Talk:Nestor Makhno/Archive 1

Archive 1

"however, town mayors and many officials were drawn directly from the ranks of Makhno's military and political leadership"

Is there a source for this claim? 86.153.59.54 (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Маkhnovshchina=Makhnovism?

Pertaining to the Black Army, the article read "[the army was also called the] "Makhnovists" or "Makhnovshchina" (i.e., "Makhnovism")". My russian isn't that great, but it would appear to me that "Makhnovshchina" in this context would mean "Makhno's [army]" rather than "Makhno's [movement]". So I removed that translation. I do acknowledge that "Makhnovshchina" usually does refer to the whole movement (i.e. Machnovism), as indicated by the russian Wikipedia page for Makhnovshchina; but in this particular instance, I think it rather refers to the army. Wouldn't make much sense to refer to an army as some sort of -ism. Is there a native speaker who can confirm this? Lodp 19:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Anything that ends on -SHCHINA is a collective derogatory term (there are some mainly toponymical exceptions).Galassi 20:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

So can you confirm that the right translation is "Makhno's [army]" in this context? Lodp 20:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No. The fairly exact meaning is "Makhno's Era" or "Flowering".Galassi 22:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

So -- how would "Makhno's Era" fit into the following sentence (which all this is about, after all): "[...] who united into the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine (RIAU), also called the Black Army (because they fought under the anarchist black flag), "Makhnovists" or "Makhnovshchina" (i.e., "Makhno's [army]")." ? If "Makhnovshchina" can't refer to the Army, but only the movement or the era, we better remove that last part, right? 85.124.150.130 10:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely.Galassi 12:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"Makhnovshchina" is a fairly vague (and somewhat derogatory) term. Its meaning can be interpreted as "all the events associated with Makhno" or "Makhno and his following" or "Makhno's influence" or "the time and the place over which Makhno exerted control". In any case, it would almost certainly be a mistake to translate it as narrowly as "Makhno's army". 0000a 03:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Do not try to translate "Маkhnovshchina" from Russian, because it's Ukrainian. The meaning is clear and precise: "a rebellion led by Makhno", just the same as any other rebellion in Ukrainian history e.g. Koliivshchina (1768), Khmelnytshchina (1648), Pavlukovshchina (1637), Taborshchina (1569) etc. Noteworthiness 15:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

To my ear as a native Russian speaker from Kiev, rebellion is way too narrow a definition. I believe that this suffix signifies a phenomenon in the broadest sense- in this case specifically the phenomenon of Makhno. This concept encompasses his movement and his ideas as well as the events that occurred as a consequence of these. It is also, as has already been stated, at the very least mildly derisive. This is almost definitely a Ukrainian suffix and I seem to recall that it might be of Turkic origin, though I am not at all sure about this last possibility. But whatever its origins, It has also made its way into Russian. See 'жириновщина' as an example of this, as well as an example of how rebellion just does not cut it. Here's a useful take on this suffix that I just found: http://russianmentor.net/gram/mailbag/topics/shchina.htm 24.146.204.47 (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

After so many years, this contradiction in the article should be resolved.  :( 24.143.11.227 (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

http://www.marxist.com/History/russia_peasants.htm

Does anyone have any ideas as to which is more true? It seems to me that both have suitable reasons for bias (unsigned comment by User:Real World)

He's a highly controversial figure for sure. I suggest instead of embracing any POV, we refer to notable scholars, to reflect major opinions like: historian A, possibly biased by AA, said AAA, while historian B... ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Concentration camps of Ukraine/Norilsk?

The article reads:

In 1953, upon the death of Stalin, a vast insurrection took place in the concentration camps of Ukraine. The prisoners of the Norilsk camp, after seizing control, hoisted the flag of Makhnovist movement to the top of the mast.

However, Norilsk is located nowhere remotely close to the Ukraine. It's actually in northern Siberia. This needs clarification.

In some if not most camps the population was 50%+ Ukrainian, thats because concentration camps are usually far away from population centres. So while Norilsk may not be in Ukraine it is still possible to have an Ukrainian camp uprising. Also Siberia has a big Ukrainian population even today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.196.2 (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit by 58.170.91.7

