This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ukraine Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Russia: History / Politics and law Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force. Lead Improvement Team This article is of interest to the Lead Improvement Team, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the lead sections of articles on Wikipedia. Holodomor in modern politics has been added to our To-do list because its lead has been assessed as needing improvement. A member of our team is either currently working on remedying this, or will be shortly. If you think you can improve the lead yourself, please do so and then let us know so we can strike it off our list. If you are interested in helping with this project, please visit our project page and add your name to the list of participants. Lead Improvement TeamWikipedia:WikiProject Lead Improvement TeamTemplate:WikiProject Lead Improvement TeamLead Improvement Team articles Human rights Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Death Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Soviet Union: Russia / History Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Russia. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. Philosophy: Ethics Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Crime and Criminal Biography Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Ethnic groups Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. Discrimination Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Politics Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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

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

According to the gov't of Ukraine it did http://www.mfa.gov.ua/thailand/en/8350.htm .--Galassi (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The government of Ukraine is wrong, this is the act of the italian parliament about the recognition of the holodomor: http://banchedati.camera.it/sindacatoispettivo/ShowXml2Html.Asp?IdAtto=90369&Stile=5&HighLight=1&SearchType=1&Originale=0

It clearly says "IN CORSO" (below the table, beside "Stato iter", that is "status of the approval") which means "in progress". So the act is not effective. The same goes for Chile, the only source of the chilean recognition is this: http://www.camara.cl/prensa/noticias_detalle.aspx?prmid=28589 . Again it says "Cámara pide reconocer hambruna en Ucrania en 1933", that is "the lower house of parliament asks for the recognition of the 1933 starvation in Ukraine", but there's no sign of an approval. Even for Poland there aren't sources corroborating an approval.21:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)84.223.132.138 (talk)

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

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

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

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

P.S. Per NPOV policy, I suggest instead to create a table which lists the states whose governments considered the issue, in the following columns:

<State | time frame | resolution/comment | reference> Staszek Lem (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

An image used in this article, File:Holodomor World recognition.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Holodomor World recognition.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080408160321/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5g24G2C82bayPydlhVXF5FYjM5PjQD8VPUNCG0 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g24G2C82bayPydlhVXF5FYjM5PjQD8VPUNCG0

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• The graphics seems to be quite good and serves the purpose. I am unaware of any requirements to navigational template icons other than be free and non-controversial. Any suggestions for a better image? Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought first that it was an image of historical significance. I went to see where it came from (historically). I was expecting to be pointed to a source where I could learn more about Holodomor symbolism. Imagine my disappointment. Poeticbent talk 06:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, it should be removed as WP:OR. We're just engaging in creating our own iconography if it remains. As it is, I thought it pertained to some sort of logo/emblem. I wasn't keen on it because it is essentially religious iconography, so it did strike me as being potentially an emblem used in Canada. Why I thought that iconography from Canada is okay is another issue (i.e., I'm a twit). There's no value in even treating it as a WP:DECORATIVE issue when it's not emblematic of anything other than one person's imagination and photoshop. It just reminds me of Template:Slavery being treated as if it were a school project.

I !vote that it goes. It fits in neatly with discussions on various genocide related articles raising concerns about the trivialisation of the subject. Thanks for your investigative work, Poeticbent! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

<sigh> Guys, due diligence, please.

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

Thanks, Staszek Lem, I was hoping for something like that. Still, the stamp, which by design is in the public domain in many countries, does not explain the origins of this religious symbol as Iryna Harpy has already observed. I have no objections against keeping it in anymore, but the question about its actual meaning remains open. 02:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not exactly a religious symbol. It does not symbolize religion. It symbolizes suffering, death, and burial. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is crucified Christ superimposed on the silhouette of Mary.

The gravestone cross is outlined in the background. I don't know what kind of cross it is in terms of shape, but your feedback is appreciated. Poeticbent talk 03:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the stamp image, it's specifically for the 60th anniversary (which is why it has 1993 at the bottom of the stamp). Being one of many commemorative images doesn't turn it into an issue for editor discretion. The issue of editorial discretion for images of this calibre was thoroughly discussed at the WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES RfC.

