Template talk:Holodomor

Very nice template. I really hate to say it, but one reason some will never accept this is because of the use of the G word, no matter what the truth is. Ostap 23:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any problems too. It is generally helpful to construct various templates in WP because templates show logical connections between different articles on related subjects and they look nice (I have constructed myself a few templates related to the protein structure/families). This template seems to be just fine. If anyone think something should be included or excluded from the template, let's discuss this here.Biophys (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, too bad, Biophys, you did not read past discussions. I copied them again below. --Irpen 16:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As article related to event called Holodomor (mass death from starvation and related to malnutrition which took place in first half of 1933 – WP it’s not a mirror web-site for Nazi and cold war propaganda.

• Background Russian Revolution (1917) • October Revolution • Russian Civil War • Ukrainian-Soviet War • Prodrazvyorstka

I assume that listing refer to the whole knowledge of person about history of Ukraine? Sad, sad, sad. So many turnover important events missed, but timeline ended in 1921 – so how they related to first half of 1933? Ooops – you forgot to mention 1920-22, 24, 28 Drought – assume that events are also believed to be inflicted by communists.

Supporting policies Terror: Dekulakization • Article 58 (RSFSR Penal Code) • Enemy of the people • Russification • Population transfer in the Soviet Union • Kolkhoz • Collectivization in the USSR • Collective farming • Great Purge • Stalinism

I assume that listing refer to the whole knowledge of person about history of Ukraine? Sad, sad, sad picture. Supporting – clear OR. I assume author does not know what Ukrainian Penal Code until 1935 has a different number, Dekulakization was not terror in exact meaning of this word. Enemy of people – it’s 1937-38 common terms. What about agrarian overpopulation in Ukraine since beginning of century (Stolypin – as you know such name). Great Purge - 1937-38 events – Holodomor first half 1933 – however must be noted what most of directly and indirectly responsible for the situation in first half 1933 persons were sentenced to death in that years – really “interesting support” policy for them.

• Holodomor victims
• Famine: Malnutrition • Starvation • Hunger • Cannibalism

You mean what victims of holodmor are Malnutrition • Starvation • Hunger • Cannibalism ?

• Genocide: • Kulaks • Gulag • Great Purge •

I assume it’s all words you know – anyway better then balalaika and matryoshka. But which relation? Does Kulaks is a nation? Does the was exterminate in a whole as humans? Genocide of Gulag and Great Purge– so perfect sentences but senseless and even stupid

• Responsible parties: Soviet Union: Joseph Stalin • Vyacheslav Molotov • Communist Party of the Soviet Union • Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic • Stanislav Kosior • NKVD • Cheka

What a perfect construction Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic responsible for hunger in Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. How many times I can repeat – there no NKVD since 1930 till 1934. If you like you can create a separate article for GPU and Ministry of Justice (Militia was under command of such authority)

Cheka? Dismissed in early 20-s! Responsible for Holodomor?.

Holodomor Denial Soviet Union: Pravda • Izvestia • Walter Duranty • The New York Times • Louis Fischer • The Nation • Communist Party USA • Jeff Coplon • Douglas Tottle • OR as is – please visit library (read more then 3 book) before making any attempts to deal with history.

Info box will be ok - if it will have a reliable and related to event data and info. Please read more books firstJo0doe (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I slightly edited the comment above to remove the comments on the editor leaving the comments on the infobox content intact. Two things: infobox, at least in the current state, seems more like a soapbox, and is detrimental for the article. In general infoboxes in complex topic articles are a usually a bad idea as there are often no simple answers that can be reduces into an infobox entry. The nuanced and complex issues are best covered in the text body. Second, everyone, (you hear me Joe?) should stop right now the attempts to offend editors. The overwhelming majority of the editors of this articles are not trolls and should be treated with respect. Please don't "express your disagreement{ with the last point. Just reduce commenting on contributors to as little as possible. --Irpen 18:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Most topics indicated above (Kulaks, etc.) are indeed directly related to the Holodomor. Earlier famines in the USSR could be also included in the template - this is a good suggestion. "Great Purge" and "Gulag" can be excluded - agree. "Enemy of the people" is fine, since this term was introduced by Lenin already in 1917. Let's replace NKVD by OGPU. All these problems can be easily fixed after listening to criticism by others. There is nothing wrong with this template in general.Biophys (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RSFSR Penal Code? --Irpen 18:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from one of the articles where the templates was repeatedly reinserted.