The edit by this user, supposedly to remove IMMENSE bias, instead introduced bias. It would appear this user has something against Makhnovists. As such, this page needs editing by a credible source, and has been flagged for bias. Supersheep 09:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the page to prior to that person's POV editing. Although some of his claims may have validity, that they are Bolshevik claims needs to be stated. Supersheep 10:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It is clearly stated that these are claims by Makhno' opponents, including Bolsheviks. Fisenko 19:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That is only stated in the first paragraph. I will return to this tomorrow (barring time problems) and integrate the criticisms in an unbiased manner (I'm drop-dead tired at the moment). Supersheep 22:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm the person who changed the article under '58.170.91.7', and I did clearly identify all of my additions as Bolshevik claims and viewpoints. Before I did that, this article sounded like a page from Lives of the Saints. It's not my fault that the only people criticizing Makhno were the Bolsheviks. To put it bluntly: if you're going to call us fake communists, we can call you fake anarchists. The Bolsheviks' success, and the threat it posed to rich people everywhere, earned them their terrible reputation in capitalist media worldwide. Either due to his steadfast adhesion to principle, or simple military incompetence, Makhno never earned the ire of the yellow press; his character was never pinned with any of his crimes, so his supporters can parade him around like some archangel, . I think that's not fair. The fog of war was very thick in undeveloped Ukraine; we know little about what really happened in those tumultuous years. If Makhno had been more successful, who is to say that he would not have proven to be just another exploiter, like the rebel-turned-emperor Zhu Yuanzhang? Conversely, if the Bolsheviks had been less successful - if Lenin and co. had been wiped out by police raids in 1916, for example - maybe bourgeois history would shed a crocodile tear for them so as to contrast them with some less favorable revolutionaries.

OK find a source, and introduce it as a critisism. Don't just rewrite the whole article. There is room here for varied opinions. But they must be other sources, not just your opinion. Remember, no original research. And sign your contributions.--Michael Johnson 13:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what I did, everything added was identified as a dissenting opinion. And yes, my additions were drawn from contemporary Russian writings, especially Trotsky. You're right about signing, though, sorry. Must get a handle.

Please be communists and anarchists on your own time. Trotsky is part of history, and not a historian, so quote him to demonstrate a point, but don't inject his writing into Wikipedia. Try to draw on verifiable, neutral sources for Wikipedia articles.  —Michael Z. 2006-09-19 01:47 Z

I didn't inject Trotsky's writing into the article; there are simply very few critical sources about Makhno and his anti-state. For what it's worth, Trotsky was an accomplished historian; his History of the Russian Revolution is an unparalleled work on the subject. Anyway, I counterpose that the anarchist side of this debate rests on the personal accounts of Makhnovist military leaders, namely Makhno himself. I agree that a general is a less reputable source than a historian, but once again I defend myself and my changes with the fact that the previous, completely pro-anarchist version of this article rested on Makhno's testimony and Makhnovist propaganda; and unlike the anarchists who wrote that original version, I clearly identified my additions as "leninist POV."

Black Army

This article says that Makhno's army was called the Black Army, however all Russians seem to connect Makhno with the Green Army, and the black more with figures such as Petlyura. Any idea about the confusion?Yarilo2 13:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The book Black Earth, Red Star: A History of Soviet Security Policy, 1917-1991, by R. Craig Nation, agrees with you, calling Makhno's army the "Green" army on page 27. Larry Dunn 20:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The book The White Generals: An Account of the White Movement and the Russian Civil War, by Richard Luckett also makes no mention of any "Black Army", and indeed refers (briefly) to the "Makhnovist movement" as being among the "Green armies". I can't cite a page as I've since sold the book, unfortunately. It appears to me that both scholarly sources as well as the Russians (Marxist-Leninist or otherwise) all seem to have referred to the anarchist army as a part of the broad swath of partisan rebellions known as the Green Armies. So far as I can tell - and I can't tell very far! - it is the Makhnovists themselves as well as sympathetic anarchists who referred to it as the Black Army, alone. Also, [1] cites Peter Arshinov's A History of the Makhnovist Movement (1918-1921), ca. 1974, in its' claim that "The RIAU was also called the Makhnovists (after Nestor Makhno), the insurgent army and the black army after it’s distinctive black flags (black being the color of anarchism)." Being that the referenced book was not published until 1974, (and Luckett's work itself having been published, according to Amazon.com and to my own memory, no earlier than 1971), I think that a fine temporary conclusion would be that the anarchist army was not widely known as "The Black Army" outside of, perhaps, anarchist circles. Zanturaeon 01:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Zanturaeon. Any ideas on how the article can be adjusted to reflect this discussion? Larry Dunn 14:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell there has never been a cohesive entity in the Russian Civil War that identified itself as the "green army." I think that "Green" was a catch all tag applied by Bolshevik historians and propagandists to various largely peasant insurgencies that rejected both the 'Reds' and the 'Whites.'