It certainly isn't any more emblematic of Holodomor than other stamps or associated imagery. I'm sorry, but I think it's still OR. I'm certainly not aware of literature, films or anything surrounding the Holodomor using this as a universally recognised emblem. There's a huge gap between the concept of 'an' emblem and 'the' emblem. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Current UA President's website [www.president.gov.ua/search?query=голодомор& does not have anything about голодомор]. Reportedly there was a Holodomor portal prior to 2010 (under Yushchenko) Staszek Lem (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

search 'емблема Голодомору конкурс ' did not give anything. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here & here you see a monument to Holodomor with this emblem at the National Museum "Memorial to Holodomor victims". Therefore I a inclined to conclude that it is not a random emblem, but rather widely accepted. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is called "traditional emblem". Staszek Lem (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

There's been no state recognised outcome of the emblem competition. There are various memorials used for the purposes of ceremony (i.e., lighting candles, food offerings, laying of flowers/wreaths). The forum you've pointed to is an opinion piece by a woman who frequents the forum, so the fact that she calls it the "Традиційна емблема жалобних заходів за жертвами Голодомору" ("The traditional emblem of mourning for the victims of the Holodomor") is merely her opinion. For all we know, the idea has been implanted in her mind due to its use on English language Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Until/unless we can find reliably sourced information on any emblem being recognised, we're flying by the seat of our pants and are creating our own urban myth, which is unencyclopaedic and is not something at our discretion to engage in. NOR means NOR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what this boils down to is that we don't know who created the icon. The post stamp was published in 1993 without the name of a graphic artist (or a sculptor) which is often the case (not always), two years after Ukraine gained independence from the Soviet Union. Can anyone find out please (as closely as possible) when and where did this symbol appear for the first time? Poeticbent talk 00:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm understanding your concerns correctly, Poeticbent, we've identified a potential double whammy in using this image. Not only is it OR, but it's highly likely to be COPYVIO if the image is still the property of the artist. The anonymous uploader of the image merely replicated a copyright protected artwork (whoever actually has copyright). Without attribution, while the stamp can remain at Wiki Commons (and can be used in the body of a relevant article), but the replicated image in use here should be deleted from Commons. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Article 10 of the Law of Ukraine on Copyright and Related rights postage stamps (section d), coins and banknotes (section e), are in the public domain within Ukraine; however, anything that falls under sections (d) and (e), unless officially approved, is under copyright. See: Wikisource:Ukraine. Law on Copyright and Related Rights (quote): "The drafts of the official symbols and signs specified in points (d) and (e) of part 1 of this Article shall, prior to their official approval, be regarded as works and shall be protected pursuant to this Law." (end of quote). You're free to apply your own interpretation of what "officially approved" means.

The postage stamp (per above) was published in 1993, therefore it could not have been the emblem of the Holodomor which President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko considered appropriate to create in connection with the organization and support of publishing and other projects worthy of the 75th anniversary of the Holodomor. As noted in the letter of Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, the government was to ensure the organization and the competition for the creation of such emblem in the first half of 2008; that's 15 years after the publication of the postage stamp with this logo.[1] Does anyone know what happened next? Poeticbent talk 05:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081028221248/http://www.senat.gov.pl/K6/dok/dr/050/a/090s.pdf to http://www.senat.gov.pl/K6/dok/dr/050/a/090s.pdf

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

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

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

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

(Comment moved from my own talk):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed. There's be a lot of POV pushing taking place over the past year. I noted as much on the Holodomor genocide question only yesterday. These articles need a WP:NPOV overhaul pronto. Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. With edits like that... There is no dispute it was "man-made". My very best wishes (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a single serious source claiming that it fell into the pattern of droughts and famines in the past. Yes, in other parts of the Soviet Union, there were droughts and failed harvests, but not so in Ukraine. There is ample proof that Ukraine produced a bumper harvest enough for their to be a glut of food for the inhabitants... but it was taken away and distributed amongst more important members of the USSR, along with propaganda about the greed of the kulaks. Whether it was intentional genocide on behalf of Stalin (anything that would incriminate him would have been destroyed by the NKVD decades ago), gathering further momentum from ignorant, angry people who wanted to blame someone for atrocities perpetrated against their people, or whether it was democide with a touch of cultural genocide thrown it, there is no doubt that it was man made. Modern academics are hard for me to take seriously because they are so many decades far from the incident, and working off salvaged NKVD paperwork (and whose articles are sponsored by Russia) it's difficult to sort out fact from fiction. Personally, I'm not comfortable with this Western word adopted (Holodomor) because I grew up with it being known as 'The Great Famine' as it was in the Soviet Union. The politico-economic wars that have emerged have nothing to do with wanting to understand the truth, but it's been thrown into the field, and we have to work with its usage in as neutral a manner possible. Attribution and high status academic thought in the field has to be sorted through with great care. As for numbers of countries who recognise Holodomor as genocide, I've definitely counted over 20 without retractions. It all seems to be contingent on who's an American client state, and who is a Russian/Chinese client state. I'm going to sit down and do a recount from RS in the next couple of days. Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is great to hear. Please pay attention to Ukraine section. Welcome to revert my last edit if you or someone else adds what had happen after removal of Yanukovich. My very best wishes (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does this mean UNESCO? It is a UN agency and technically not an NGO. —Michael Z. 20:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was referring to Ukrainian World Congress. Someone moved this away from the UN heading to International Commission of Inquiry Into the 1932–33 Famine in Ukraine, which is an improvement. I'm not sure who did.Stix1776 (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

