Help on Writing Wikipedia Article

[Drace]

Scums on Wikipedia banned me for supposedly violating the Point of View even their articles are biased as hell.

I decided to write an article on "Criticism of the Holodomor"
They have a article titled "Denial of the Holodomor", but the title itself is reactionary. Even more, I don't wish to touch it at the risk of being banned again.

I read the section on the famine in Another View of Stalin, read the speech by Stalin Society and currently am reading Fraud, Famine and Facism by Dougles Tottle.

Will anyone help me write the article? Keep it neutral! No insults, no anti-capitalistist stabs, etc...
And don't make assertions. Rather than saying no drought existed, say something like "Herald Jr. Stupid reported seeing no droughts and wrote on the subject."

EDIT:
I just wrote this page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_Saskatchewan#Satire

While reading the book, I thought this would be interesting.
I just need it to somehow mention the link to the pages so it actually gets viewed, lol.

The time could of been better spent though I suppose...

[Tablo]

The page you added got deleted. The people on Wikipedia seem to dislike you.

[Drace]

Im glad you notice.
They think Im Jacob Peters who is apparently someone who makes multiple accounts and edits in favor the left -_-
I don't think I can get anything done.

I was successful in changing the estimates of dead from 2.6 million to 1 million in the Holodomor article though!

[Agnapostate]

"Criticism of the Holodomor" is a misleading title if you're seeking to claim that death rates are inflated, of course.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Do you not think it would be more helpful to distance Stalinism from true Communism instead of apologising for the things Stalin did.

[bailey_187]

Do you not think it would be more helpful to distance Stalinism from true Communism instead of apologising for the things Stalin did.

Do you not think it would be more helpful to distance yourself from this thread than trying to start a tendency war?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Do you not think it would be more helpful to distance yourself from this thread than trying to start a tendency war?

Ok then :)

[Drace]

Do you not think it would be more helpful to distance Stalinism from true Communism instead of apologising for the things Stalin did.

No. The truth is the truth and it has to be told.
Even if we distance ourselves from Stalin, the public will continue to associate it with communism.


"Criticism of the Holodomor" is a misleading title if you're seeking to claim that death rates are inflated, of course.

Why so? To say death rates were estimated falsely is criticism, isn't it?

[Agnapostate]

Why so? To say death rates were estimated falsely is criticism, isn't it?

It's not criticism of the Holodomor. It's criticism of popular analysis of the Holodomor.

[Drace]

I think that's implied.

[Agnapostate]

I think that's implied.

No, it isn't. If you wrote an article entitled criticism of the Armenian genocide, would that imply denial of it?

[Drace]

Funny, because I happen to be Armenian.

And I would think so. What would your notion of such a title be?

[Agnapostate]

Funny, because I happen to be Armenian.

And I would think so. What would your notion of such a title be?

It isn't, because it would imply criticism of the event itself rather than criticism of popular analysis of it. Frankly, I believe that the title "denial of the Holodomor" is sound if you work on incorporating that article's content into the relevant section of the main article on the Holodomor itself. At the moment, the "denial" article is quite biased, so you'd need to work on it extensively.

[Drace]

It seems to me that "Denial" of the Holodomor contains negative connotations. It also suggests that the famine never happened, rather than that it is incorrectly analyzed.

The page on the Denial of the Holodomor is mainly just allegations that the big bad evil Soviet Union denied the existence of the famine and tried to use massive propaganda to cover it up. Biased, yes.

And any extensive change on Wikipedia on the favor of the left seems impossible now.

[Agnapostate]

It seems to me that "Denial" of the Holodomor contains negative connotations. It also suggests that the famine never happened, rather than that it is incorrectly analyzed.

The page on the Denial of the Holodomor is mainly just allegations that the big bad evil Soviet Union denied the existence of the famine and tried to use massive propaganda to cover it up. Biased, yes.

That's because you haven't been editing it. :cool:

[Nolan]

Hey, at least it's not as bad as the one on "Resistance to Castro." Or something like that.

[Calmwinds]

It seems to me that "Denial" of the Holodomor contains negative connotations. It also suggests that the famine never happened, rather than that it is incorrectly analyzed.

The page on the Denial of the Holodomor is mainly just allegations that the big bad evil Soviet Union denied the existence of the famine and tried to use massive propaganda to cover it up. Biased, yes.

And any extensive change on Wikipedia on the favor of the left seems impossible now.

"In favor of the left" is the wrong way to go about it, we are trying to preserve truth and consensus, we don't need to do anything at all in favor of the left, but you do need to make it more accurate/truthful. Indeed the truth should lead to leftism, there should be no bending truth[see:lies] in favor of anything.

[mikelepore]

It's infuriating to write for Wikipedia. The writing style that they demand is similar to: "There are various theories about the shape of the world. Some people believe that the world is round. (Cite one book that says that.) However, other people believe that the world is flat. (Cite one book that says that.)" Whatever the writer of the article may know about the preponderance of evidence may not be mentioned, even if you were the world's foremost expert on the subject, with one exception: if being that expert also means that you have written a book, then that book may be one of the books that you have cited. Who can operate within those rules?

[RHIZOMES]

No. The truth is the truth and it has to be told.
Even if we distance ourselves from Stalin, the public will continue to associate it with communism.



Why so? To say death rates were estimated falsely is criticism, isn't it?

"Criticism on the estimation of deaths"?