I've only ever seen "green" army as well. I think it should at least be reflected in the text, I've never heard "black" army anywhere.Dan Carkner 01:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Victor Serge refers to the 'Black Army' several times, in Memoirs of a Revolutionary and elsewhere.

Wnjr 12:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know the term 'green army' in the civil war referred to any nationalist army rather than a cohesive entity. Since the black army was a Ukrainian phenomenon this may explain it being referred to as green, despite the fact that it was not nationalist. In conclusion I would say that applying the green label to Makhno & company is misleading. Whether or not they were referred to as the black army 'on the ground' at the time I do not know, though I do not think it unlikely considering the use of black flags. This is all coming from my AS level (UK college qualification) history so I doubt I got this impression from a source with notable bias, though I cannot quote a specific source for this. 82.32.13.127 19:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Bias

So, there's been a neutrality tag on this article for months, but not really a discussion here about the issues of concern. If somebody has issues, they should bring them up here instead of tagging and running. Murderbike (talk) 07:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

RIAU

Have the following deleated:

which eventually were united into the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine (RIAU), .....

.

Makhno was not nationalistic (see the quotation in the article). Hence any ethnicaly-colored adjectives are not valid (Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine included)

sk 09:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't just change the name of a historical organization (or pretend it didn't exist) because you feel it should have been named differently! Ahuitzotl (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Donetsk Basin

Have deleted:

eastern Ukraine included the largest coal and iron mines in the former Russian Empire and was relatively industrialized.

Reason: Machno has no major influence in Yusovka arrea. sk 09:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits by Mzajac

User:Mzajac has included a "Atrocity" section by using a source "Magocsi 1996". He should give full name of the reference. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Look in Nestor Makhno#References. —Michael Z. 2008-05-03 17:56 z

Well, do you have some more reliable sources supporting these claims? Although the book is scholarly reference, Paul Robert Magocsi is not an authority in the field of anarchism. He has written several book on Ukrainian history, not about anarchism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry I only had a respected U of T historian supporting this, and not some anarchist books from the 1920s. I've added a few more. If you have specific evidence that Magocsi is unreliable, then please cite it here. Otherwise, we footnote historians, we don't accuse them of "alleging" things (unless perhaps we are a bit too emotionally invested in a subject).

Magocsi characterizes Makhno's tenure as "military ravages", and points out that the Makhnovists' destructive attacks on Germans and Mennonites were partly responsible for a huge depopulation. He also includes an extended quotation which helps show what happened to the Mennonites.

Regarding pogroms against Jews: "Whether the pogroms and excesses were carried out by White Russian armies, by forces loyal to the Bolshevkis or to the Ukrainian National Republic, or by uncontrolled marauding bands and self-styled military chieftains (like Hryhoriïv and Makhno), the Director of the Ukrainian National Republic and particularly its leader, Symon Petliura have been blamed in most subsequent Jewish writings." (Magocsi 506–7)

Magocsi is acknowledging that Makhno has been accused, and it may never be possible to prove the specific guilt or innocence of him or his forces. Indeed, could Makhno himself have controlled or been aware of every act committed by a huge volunteer army of varying composition, conducting so-called expropriations ("ravages") throughout Katerynoslav? To ignore this accusation, which so many people take it very seriously, would be naïve or revisionist. I'm sorry I don't have more conclusive information about this, but most of what I can see on the net about this question is strongly partisan for or against Makhno—but the Wikipedia article shouldn't be. —Michael Z. 2008-05-04 07:32 z

It is Magocsi's view to charcaterize Makhno's tenure as "military ravages". It is not mainstrem view. Noam Chomsky describe George W. Bush as "terrorist", this is Chomsky's view, not mainstream view. What Magocsi tells it it his personal view, not mainstream view. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, he is a mainstream historian (while Chomsky in your example is considered somewhat fringe). Can you cite some others who have a contradictory view? Is it just the one statement you have a problem with? —Michael Z. 2008-05-04 15:05 z

"Chomsky in your example is considered somewhat fringe" it is your personal opinion. You need other views? Emma Goldman, Libcom, Richard Stites, Mikhail Khvostov, Andrei Karachtchouk, Hiroaki Kuromiya, David Porter - any more? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Magocsi as reference

I have added a POV tag in the "Makhno's peasant army" section because:

• Magocsi's view on Makhno is not mainstream view. Magocsi fails to adress that Makhno was a revolutionary anarcho-communist. I have more authoritative sources like Emma Goldman describing Makhno as "great revolutionary". Which is more authoritative? Emma Goldman or Magocsi? Not only Emma Goldman, in fact majority of the sources available describe Makhno as revolutionary anarcho-communist.
• Yekelchyk tells Ukraine during the revolution was a "sea of anarchy, divided up and controlled by local peasant chieftains, the so-called otamany". He does not understand what is meant by "anarchy".