Holodomor Template was added to this article strictly for background information of related articles in Wikipedia. The Holodomor template is patterned after the Holocaust Template and the Armenian Genocide Template.

The template, if any, should meet the consensus by its content. So far it is a random and strange collection of stuff someone might have "heard" or something. It cannot be used in articles. --Irpen 05:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When were you appointed sole arbiter of whether something can or cannot be used in an article? The template serves a useful navigational purpose. Please seek consensus first. Martintg (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other way around, Martin. Seek consensus for inclusion, both of the stuff like RSFSR Code or Pravda to the Ukrainian Famine template, and for the controversial template into the articles. --Irpen 06:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You claim in your edit summary that "this was discussed a lobg time ago", what previous dicussion are you alluding to? I see nothing on Template_talk:Holodomor that indicates there is any controversial issue here. Martintg (talk) 06:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one place. --Irpen 06:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Irpen did not provide any arguments here. Secndly, this template existed for a month. So, the status quo - it remains in the articles until this discussion is finished. So far, Irpen represents minority here.Biophys (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of that, Biophys. You cannot pretend you don't see arguments forcing others to talk more until you like it. The template was never in the articles for long. And it cannot be in the hogde-podge form. Read the page and respond meaningfully, if at all. --Irpen 16:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied above. There are a few minor issues to be fixed.Biophys (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The minor issues in question are demonstrating all of them as relevant, neutral and notable in both directions. Do that, and we're in business. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O'K, I would leave in the template only the following:

• Supporting policies

Prodrazvyorstka.

Dekulakization

Population transfer in the Soviet Union ·

Kolkhoz ·

Collectivization in the USSR ·

Law of Spikelets

Wrecking

• Holodomor victims

Kulaks

• Political players

OGPU

Joseph Stalin · Vyacheslav Molotov · Pavel Postyshev · Communist Party of the Soviet Union · Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic · Stanislav Kosior · Ukrainian diaspora

• Holodomor Denial

Pravda · Izvestia · Walter Duranty · Louis Fischer · Communist Party USA · Jeff Coplon · Douglas Tottle

