Jump to content

Talk:Holodomor: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
History section: new topic
m History section: edit opening comment
Line 43: Line 43:
== History section ==
== History section ==


History section is a mess. It has Scope and duration subsection (is it history?), Causes (Same?), Death toll, Cannibalism? How to organize it better? I moved the last one down below meanwhile per the attention given to it by RSs. [[User:Manyareasexpert|ManyAreasExpert]] ([[User talk:Manyareasexpert|talk]]) 20:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
History section is a mess. It has Scope and duration subsection (is it history?), Causes (same?), Death toll, Cannibalism? How to organize it better? I moved the last one down below meanwhile per the attention given to it by RSs. [[User:Manyareasexpert|ManyAreasExpert]] ([[User talk:Manyareasexpert|talk]]) 20:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:29, 8 September 2024

we cannot derive this information from census data ourselves

User:HandThatFeeds you have reverted my edition[1] saying "we cannot derive this information from census data ourselves", despite this information "between 1926 and 1939, the Ukrainian population increased by only 6.6%, whereas Russia and Belarus grew by 16.9% and 11.7% respectively" is derived from census data by yourselves. So if you have so much knowledge of wiki rules, find the information from reliable source and add it by yourself. Пинча (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW what about this information: [2] -- the article contains wrong numbers calculated by yourselves. So fix it too, please. Thank you. Пинча (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's indeed not OR, but covered by WP:CALC, which says: "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources." I have checked the calculation and it's correct. And it's also true that we already have other such calculations in the article, at least the cited sentence about population growth. So I think the sentence is a useful addition and can be restored. What do you think, HandThatFeeds? Gawaon (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that, but could do without the snark from @Пинча:. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have now restored the edit. Gawaon (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holodomor

Hi. I see you reverted my changes. The secondary source bringing the events into connection actually exists and it was mentioned as one of the reference but wasn't made the main thing (Timothy Snyder, "Covert Polish Missions Across the Soviet Ukrainian Border, 1928-1933", 2005). Would it be okay if I rework with making it more prominent and add the primary sources as additional justification, or should I not mention them at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krispe13 (talkcontribs) 20:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I scrolled through Snyder and he has a chapter on the famine so adding him would be fine. I'm generally against adding something based on primary sources as the article is already pretty large by itself and we have lots of secondary sources covering the subject. So why use primary ones. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History section

History section is a mess. It has Scope and duration subsection (is it history?), Causes (same?), Death toll, Cannibalism? How to organize it better? I moved the last one down below meanwhile per the attention given to it by RSs. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]