Since this section rely upon the view of Magocsi and Yekelchyk, as opposed to the mainstream view, I am adding POV and Unbalanced tag in the section. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to dispute your rationale.

1. Emma Goldman was an anarchist political activist, active before 1940. Not a historian. Not mainstream. Not current. One might consider her opinion POV. Certainly not authoritative in the context of writing the free encyclopedia.
2. Do you have a source supporting your view about Yekelchyk, or is this your own opinion?

Magocsi and Subtelny are published by the University of Toronto, Yekelchyk by Oxford University. They are as mainstream as you can get on the subject of Ukrainian history. If you can add some more reliable sources (not early-20th-c anarchists) then we can adjust the text accordingly. Currently, I don't see any substance to your explanation. —Michael Z. 2008-05-04 15:19 z

Yes yes I have. Paul Avrich, a noted historian. The Oxford Illustrated History of Modern War published by Oxford University Press. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I welcome contributions from those sources which can improve the article. What do they say which contradicting this section?

Regarding mainstream views: both Subtelny and Magocsi are cited in Yekelchyk, and they are both referred to as the "standard surveys" by Anna Reid in Borderland and "standard histories of Ukraine" by Andrew Wilson in The Ukrainians: Unexpected Nation.

What specifically are you disputing? Neither Magocsi nor the text in this section denies that Makhno was a revolutionary anarcho-communist. Yekelchyk uses anarchy to mean exactly what the dictionary says: "a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority." —Michael Z. 2008-05-04 16:26 z

Anarchy not necessarily is "disorder". See definition of anarchy at the article Anarchy. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it clearly does in this quotation.

This Avrich article is not bad: "Russian Anarchists and the Civil War", but it seems to concentrate on Makhno's military actions and doesn't address the "expropriations", except for a mention of "attack the gentry". The description of Makhno's forces growing from "hitherto independent guerilla bands" and of their military methods help develop the picture, as well as:

"a 'partisan army' organized spontaneously by the revolutionary masses themselves."

"Makhno was a bold and resourceful commander who combined an iron will with a quick sense of humour and won the love and devotion of his peasant followers"

 —Michael Z. 2008-05-04 16:46 z

Long quotation misinterpreted

At this time the agents of Tsentralna Rada [Ukrainian nationalistic government] roamed around the region harassing everybody who was not Ukrainian enough in their view....

The idea (of nationalism) was repulsive to peasants. They usually took these agitators from the podium and beat them up as the enemies of brotherly union of Russian and Ukrainian people.

This mean propaganda of Ukrainian nationalism raised the working population of the region to the fight against any form of separate Ukrainianism because the latter was seen as a death threat to the revolutionary cause.

This appears to be the source of this translation:

Оставаться нейтральным и к тем и другим тем более было невозможно, потому что население района было определенно враждебно настроено против политики Украинской Центральной рады, агенты которой, разъезжая по району, травили всякого и каждого революционера, называя его «предателем неньки Украины» и защитником «кацапiв», которых по «идее» Центральной Украинской рады (по выражению ее агентов), конечно, нужно было убивать, «як гобытилi в мови».

Такая идея оскорбляла крестьян. Они стягивали с трибуны проповедников и били как врагов братского единения украинского народа с русским.

Вот эта-то злопамятная проповедь шовинистов-украинцев толкнула трудовое население Гуляйпольского района на путь вооруженной борьбы со всякой формой обособленного украинства, ибо население видело в этом шовинизме, который фактически являлся руководящей идеей украинства, смерть для революции. [2]

The translation is inaccurate and incomplete. In this case "the idea" refers to the specific chauvinist comments attributed to the Rada's agents, not to the abstract idea of "nationalism". It is specifically this chauvinism which was seen by the people as death to the revolution (which the author considers to be the basis of Ukrainianism).