Biophys (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"International Commission of Inquiry Into the 1932–33 Famine in Ukraine" needs to be included, perhaps along with " Ukrainian diaspora" in a separate section, there needs to be a distinction between those political players in control at the time of the Holodomor, and those on the outside observing in the aftermath. Martintg (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that User:Kuban kazak has been kind enough to "clean up this faeces of a template", I feel it is ready to be reinserted into articles. If there are no objections, I will be restoring it. Ostap 23:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is unacceptable. There is no need to have "commissions" section. Neither links to two POV-forks articles created by a [{WP:SPA]]. --Irpen 00:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those links are to relevant articles about Holodomor. Why not include them in the template? Ostap 01:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are either undue or to fork articles. --Irpen 01:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If those "faeces" are removed until further discussion, can the useful template go back into the articles? Ostap 01:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ostap, I never used the word. But note the post below. --Irpen 04:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please explain how is having a link in a Holodomor template to a commission of inquiry about the Holodomor "undue", or having it in the template a coatrack? I'm perplexed. Martintg (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can honestly see no reason to remove "Present Issues". If the articles have problems, why not solve them at the respective talk pages? It seems an article that is not only about Holodomor, but has the word Holodomor in the title belongs in a Holodomor template. Further, a navigational template is meant to "help the reader in reading up on related topics". We are told to "take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?" I think it is clear that this is a yes. No matter if you consider the articles themselves to be POV forks, they still belong in the template. Ostap 05:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are POV forks and you know that full well. Holodomor article is while not yet well organized, is pretty well-referenced and content rich. We cannot add to it templates that would link it to its own POV forks created by WP:SPA. --Irpen 05:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a problem with those articles isn't it best to solve them at their talk pages? Regardless, if they are removed until futher discussion can the template go back into articles? And Horlo is not a single purpose account. Ostap 05:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, dual purpose account. And wait for consensus. Martin's "commission" article cannot go there. There were plenty of investigations of the famine. They need to be summarized in the article and, if articles exist for them, linked from the text. There is absolutely nothing special or extraordinary in this "commission" nor in its pity two-sentence long article to warrant such an undue prominence. --Irpen 05:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horlo has created many articles. Just to be clear, do you have problems with any of the other articles in the template? Ostap 05:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen there was only one International Commission and one by the US Senate, what others are you talking about? With only one International Commission, how could it possibly be undue? Martintg (talk) 05:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can the template now be put into articles? If not, please be specific as to what should be removed/added. Ostap 23:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no change compared to the previous section. Two POV forks listed, unimportant commission given undue prominence. Besides, the choice of listed people is strange. Why these particular individuals? --Irpen 01:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please recommend any changes you would like to see. Ostap 02:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What qualifies you to determine whether the commission is unimportant? Martintg (talk) 05:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other way around, Martin. It has to be shown as exceptionally important to be in the template, and there must be a very good reason to have a template at all. --Irpen 05:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I checked Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes) and I see no such conditions imposed, just "commonly used in articles to present certain summary or overview information about the subject". Seems to me that this template fits that purpose outlined by the Manual of Style. Martintg (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a quick comment. The template is here to "help the reader in reading up on related topics". It is clear to me that the template is indeed doing that. I think most are in agreement that a template (without faeces, of course) is useful. Will you remove the things you object to so I can re add the template? Then you and the others can work out a compromise on this commission. Ostap 06:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ostap, it is not just the commission. It is also links to forks. And also the arbitrary list of names. The entire template in its current form would deteriorate the quality of whatever article it is added to. For example, why this specific people are noted and not others? Why no Molotov? Why no Chubar? If we add all those who have any relation to the famine, we will get an entry compared to the Politburo template. Whoever is important should be added to articles and integrated in the text flow. What useful navigational purpose would serve adding to the template the politician in whose political biography their role in famine is much less significant than their role in other events? If someone wants a template, I would start with a template that would be a list of famines: 1921-22, 1932, 1933 (current), 1947. This templating urge reminds me of Alex Kov's attempt to privatize the Kievan Rus article by his baby infobox. --Irpen 06:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A simple list of famines would deteriorate the Holodomor article. I think this is a topic important enough to have its own navigation template. If we get rid of the commission, the (so called) fork articles, and the list of names, could we then add it to articles? And I don't think you give a good enough reason to remove the politicians. Right now, Stalin and Kaganovich have entire sections in their articles devoted to Holodomor. It is also quite prominently mentioned in the other two biographies. And what exactly is the problem with including the commission? It seems relevant and important. And I assure you I am not nor have I ever been Alex Kov. Ostap 07:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you are Alex Kov. I just showed an example of detrimental for quality infoboxes. This is exactly one. --Irpen 08:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would try to offer a compromise, but I honestly can see none. All the articles in the template are relevant, many even having "Holodomor" or "Ukraine famine" in the very title. Surely you are not objecting because of POV issues? The template is only here to help the reader in reading up on related topics. Ostap 03:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the list of people who were personally responsible per suggestion by Irpen above. The remainder looks great and completely relevant. I think the template can be inserted back in the articles.Biophys (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same applies to much of the other stuff in the template. It remains horribly ORish synthesis of disparate articles, organizations, people and phenomena. --Irpen 07:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The synthesis tag is intended for articles, how could a template possibly convey an idea? Martintg (talk) 09:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really missed this fruitful the discussion. So actually it’s still tends to have “like Holocaust” info box. Could you please explain why Historical Background for Holodomor are:

• Famines in Russia and USSR
• Famine of 1921
• Soviet famine of 1932-1933 (???)

