediators for all they did in getting permission for myself to take part here, but I am damned if I am going to put up with abuse from random strangers on the internet. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Your assessment is completely correct. I wish you good luck with your book, I certainly find I periodically need to get some real projects of value done where I'm not wasting life energy with all the editors who would rather control and censor WP through administrative procedures. Odd how much time editors purporting to be here to build something spend time attacking others. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on issue 1 is here

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

Discussion concluding issue 1 is here

I have reviewed all of the discussion on issue one, and I have drawn up a list of conclusions, which are based heavily, and in part copied completely, from the list Greyhood posted in the discussion. Some of these points seem uncontroversial, but some haven't been confirmed by all of the spokespersons yet. In particular, I would like to hear the opinion of The Last Angry Man, who has not yet commented on the details of these conclusions, and also of Volunteer Marek, who seemed to be in favour of them (but I want to be doubly sure before moving on). I am assuming that Greyhood and Paul Siebert are in favour, due to their comments in the discussion. All of the other users have either approved one of these users as their spokesperson, or seem to be inactive; however, comments by all mediation participants are welcome. Here are the conclusions: Photographs claiming to be from the Holodomor should be proven to be authentic by third-party, reliable sources. We shouldn't use photos whose authenticity is disputed by reliable sources, and we also should use photos that appear in reliable sources that illustrate different events (such as the Russian famine of 1921). We should leave the final decision of whether to keep the current lead image to commons, where it is undergoing copyright investigation. The captions of authentic photographs should include the available information on the author of the image or the original source, such as from the collection of Cardinal Theodor Innitzer. They should also reflect the descriptions of those photos in reliable sources as much as possible. Some of the photographs in the mediation could have problematic copyright status, particularly due to the lack of freedom of panorama in Ukraine and in the US. These matters should be taken up at commons, however, rather than in the mediation. Hoax photographs are a notable part of Holodomor historiography, and could usefully be included in Holodomor articles. However, they should be placed in a special "hoax photographs" section (or similar) so as not to confuse the reader, and the captions should clearly label the hoax photographs as hoaxes, in a straight, neutral, and accurate way. The fact that there are very few authentic photographs of the 1932-33 famine in Ukraine should be mentioned in all the main articles related to the Holodomor (Holodomor, Holodomor genocide question, Holodomor denial, etc.). The sets of photographs which are considered authentic should be outlined, along with when and how they were created and published. The fact that there were multiple cases of misuse of photographs in Holodomor-related publications, exhibitions etc. should be mentioned in all the main articles related to the subject. Depending on the character and scope of the particular article, the image-related questions might require from several paragraphs to a separate section. Please let me know if you support these points, and if all the spokespersons are in agreement then we can move on to issue two. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Response: Of course, this is just basic Wikipedia policy. Mmmm, not quite. There's a good bit of fishy stuff going on Commons as we speak. I think it would be fine to keep the current photo if it's possible regardless of what happens on commons, maybe by uploading it to English wikipedia itself. There really is no serious copyright concerns with regard to the image (the person who is arguing otherwise cannot make up their mind as to whether the image is a "fake from 1921" or a "copyvio from 1933" and is basically trying to argue both sides simultaneously just to get it deleted). We should ignore that noise and decide for ourselves - which I though we already did. Again, this is just basic Wikipedia policy. This concerns the alternative images proposed, the "monuments". In this instance the proposal is correct. This is essentially right. I do have some worries about how it's done, because I've seen this kind of thing abused before, but as long as this is done in a responsible, source-reflecting, manner (and I totally trust Paul and Greyhood to do it) then that's fine. Yes. Ok, but honestly, I'm experiencing a bit of a burn out in regards to this question. Additionally, winter break is coming up and that means I'll have less time to devote to this process. So we *really* should get things moving along and go on to the other questions. Volunteer Marek  08:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC) I can totally understand the burnout. I can appreciate that everyone wants to move on to the next issue, but then again, I don't think we can simply ignore the investigation over at Commons. If we simply upload the image here instead, then it will only lead to another copyright investigation over here, and I'm not sure that admins would look too favourably on that. How about this as a compromise: we move on to the next issue, but we keep an eye on the Commons discussion. If the image is kept, then no action by us is necessary. If it is deleted, then we discuss what to do on the article talk page, taking it to an RfC if necessary. How does that sound to everyone? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC) Sure, that sounds reasonable. But let's keep in mind that commons is commons and en-wiki is en-wiki and they are two different things. A bad decision on one - or the other - does not necessitate a replication of this bad decision on the other - or the original one. Volunteer Marek  10:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC) Ok, good. I'll wait for confirmation from the others, and if all is well, I'll start the discussion on issue two. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC) Agreed--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC) Agreed in case there would be no uploading and inserting the image to the article (if it is deleted from Commons) without pre-discussion and RfC. I want to add right now, though, that as far as I know it seems to be general practice that all free images on all wikies are to be copied to commons eventually, and only fair use images from a particular wikiproject don't go to Commons. So, either it should be proven that the image is free and has place both on Commons and on en-wiki, or there should be some strong reasoning for fair use. GreyHood Talk 21:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC) Hi everyone - sorry to keep you waiting still. This is just to say that we are waiting for comment by The Last Angry Man before we move on to issue two. I've left a note on his talk page, and I think I will set a deadline of 00:00 Thursday 15th December (UTC) - one week after I posted the original list of conclusions asking that he comment - before we move on without him. Hopefully he will be satisfied with the current spokespeople even if we move on without input from him, but he is of course welcome to drop by and comment at any time. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Just to chime in here, I've been relatively inactive as of late, but hope to contribute more once we get onto issue two. As for the issue of uploading the image locally as opposed to commons, or citing the image as fair use, we would still need to know the original source of the image and publication date to be able to upload it, so it doesn't really solve the primary issue we have here. But for now, we need to kick things up a few gears, so we will leave it for now and move on to issue two. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 21:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC) One more quick comment on image(s) - while this particular image is subject (somewhat) of dispute, there are other images which are not controversial and whose authenticity is beyond doubt. Some of them are here [25], but there are also other ones from the Weinberger book which could be used. Yet, the Holodomor article does not include any of these, and the "associated articles" don't either. Can some of these images (for example [26] or [27]) be added? Volunteer Marek  14:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC) Not the most convincing pair of images and looking very similar, but I'm mostly neutral on the question of addition of one of them. Thanks for removing the images with controversial captions from related articles, by the way. GreyHood Talk 19:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC) The Last Angry Man still hasn't got back to us after a week, so I've moved the discussion on to issue two, victim estimates. I'd be very grateful if you could all leave a statement in the appropriate section below. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)