I'm removing this from the article until someone can provide a more literal translation, suitable to be presented as a direct quotation. —Michael Z. 2008-05-08 21:35 z

Mzajac misrepresentation

The POV-pushing edits by the above user are inappropriate for the following reasons:

• He changed the lead of the article with sentences

“ He supported the Bolsheviks, the Ukrainian Directory, the Bolsheviks again, and then turned to organizing the Free Territory of Ukraine. ”

Makhno supported the Bolsheviks, it is true, but it was not part of his ideology. It was only part of a tactic in a special situation where he supported the Bolsheviks to counter the White army. It was a special military tactic. But it was not part of his ideology. Hence mentioning this in the lead sounds like support for Bolshevism was part of his ideology and misleading. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yekelchyk 2007, p 80, regarding the "local peasant chieftains, the so-called otamany. Some of them led peasant armies of many thousands and could influence national politics. Among the most famous were otaman Matvii Hryhoriiv, . . . and Nestor Makhno, a peasant anarchist, who concentrated his 40,000-strong army in the southern steppes, supporting in turn the Bolsheviks, the Directory, the Bolsheviks again, and finally, the idea of a peasant anarchist republic."

This speaks to the importance of Makhno during the Civil War. It undeniably describes his military and political actions, without removing the mention of his politics and character. The article can expand on this in detail, including his motivations and ideology, with support from reliable sources.

I also mention his background as a peasant, and add a word of context for who Emma Goldman was. Trying to make it more of a balanced history, and sound less like a tribute, by including more than one POV. —Michael Z. 2008-05-09 06:23 z

We do not need to mention what was Makhno's strategy in the civil war. For this, there are other sections The Makhnovshchina. The lead section is for describing who Makhno was, not to describe the detail of his tactics. What is needed to mention in the lead is Makhno's identity, what he did or for what reason he is famous, what motivated him to become involved in revolutionary politics or his political viewpoint. And all these are mentioned in the lead. Should you mention that Stalin supported Hitler at the beginning of the Second World War in the starting paragraph. You can add in the lead of the Stalin article that "Stalin was a Russian communist who supported the Nazis and then turned against them". Will it be encyclopedic? Is it the identity of Stalin? No. What the reference is saying is supported by other references also but this reference does not explain why Makhno did this or what was the reason for his support for the Bolsheviks. Only mentioning a simple sentence without giving the explanation is misleading. This needs detailed explanation for which there is the section The Makhnovshchina. In the lead we need to mention the identity of Makhno and for what he is credited. The identity of Emma Goldman is unnecessary to mention because she is very much famous. You do not need to mention the identity of George H. W. Bush as "According to anti-communist and capitalist George H. W. Bush..." when you use him as reference in communism/communist country related articles. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

We need to mention Makhno's major influential actions, just as the intro to Stalin says that he consolidated power, launched a command economy, conducted purges, and fought Nazi Germany.

Emma Goldman is not as famous as George Bush, and when he is mentioned the first time in another article, I would write "U.S. President George W. Bush." —Michael Z. 2008-05-09 06:53 z

Why the hell don't you want to mention that Emma Goldman was an anarchist activist? —Michael Z. 2008-05-09 06:55 z

Oh yes yes, Emma Goldman is as much famous. And yes we need to mention Makhno's major influential actions, but not in a way that is misleading. Will you start the article George W. Bush that "George W. Bush is the president of the United States during who's rule human rights abuses were reported in Iraq like the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse"? No, it will be misleading. Do not present facts in a misleading way only because it serves your POV and political agenda. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I never heard of Emma Goldman before editing this article. Neither have most Wikipedia readers. Saying she is as famous as George Bush is either hyperbolic or naïve. Her name needs at least a word or two of identification. All the more so because she praises him, and was an anarchist colleague of his, and not a neutral source, so her POV also needs to be identified. If you won't concede the point, let's get a third opinion.

There is nothing misleading about this. Yekelchyk wrote a book on Ukrainian history, mentioning about Makhno only what I quoted above. The fact is that he was militarily significant, he led his forces for several causes, and changed allegiances several times. —Michael Z. 2008-05-09 07:09 z

If you have not heard about Emma Goldman, this is your personal matter. Well I agree that Emma Goldman is less known than George W. Bush because all philosophers are less known than state leaders or politicians or celebrities. This is because there are very few people who can understand the writing of the philosophers, general people are more inclined in watching films. But Emma Goldman is one of the most influential philosopher in the twentieth century. If you use Ludwig von Mises as a reference, you do not need to mention that "According to capitalist Ludwig von Mises...". Emma Goldman is equally notable as Ludwig von Mises is. You need to provide some reliable sources to prove that Emma Goldman is not well-known. If you use Human Action in any communism related article, you do not need to mention that "According to pro-capitalist book Human Action...".

And yes there is misleading about this. No one is denying Yekelchyk wrote a book, but if you mention the fact that he changed alliance you need to explain the reason, otherwise it is misleading. The lead is for describing for why Makhno was famous, not a simple sentence that he changed alliance without any explanation. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Like it or not, Makhno is famous because he led a huge peasant army which changed sides several times. Yekelchyk mentioned the fact that he changed alliances, without explaining the reason.