Soviet Government and Holodomor -???

As regards to Holodomor denial section (clear tends to have “like Holocaust”) –

• Could you please provide the number(s?) and year of issue for Pravda and Izvestiya were actually Holodomor denied.
• As regards rest mentioned persons and organization – Are your already decide which Holomor denied by them – see more [1]Jo0doe (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it time to start adding this to the relevant articles? Ostap 04:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any objections? Please be specific. Consensus cannot be reached through reverting. Ostap 04:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template still consists of the random hodge-podge of totally unrelated articles and several gross forks. I see no significant change that altered this fact. --Irpen 04:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there were no objections since I asked 10 days ago. Since you do object, please state what you want removed. Ostap 04:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no sense to randomly pick such disparate stuff as Izvestia and the US Congress commission and stack them together for whatever purpose. The topic here is the famine. Having a navigation template with other famines may make sense. But if this is a free for all template, as this one is, it will always get filled with stuff instead of content. If you read this page from the top, you will see multiple objections. They remain valid. --Irpen 05:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What if we remove the list of names from the denial section, keeping the link to denial itself which is clearly related? Ostap 06:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denial related? Denial of what and how? --Irpen 06:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, to make it easier for you, I will rephrase the question. Please show a single scholarly source that studies "denial". Or even easier, please show a single scholarly source that even defines "denial of Holodomor". --Irpen 06:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets discuss the template. That article has the word "Holodomor" in its title, that would seem to make it related to at least some degree. Ostap 06:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Moonshine has the word Moon in its title too. Let's avoid getting into semantics. I asked a simple question. What is that in the "denial" article and the "denial" of what specifically it is that warrants inclusion in the template and what is the purpose of the template. --Irpen 06:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, Denial of the Holodomor survived a recent AfD with a large number of keeps, almost unanimously. If you believe the term to have no sources, please re-nominate it. Until then, it belongs in this template, mechanically. - Merzbow (talk) 06:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? --Relata refero (disp.) 07:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the template is to help readers in navigation between related articles. I am talking about the link to Denial of the Holodomor not Denial. Holodomor and Holodomor denial are related, are you actually denying that? Ostap 06:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a question. What is "denial of Holodomor"? The article does not answer it. I hope you can. Merzbow, you know full well how rigged the AfD process is. Usual teams show up, vote along "party lines" and the results are random. I don't care that much about an obscure page (correctly tagged anyway) to go over this drama again. What I care about is the remaining reasonably sourced articles on topic getting contaminated too. So, let's get back to square one. To help "navigate", there are cats and i-wiki links. In the text body contextualizing and attributing is possible. In templates it is not. --Irpen 06:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are also Wikipedia:Navigational templates. Ostap 06:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, I'm sorry that the Wikipedia community overwhelmingly disagrees with you on the notability of this term. You either need to restart the AfD or drop the issue. - Merzbow (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mezbrow, please stop telling me what to do. Instead, answer questions posted above. --Irpen 18:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article explains perfectly well what "Denial of the Holomodor" is. The result of the AfD was a keep by 14-2 - in other words, the community overwhelmingly deemed this notable, not a "random" result, not even a "controversial" result. It is part and parcel of the subject of the "Holodomor", and thus belongs in the template. - Merzbow (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Find a single source that discusses this aspect of the Holodomor as denialism. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article does no explain what "denial of Holodomor is". There is a reason why there is a "dubious" tag next to the ORish definition of the "denial" in the very first sentence sourced to references that actually do not support this definition. When Yushchenko speaks about "denial" (and proposes to criminalize it), he speaks about the applicability of Genocide and proposes a penalty for expressing in public a view that the famine was not a Genocide. So, you are incorrect. The "Denial of Holodomor" as a notion is not sourced in Wikipedia, as of now. This is exactly why I asked you, what do you think it is. When you answer this question, it would be easier to proceed from that point. Looking forward to hear some answer at last instead of the policy talk. --Irpen 18:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Denial of the Holodomor is the assertion that the Holodomor, the 1933 famine in Soviet Ukraine, which claimed millions of lives, did not occur." That is the consensus opinion of Wikipedia editors. Again, if you have a problem with it, change it or AfD the article. - Merzbow (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a completely unsourced definition. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please complain about that article at that articles talk page. This is the talk page for the template. Is that article related to Holodomor? Does it belong on a Holodomor template? Ostap 00:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Merzbow, if this was a "consensus opinion of Wikipedia editors", there would not have been a "dubious"-tag near this "definition" because it is unsourced. None of the cited references define the issue, as you can check by clicking. I thought you knew of a better definition. Apparently you don't. If you ever come up with one (sourced please), I am looking forward to hearing it. --Irpen 21:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, you should take this discussion to the relevant article talk page, this disruptive removal of a navigational template is starting to appear like a sour-grapes rear-guard action in wake of consensus to keep in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Holodomor_denial. If you are not happy with the result of that AfD, why don't you start another one. Martintg (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, perhaps instead of accusing me of things, you can give it a try and answer a question above since Mesbrow refuses to do it for whatever reason. TIA, --Irpen 22:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to Talk:Denial_of_the_Holodomor if you have an issue with the article, this is the template talk page. Martintg (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing the inclusion of the page into a template. But the inability of the second proponent of the inclusion to answer a question as simple as what it is seems very noteworthy. --Irpen 22:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is about the content or sourcing of Denial of the Holodomor. This discussion (indeed the whole page) is about this template. The question has nothing to do with the template. It seems now that consensus is in favor of including the template in articles. Only you and one other editor object. Please stop filibustering. Ostap 22:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are not discussing the Denial of the Holodomor article, as some editors seem to think. If you want to complain about that articles definition, its pov, its lack of sources, or just cry "IDONTLIKEIT" do it at that articles talk page. We are discussing the template. Is this wikipedia article Denial of the Holodomor related to Holodomor? Does it belong in the Holodomor navigation template? Ostap 00:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it is largely sourced to unreliable sources, and is a cesspool of bad original research, I'd say no. --Relata refero (disp.) 00:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at this from the "outside". We have an article called Denial of the Holodomor. Imagine you have not read it. Pretend you have no opinion on its content. Should the article titled Denial of the Holodomor go in a Holodomor navigation template? Ostap 01:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a template from an article when that article heads a section of the template is quite indefensible from a navigational standpoint. You and Irpen have resorted to attacking the article to support this action, apparently. Yet the community has rendered their decision on this via the 14-2 AfD, and all I've seen in response is accusations that the AfD was rigged. This is beginning to seem quite out-of-order. - Merzbow (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Eastern Europe on Wikipedia. Its all out-of-order.