You obviously didn't bother to read the sources.^[1]

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

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

Governments instructing their reporesenatives to vote in favor of a declaration equals official national support. The claim that it is not and the rest of the above is nonsense and I'm not going to play semantics and word games. The content is appropriate together because the declarations include statements referring to genocide and crimes against humanity, even if they don't always use the English expressions. Some of the resolutions referenced were sponsored by Ukraine and when Ukraine uses the word Holodomor they mean genocide, there is no ambiguity about this, and for the UN to repeatedly use the word to describe what happened shows support for Ukraine's position on it being genocide.

You are welcome to try and change consensus here, you are welcome to start an RfC, but observe BRD and ONUS and do not change stable content unless you have a consensus.

Regarding your removal of the in use tag, you certainly can remove the tag, but that does not mean that it is not a rude gesture toward an editor that has left multiple posts about the issue.  // Timothy :: talk  15:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The question of genocide is a specific one, and it doesn’t help this article to introduce the category of “genocide and some other less-well-defined bad things.” It’s a central issue, and this article should make the facts clear.

Using or acknowledging the name Holodomor is not an act of recognizing genocide because the UN has a legal definition of genocide, but not one of Holodomor—if you disagree, please show us reliable sources that clearly say so. (That said, there are also academic definitions of genocide, some discussed in another article, and an official recognition doesn’t necessarily mean either of these.)

But other recognition is significant too, and may be a degree towards recognizing genocide. If a state made a statement that this was immoral, or criminal, or a crime against humanity, then just state that in the article, instead of arguing over our own invented categories that may constitute original research. Or quote a secondary source that says something worth quoting about this.

Anyway, specific states did categorically recognize the Holodomor as a genocide, or as part of one, and this article should clearly say which ones did so when, with references supporting each. I will clean it up to that end if I must. —Michael Z. 15:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Michael, TimothyBlue's editing is original research. An editor shouldn't be putting their own interpretation on the sources. No source says anything what you're proposing. Even if Albania voted on that EU referendum, nothing in your source states that. Also TimothyBlue, please read WP:BRD-NOT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stix1776 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t say “his editing.” —Michael Z. 01:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

What’s wrong with that edit? If it needs a better source why not add one? —Michael Z. 01:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No source says "United Nations has *passed multiple resolutions* acknowledging and commemorating the Holodomor" [my emphasis]. I can't find a source that doesn't exist. The UN almost certainly hasn't passed any resolutions on Holodomor. I'm waiting the reference that says otherwise. Stix1776 (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see. A number of declarations by multiple UN members were not UNGA resolutions. —Michael Z. 02:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wording has been clarified. If you had been specific about your concern it would have been fixed earlier. This was easy to fix and your lack of clearly stating your concern made it take longer than necessary. I'm not alone in not seeing your concern. // Timothy :: talk  09:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I only explained it in the edit and article talk page and the admin report page you made on me. If you're unsure, make a question in the talk page. Please don't just revert and make edit wars. Stix1776 (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Agreed. This has been put more succinctly in other pages. Stix1776 (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to removal.  // Timothy :: talk  09:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

You are ignoring the statements, declarations, etc they have signed at the United Nations, European parliament etc. These are not vague letters. This is a complete mischaracterization. This is currently sourced and editors are working on finding even more sources. You do not have consensus to remove the content.  // Timothy :: talk  19:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove any content on this issue. I just added references and put in this discussion. We can keep dispute tag on this section until consensus is reached. Feel free to add more sources.Stix1776 (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What controversy? Co-signing a letter filed at the UN for posterity is precisely stating an official position. The letters are not “vague,” but declare commemorating, condemning, paying tribute, and so on, according to their language. It is not merely “recognizing the Holodomor,” but in fact making a “solemn declaration” about it. There’s a block quotation sufficient to give readers an idea of what these declarations state.