The Emma Goldman question is much simpler. —Michael Z. 2008-05-09 07:35 z

Like it or not, Makhno is famous because he led a revolutionary anarcho-communist movement. Majority of the sources mention this fact including The Oxford Illustrated History of Modern War. You have not answered to the original questions. Why your rewrite is misleading is very simple. And the Emma Goldman question, that there is no need to mention her identity, is also very simple. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You said yourself that most people are not very familiar with philosophers. Anyone mentioned in an article should be identified, all the more so such a person. Furthermore, as a person who took part in the revolution in Ukraine as an ally of Makhno, she is a primary source sharing the POV of the subject of the article: it's important to identify her as such, if such a subjective quotation from her is to be allowed in the article at all.

See Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, and Wikipedia:Attribution#Primary and secondary sources. —Michael Z. 2008-05-10 18:26 z

(outdent) (from Wikipedia:Third opinion) A good portion of this discussion seems to touch on the issues dealt with in the undue weight policy. Specifically, what verifiable information should be discussed at what length and in what order. That is, if you will pardon the pun, a weighty issue. I may offer an opinion on that as well after reading a few sources, as Makhno was hitherto unknown to me (history is not my strong suit, sorry).

As for the specific issue of providing a brief introduction before giving Goldman's opinion: I would say that a few descriptive words would not detract from presenting the main subject of the article. Clearly "Emma Goldman, a late 19th to early 20th century Lithuanian-American anarchist and feminist whose political consciousness was shaped by the Haymarket riot, ..." would be excessive and superfluous. Given, however, that their historical interactions were limited in scope, it is not unreasonable stylistically to provide a cue both to help identify her (there are surely other Emma Goldmans in the world) and indicate why we should care about her opinion on this issue. Where the present context does not make it otherwise obvious, I would warrant that readability is enhanced through a small number of adjectives on the first mention of a person - the text does not need to be maximally information-dense. Consider it akin to a host briefly introducing a guest speaker before the main speech.

Consider, for example, the article on Pierre Curie. The second paragraph opens with mention of his shared Nobel Prize. Becquerel is given no additional introduction since as a co-awardee his entire relevance is the subject of the sentence. Marie Curie, on the other hand, is additionally identified as his wife; this secondary information is not the subject of the sentence, but adds to its expository value by providing additional context. There is no indication that the authors expect the readers to be unaware of a famous physicist, only that they expect them to find the additional information topical and useful.

As I indicated above, I have no opinion at present as to whether it is appropriate to include Goldman's documented opinion in the lead or elsewhere. If she is cited, however, an adjective or two indicating the relevance of her opinion may be included. This introduction should not interrupt the flow of the sentence and must neither unduly deride nor extol her. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 22:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Civility

Don't call me a "religious propagandist".[3] You are far off of the mark, but don't resort to any name-calling in your edit summaries. —Michael Z. 2008-05-09 08:28 z

Are you volunteering to the title? I have not named anyone. So it is not "name-calling". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Throwing "this article is under constant attack from religious propagandists"[4] into your discussion with me is uncivil. The guideline defines this clearly: "insults and name calling. Comment on the actions and not the editor". You are calling names, and then using a snide comment to deny responsibility for your own words. I suggest you stick to discussing the topic, and avoid characterizations of other editors altogether. —Michael Z. 2008-05-10 18:14 z

Missing dates and places

There is a need to add dates and place names to some of the events described in the article, especially for the section "A White and Red counter-strike". —Michael Z. 2008-05-10 00:07 z

References format

Repeating full citations is redundant, and the extended cite templates clutter the wikitext. The notes should be kept short, to avoid the "disruptive effect" as recommended in Wikipedia:Citing sources#Clearer editing with shortened notes, and citations belong in a separate references section. —Michael Z. 2008-05-10 18:36 z

Accusations of raping

This whole paragraph reeks of favortism for N. Makhno... Don't know if it is justified or not, but it clear is a most unneutral paragraph. V. Joe (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

My Mother-in-law, who was born in Odessa, described meeting Nestor Makhno when she was only seven years old. She remembered three things about him: his white horse, his long, black boots and his revolver. Makhno was looking for gold that might be hidden. After being told that there was no gold to be found, he raped and murdered my children's great grandmother. My mother-in-law described the blood running down her mother's long hair when she was standing in the kitchen. Makhno then shot her in the front yard of their house in front of the whole family. There was no gold and the family wss certainly not rich. This atrocity was committed by Nestor Makhno personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.239.244 (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

the preceeding comment has zero credibility

The precceding unsigned comment has not more credibility than my comment would if I claimed that the Makhnovists were extraterrestrials and that they did their fighting from flying saucers.