If we have to maintain quality on this template, given that there is a significant difference in quality between the Holodomor and main history articles and the absurd advocacy piece and BLP hit-job that is Holodomor Denial, the only thing to do is to keep it out. There is absolutely no reason to put all articles related to a subject into a template, either in a policy or a guideline. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relative quality, which is subjective anyway, is no reason to keep it out, as it can always be improved. Martintg (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relato, again I must point out the view that the article is a "hit-job" has been soundly rejected by the community. Attempting to re-fight the same battle by isolating the article, like a besieging army attempting to starve out a city, is just not cool. - Merzbow (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Its a crap article that got kept in the sort of broken AfD that is a known problem in this area. Keeping a link to a poor article on a subject of dubious notability and relevance is what's totally uncool. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How would you know it "got kept in the sort of broken AfD that is a known problem in this area", you couldn't even be bothered to make a comment in the AfD. Edit warring a navigation template because you don't like an article (but failed to participate in its AfD), looks seriously uncool. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Martintg (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was thankfully uuaware of the existence of this sorry heap of OR at the time. Whatever. I say again, its a link to a poor article on a subject of dubious notability and relevance, and keeping it out improves quality. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Also, we are still trying to reach consensus regarding what related articles to include in the template. Would you read over this talk page and give your opinion? Ostap 01:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic to the list of government institutions. I think it make sense.