Sure, let’s improve the wording if you’re finding anything about this unclear, but there’s no point in denying facts clearly attested by sources a link away at UNdocs.org.

This is basic stuff. What we need to find is more analysis about these declarations, the states’ positions, and synthesis that relates to broader politics. —Michael Z. 19:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify with the broader article content in mind: I believe the section about UN declarations is valuable and should remain. I don’t think it’s necessary to list every member that signed them, since this is not too hard to find in the references. I think the stronger and more controversial question of recognition as genocide is something that should be available to readers of the article. I don’t love the long list of flags interrupting the article, but what is a better solution? Perhaps a collapsible list, or standalone list article. —Michael Z. 20:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. Having the information in the list is important, but it is an awkward placement. I especially agree that the article needs to be expanded beyond being just a recitation of who's said what about the Holodomor. Mzajac if you have time could you check/edit the material I have added under United States.  // Timothy :: talk  21:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The strongest statement in the letter is "Recalling in this regard the joint statement... recognizing the Holodomor as the national tragedy", which refers to a previous declaration these nations didn't sign. Why are we unable to find a source that says "Albania recognizes the Holodomor"? Because if we can't, this is original research.

I think having a list of who officially recognises it as a genocide is more valuable. Stix1776 (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are again removing and arguing more the removal of more sourced content.  // Timothy :: talk  04:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually read the stuff other editors read? Look at the outside opinions. [[2]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stix1776 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stix1776, Feel free to take me to the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism if you think you can defend your word games and removal of sourced content.  // Timothy :: talk  08:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few things that are entirely not supported in the sources.

1) Most of those countries in the list did not officially "recognized the Holodomor".

• Response: Untrue. There support is referenced.
  • Response's response: Your citations are original research. You need a source stating that "Albania recognizes Holodomor", or something similar.

2) Despite the House of Representatives and the Senate adopting resolutions recognizing the Holodomor, the line 'The United States government recognized the Holodomor as a "famine-genocide" in Public Law' is not written in the source.

• Response: It is stated in 120 STAT. 1864 PUBLIC LAW 109–340—OCT. 13, 2006, which is referenced.
  • Response's response: it seems that this was cleared up already

3) Stating the the US officially does not support the Holodomor is well sourced, yet is not in the article [[3]]

• Response: This is untrue. The United States recognized as a famine genocide in 120 STAT. 1864 PUBLIC LAW 109–340—OCT. 13, 2006 which is referenced in the article.
  • Response's response: This Public Law is only about the establishment of a Holodomor Memorial. The words "officially recognize famine genocide" are never in the law.

4) The 10 November 2003 is written twice.

• No idea what this means
  • The UN resolution on 10 November is mentioned twice, which just seems like padding to me

5) Nothing is written that most countries do not (officially or otherwise) recognize or have an opinion on the Holodomor.

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

• • Response to response: Yes I do [4][5]

6) Much of the block statements are redundant and make the article unreadable.

• The block quotes look great.

I don't have time for an edit war.

• Comment The above is more attempts to delete sourced content and ignore references.  // Timothy :: talk  12:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The RFERL ref tells: "In the U.S. Congress, simple resolutions are nonbinding, passed by only one chamber of Congress, and don't become law." I am not sure this tells it was officially recognized by US as a genocide. My very best wishes (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The RFERL ref is talking about a Senate resolution in 2018. The public law was passed by both houses of Congress and signed by GW Bush in 2006 and explicitly states it is to memorial to remember the victims the famine genocide. The project is authorized by law allowing the US and Ukraine to jointly establish a memorial together which is developed and run by the National Park Service. In the project proposal from the National Park Service it states the purpose is to educate the American public about the famine-genocide. [6]. The inscription reads, "Famine-Genocide in Ukraine. In memory of the millions of innocent victims of a man-made famine in Ukraine engineered and implemented by Stalin’s totalitarian regime."

Yes, the US government authorized building of the privately funded memorial with "famine-genocide" inscribed on the wall. But does it mean an official recognition of the famine as genocide by US government in 2006? I guess this is the essence of the disagreement. Personally, I do agree it was an intentional genocide.My very best wishes (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to the concerns.