Miasnikov (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC) miasnikov

"Between 1918 and 1921, in the anarchist Ukraine, one of the greatest victories of the anti-hierarchical struggle inside the man class took place. Nestor Makhno - who was nicknamed 'Batko', that is, 'Father' - made some elegant speeches during the insurrection: (...) But when Makhno spoke of the emancipation of humanity, that did not prevent him, in his everyday behaviour, from restricting membership of humanity. Voline, who took part in Makhno's insurrectionary campaign, writes: 'The second shortcoming of Makhno and many of his close associates - commanders and others - was their attitude towards women. Especially when inebriated, these men indulged in inadmissible acts - hateful would be more exact - going so far as to force certain women to participate in orgies.' Women then were so little a part of the 'humanity' of the Ukraine libertarians that Voline considered raping them a mere 'shortcoming', and a secondary one at that, less serious than Makhno's 'great fault' which he considered to be 'alcohol abuse'." (Emmanuel Reynaud, "Holy Virility", Pluto 1983.) Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I Assume He Wasn't Married to His Sister?

I have never editted on here before and have no idea how to change this, but the wording of the sentence under the 'Exile' section make it sound as if he was married to his daughter: 'Makhno's widow and daughter, Yelena, were deported to Germany for forced labor at the end of the WW2.' Now, if he was married to his daughter, my apologies. Otherwise, I would argue that this sentence should read: 'Makhno's widow, along with his daughter Yelena, were deported to Germany...' (Joshstride (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC))  Completed 24.143.11.227 (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Mennonite Massacre Apologetics

While i understand this article is mostly done by anarchists for anarchists i think the apologetic tone for mennonite massacres is repulsive. this passage should contain data on the massacres not arguments to massacre a perfectly pacifist ethnic group.79.216.241.50 (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with this. Even from the subtitle: Allegations of Atrocity. 'Alleged' at no point does the sub-article try to refute the occurrence of the atrocities, so why is it considered 'alleged.'

Rather the article goes on and on about the justifications for the acts, without really describing the acts. But the implication of the sub-article is that the acts happened (hence the justification). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.204.220 (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

"Marxist Dogma" & Neutrality

While I understand that a good portion of the Anarchist community holds Marxism in contempt, I have to say labeling the concept of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat as a Marxist Dogma isn't particularly subtle or neutral. I've editted it accordingly. Anatoly-Rex (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Image of money or stamps

There is an image currently used in the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ukraine_rizn012.jpg The caption in the article read "Money of the Revolutionary Insurgent Army of Ukraine with a portrait of Makhno" which seems to be a translation of the caption on the Russian-language Wikipedia article. However, the info on the image in the commons says that it is "Post stamps of Ukraine" and it certainly does look more like stamps than money. See also this discussion about Makhno and money, which includes a quote from Malet's book on Makhno: http://libcom.org/forums/history-culture/query-russian-speakers-02102009 . Given this, and lack of reference for what the original source of the image is, or who actually issued the stamps or money, I'm going to remove it.--Larrybob (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

FA

Two years after the last comment and still no sign of it becoming GA or FA? Wondering what's wrong?--Mishae (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Non-neutral (anarchist) sources

The sources in many sections are exclusively or almost exclusively anarchist authors, often even companions-in-arms of Makhno himself. For example, the debunking of charges of anti-Semitic actions, mistreatment of women and drunkenness is sourced only to anarchist publications; in the case of women and drunkenness, the accusation is even raised by an anarchist publication and then even more anarchist publications are cited to disprove it. I'm not saying any of these accusations are correct - I don't know enough about the issue to have a definite opinion - but what's certain is that this kind of sourcing is very far from meeting normal Wikipedian standards as per WP:V and WP:NPOV. Surely assessments by neutral sources, or, in the absence of such, at least by additional sources unaffiliated with anarchism, would be appropriate; and the sources affiliated with anarchism should be explicitly marked as such. I can't exclude the possibility that the most detailed research on Makhno was in fact done by anarchists, but the topic must have been addressed by others, too.--95.42.201.224 (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Religion in the infobox

There have been several RfCs on religion in the infobox:

• 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

This RfC had a clear consensus for removing the religion parameter from the infobox for individuals (living, deceased, and fictional), groups, schools, institutions, and political parties that have no religion, but that RfC was determined by the closing administrator to not apply to nations.

• 17 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations.

