It is absolutely false that there’s a flat tendency toward the academic view. Some articles focus on academic views, as they should, but many are very pop history, and most people here would recognize this from them either promoting ahistorical views as the primary interpretation (treating the Holodomor as a genocide, with a page on Holodomor “denialism” to boot) or treating absurd anticommunist accusations as at least credible (like the idea that the Katyn Massacre was meant to destroy the Polish intelligentsia because the officers were, as military officers, disproportionately upper class). Basically, it’s academic except when it has an ax to grind, and it has a severe ax to grind with anything even faintly nominally communist, with it being nearly miraculous if they include a serious communist perspective as even a footnote while they are happy to represent the most academically fringe anticommunist views with credulity.
It is absolutely false that there’s a flat tendency toward the academic view. Some articles focus on academic views, as they should, but many are very pop history, and most people here would recognize this from them either promoting ahistorical views as the primary interpretation (treating the Holodomor as a genocide, with a page on Holodomor “denialism” to boot) or treating absurd anticommunist accusations as at least credible (like the idea that the Katyn Massacre was meant to destroy the Polish intelligentsia because the officers were, as military officers, disproportionately upper class). Basically, it’s academic except when it has an ax to grind, and it has a severe ax to grind with anything even faintly nominally communist, with it being nearly miraculous if they include a serious communist perspective as even a footnote while they are happy to represent the most academically fringe anticommunist views with credulity.