1. 70 countries signed at least one of the four UN statements. The last three all refer to the first one, and to the UNESCO resolution. The latest, 2018 statement says, in part “recalling in this regard the joint statement on the seventieth anniversary of the Holodomor of 1932–1933 in Ukraine of 7 November 2003 . . . , recognizing the Holodomor as the national tragedy of the Ukrainian people, caused by the cruel actions and policies of the totalitarian regime, . . . .” It is not reasonable to dispute that they “recognized the Holodomor,” for what that is worth. Is that so important? What states don’t “recognize” it? No one disputes that the famine took place, and no one disputes that it was the result of Soviet policies, so whatever “recognizing the Holodomor” means is not worth a big argument over. I think it is better to quote who stated or signed what. Perhaps the list of 70 in total, or four separate lists counting 138 signatures, should appear in the UN section, either as an expandable list(s), in an explanatory note(s), like note [m] in that section.
2. So be specific. Say exactly what the US government did and didn’t say and pass, including the publication of the 1988 report of the commission, and the non-binding senate and congress motions. State clearly that Congress passed a non-binding resolution calling the Holodomor a genocide, or whatever, and state who doesn’t consider it US government policy.
3. Here the complaint is breaking down due to imprecise language. “The US officially does not support the Holodomor” is not a meaningful or factual statement. “The US officially supports the Holodomor” does not appear in the article, so I don’t know what change it seeks. If this point addresses some text in the article, please specify.
4. Please quote the offending text. Suggest a remedy. Thanks.
5. What?

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

The US government only authorized the building of a memorial in 2006 [7], but it did not officially recognize the event as genocide. That is what the RFERL reference say [8]. Is not it? My very best wishes (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but your source makes it clear that is only part of the story. —Michael Z. 15:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congress passing legislation and the President signing it allowing a memorial on public land that is specifically for the purpose of honoring the victims and educating the American public about the Holodomor, calling it a famine genocide, is recognizing the Holodomor. Construction was privately financed (so is the World War II memorial), but it is still a public memorial on public land making a public statement, and is administered and approved by the government. The United States government is recognizing the Holodomor.

If not the above what is the legally prescribed process to "recognize" something? how is this different to prevent the common usage? Why is the common English usage here unacceptable? Would the word acknowleged be better? I'm open to suggested changes. // Timothy :: talk  22:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that Armenian genocide, for example, was officially recognized by US only in 2019. I am not an expert, but RFE/RL tells in 2018 that "The U.S. government has not recognized the Ukrainian famine as a "genocide," instead labeling it as a "criminal act of the Stalinist regime" against the people of Ukraine.". But telling about building the monument and about the non-binding resolution by US Senate in 2018 is obviously fine. My very best wishes (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that (please check page United States recognition of the Armenian Genocide for comparison), I do not mind if you revert my edit, rephrase or whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added my responses to those responses above. I should point out that most countries still do not officially recognize the Holodomor, and this should be mentioned in this article [9][10]Stix1776 (talk) 05:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @My very best wishes and Mzajac:, are you thinking about something like this: Talk:Holodomor in modern politics/List idea 1? as a replacement for the list? Not taking a position, I'm just asking the question based on some of your feedback.

People are giving the word "recognize" some special meaning, "Recognize" is a normal English word meaning acknowledge something. In any case a new list format may help.  // Timothy :: talk  21:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of something like the following, except less prominent: without the boldfacing and no borders, etc. But for the four UN statements I have already added explanatory notes, and maybe that is sufficient. —Michael Z. 01:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other controversy pages that include collapsing lists for 'Joint Statements' like this? It just seems like an effort to make the largest list possible to be a battleground. Stix1776 (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is inmaterial, every article stands on its own merits, the content is sourced and their is no support to remove it.

I'm continuing expanding the article with a section for each entity with their details as I recieve them, and I have been considering an RfC to rename it "Recogition of the Holodomor" after this; a split will facilitate expanding this article further into a WP:SUMMARY style article which could include non-political orgs and then writing individual child articles for many of the entry (eg: "Recognition of the Holodomor in Australia", etc).

Then there can be a separate new article about the Political debate on the Holodomor, but again before I'd do this split, I'll get support through an RfC. @My very best wishes and Mzajac: I'll keep you in the loop on any RfCs, proposed splits or renames before I do anything like this.