I have changed Pravda and Izvestia to Propaganda in the Soviet Union. The later is general it included all mass media. The first is specific and its selection is arbitrary. Why no Ukrainian media? Why no radio stations and magazines? Why not other Soviet newspapers?

The second concern I have is BLP. I think it is not suitable to include in the list living and recently dead people to the articles of such emotional charge. They were not charged by a court or something. On the other hand, they may sue us.

Duranty and the Communist Party of USA now look orphaned. May be they should go as well - to much of honor, actually. Would you include to Template:The Holocaust the list of all Holocaust deniers? Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should we include the list of people responsible? Say: Joseph Stalin, Vyacheslav Molotov, Lazar Kaganovich, Stanislav Kosior, Pavel Postyshev? Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No ... well not if there is any chance it will lead to a bunch of controversy and revert warring. 85.130.13.215 (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to concur Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a navigation template. For list of people reponsible - this task is easy. If the article on Stalin states that he was responsible for the Holodomor a link to his article should be included. If he is "responsible" yet his article is silent on this matter then no link should be included. Any controversy belongs with the article not the template. Bobanni (talk) 07:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that all but 2 editors agree with the state of the template. Those two editors are objecting to the sourcing of one of the articles in the template. That is no reason to remove the navigation template from articles. They have also described the article with such eloquent phrases as "absurd advocacy piece and BLP hit-job", "crap", "heap of OR", and " political campaigning on the bones of the victims of the famine", leading me to doubt both neutrality and commitment to gaining true consensus. The template should be put back in the related articles. Ostap 00:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Deal with the objections, first. The fact that I have been worrying away at this article for months, from the day I discovered it clicking through from Denialism, in the face of a bunch of SPA editwarriors and threats of various sorts should demonstrate that I'm not going away, which is a prime req for consensus. The fact that I don't really involve myself in EE aside from what appears on the noticeboard should demonstrate that I've not got any strong opinions on the underlying issue - unlike most contributors to that article and the AfD. Explain to me why a poor article with crucial points sourced to old community newsletters and of dubious notability with ref to the famine should be on the template. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't a clue who the SPA editwarriors are, and I apologize for any threats you have received. That sort of behavior does not belong on wikipedia. The article belongs in the template because it relates directly to the subject of said navigation template. The topic of the navigation template is Holodomor thus it makes sense to include the related articles, which denial of the Holodomor clearly is. Lack of proper sources or other content concerns just do not seem to be a good enough reason to remove it from the nav. template. Ostap 06:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok first of all including the leading politicians of the Soviet Union does not implicate they are responsible, also what is this rule of thumb that if the famine is mentioned on their talk page they are responsible. So if the Yerevan Earthquake is mentioned on Mikhail Gorbachev's page that means he is responsible for that tragedy. Also why remove the part of the 1932-33 Soviet Famine? --Kuban Cossack 15:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that Holodomor genocide question is part of the Holodomor Denial . We specifically agree that rejection of the notion of Holodomor being an ethnic genocide is not labeled by the word denial (as well as insisting on such a notion is not labeled with the word politicizing). I propose to join the Comissions, Holodomor Denial and Genocide question as investigation and comprehension - in this section we do not talk about the 1930ies but about 1980ies-present efforts to investigate and comprehend the event. Thus, I propose:

Any objections? Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support your changes. Ostap 17:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks okay to me. Martintg (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those parties identified in template were found by Ukrainian court to be responsible for the Holodomor. Bobanni (talk) 03:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it is quite fair. I have semiprotected the template. It is highly visible and edit warring by IP is bad anyway Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]