There are a lot more sources out there, but foriegn language sources can be time consuming to track down. I've been receiving more informaton, but research librarians at UCLA and Harvard's Ukrainian studies are backed up on requests.

The article and subject continues to be improved and expanded.  // Timothy :: talk  18:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was just finishing up an edit as you posted that. Sorry if there’s an edit conflict. Thinking along similar lines, I turned most of the article into a “Recognition” section, with a summary at the top. I think the disputed list (now more compact) is now redundant, and can be removed (but check if anything should be salvaged, e.g., specific references that only occur there).

Recognition is only a part of the politics, and what is here is mostly purely documentary. I think the article still has the potential for a lot more meat about the politics that goes beyond this. (Also, this article and Holodomor genocide question are weirdly floating apart, when there ought to be a fair bit of overlap.) —Michael Z. 19:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mzajac, Very nice clean up.  // Timothy :: talk  19:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I restored the dispute tag. To be clear, the original “recognized” list is what has been disputed, and the tag should remain until this is resolved. I feel I have rendered it redundant by adding the more-specific paragraphs about recognition as genocide and recognition as a deliberate act, so it can be removed to resolve the dispute, I think without the loss of any material. I only left it so it could be double-checked. —Michael Z. 19:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more closely, I see that section has at least a couple of references that are not elsewhere in the article. I will check it over in a day or two, and hopefully tie this up. —Michael Z. 19:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This list is better, although the statement "[t]he following countries have recognized the Holodomor" is very much original research. Stix1776 (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The one paragraph that starts with that phrase is exactly the same as before, only I got rid of the flags and bullets. I’m planning to delete it, once I go through its references. I believe its content is likely redundant to the two preceding paragraphs. —Michael Z. 03:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the paragraph that says "[t]he following sovereign states have recognized the Holodomor as an act of genocide"... seems much better. I'd be very happy having the second paragraph deleted. Thanks. Stix1776 (talk) 04:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would delete the third graf in the section: the one below the notice. —Michael Z. 06:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I second this Stix1776 (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although I missed someone putting in "The Holodomor was recognized as a deliberate act against Ukrainians in statements at the UNGA signed by at least sixty-nine states". This is also original research. Can we try to stick to what's said by secondary sources please. Stix1776 (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How would you describe these statements collectively? This is a descriptive summary of their language, not analysis, and they are grouped as statements about the Holodomor that did not call it a genocide. One could quote each separately, but that clutters the article and repeats more material already present below. —Michael Z. 14:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are partial quotations. I don’t think we have to cite secondary sources for uncontroversial, self-evident facts or literal statements, and the text of these is all cited in the article.

• EP: “Recognises the Holodomor (the artificial famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine) as an appalling crime against the Ukrainian people, and against humanity”
• PACE: “Millions of innocent people in Belarus, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine, which were parts of the Soviet Union, lost their lives as a result of mass starvation caused by the cruel and deliberate actions and policies of the Soviet regime.”
• OSCE:”Pays tribute to the innocent lives of millions of Ukrainians who perished during the Holodomor of 1932 and 1933 as a result of the mass starvation brought about by the cruel deliberate actions and policies of totalitarian Stalinist regime” and “strongly encourages all parliaments to adopt acts regarding recognition of the Holodomor.”
• UNESCO: “Recalling the Joint Statement . . . in which Holodomor was officially recognized as the national tragedy of the Ukrainian people, caused by the cruel actions and policies of the totalitarian regime”

 —Michael Z. 14:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Comment: Agree with Mzajac about the above. There is nothing wrong with using the wording or sources provided. I will bundle refs when Mzajac is done for readability, as I work on the sections below.

Stix1776 in the past you've objected to content that was summariezed, claiming the wording is inaccurate, this has been clarified; you've objected to content because you wanted better sources, now they've been provided (with more coming); you've objected to content because you claimed the source doesn't state what is in the article and now links to the documents to show exactly what wording is used are present. "This is also original research" is untrue, stating facts from documents is not OR, and "Can we try to stick to what's said by secondary sources please" is only an excuse to try to remove content that doesn't fit a particular POV, as Mzajac stated there is no need or requirement to cite secondary sources for uncontroversial, self-evident facts or literal statements. It is hard to AGF when you're objecting to improvements you've asked for and everything you are stating seems aimed at removing content that doesn't fit your POV.  // Timothy :: talk  10:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]