This RfC had a clear consensus for removing the religion parameter for countries, nations, states, regions, etc., all of which were determined to not have religions.

• 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

This RfC was a response to certain individuals insisting that the previous RfCs did not apply to their favorite pages (schools, political parties, sports teams, computer operating systems, organized crime gangs...) and had a clear consensus that in all all infoboxes in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the "Religion=" parameter of the infobox.

• 11 April 2016 RfC: RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes.

In this RfC, there was a clear consensus to remove the "religion=" and "denomination=" parameters from all infoboxes, not just the ones that call atheism/agnosticism a religion.

There have been four RfCs on this, and all four showed the same overwhelming consensus. All of the RfCs also concluded that you are free to put a section about religion in the body of the article, subject of course to our usual rules such as WP:V, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nestor Makhno. 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/20120917155008/http://rus-history.com/kino.html to http://rus-history.com/kino.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 03:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nestor Makhno. 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/20051118120011/http://old.mbconf.ca/old/historian/98-06/feature-2.html to http://old.mbconf.ca/old/historian/98-06/feature-2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080602015840/http://recollectionbooks.com/bleed/Encyclopedia/Makhno/MakhnoFromBleed.htm to http://recollectionbooks.com/bleed/Encyclopedia/Makhno/MakhnoFromBleed.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://bokov.net.ua/index.php?pages=1&act=3&id=12750

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 07:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Eichenfeld-Massacre

i am searching informations about N.M involvement in this massacre Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

It is already covered in the article.--Galassi (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it is not covered all the matters. What about the rapes of the women during this massacre? Can we write it, or its not significant? If we can tell me to add at least 3 sources. If we can't i will understand.

1: On the night of Saturday, November 8 [N.S], 1919 a squadron of Makhnovist cavalry surrounded the Mennonite village of Eichenfeld.6 The village was blocked off at either end and a massacre ensued. By the time the riders left, 75 Mennonites lay dead, numerous women raped, houses burned to the ground and cartloads of personal belongings stolen. Over ensuing days the death toll rose to 136 in the surrounding area. On Tuesday the survivors, who had fled for safety, returned to Eichenfeld to bury their loved ones en masse in a series of twelve unmarked graves.7

Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Rapes of the anarchist army (in english)

Bibliography:

1. The Makhnos of Memory: Mennonite and Makhnovist Narratives of the Civil War in Ukraine, 1917-1921 by Sean David Patterson
2. Rempel, David G.; Carlson, Cornelia Rempel (2003). A Mennonite Family in Tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union
3. Historian Mennonite A PUBLICATION OF THE MENNONITE HERITAGE CENTRE and THE CENTRE FOR MB STUDIES IN CANADA, Eichenfeld Massacre Revisited by Sean Patterson
4. Playground of Violence: Mennonites and Makhnovites in the

Time of War and Revolution Mikhail Akulov The Kazakh-British Technical University, Almaty, Kazakhstan.

I seek more bibliography in any other language (Russian/Ukrainian etc).

Can we add one sentence about the rapes of the anarchists? Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 06:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

All armies commit rapes. It has to be encyclopedically notable. A good example is rapes by the Soviet army in Germany in 1945, extensively documented on a scholarly level.

Mennonite mythology is not very reliable.--Galassi (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

No, not all the armies do rapes. Some of them don't. For example Greek People's Liberation Army didn't rape (of cource in general terms). In contrast Ukranian Anarchists gang-raped women. It's no mythology. I am not a holocaust denier not a Soviet apologist. For sure Soviets did a lots of rapes (probably 90%) of several millions of German women. 10% (or less) rapes were commited from English & USA soldiers. I hope that you are not an anarchist apologist too, and not trying to delete the truth. (Sorry, about the out of topic.)

I will continue on topic: ANARCHISTS RAPING, and the DENIAL of TRUTH, 100 years after.

1. Volin: The second fault of Makhno and of many of his intimates -- both commanders and others -- was their behaviour towards women. Especially when drunk, these men let themselves indulge in shameful and even odious activities, going as far as orgies in which certain women were forced to participate. It goes without saying that these acts of debauchery produced a demoralising effect on those who knew about them, and Makhno's good name suffered from this.

2. THE FATE OF MENNONIT ES IN UKRAINE AND THE CRIMEA DURING SOVIET COLLECTIVIZATION AND THE FAMINE (1930-1933) COLIN PETER NEUFELDT: malaria, cholera. and typhus, Makhno's troops infected the Mennonite women that they raped and the Mennonite families from whorn they demanded food and lodging.

3. An uptodate master thesis: The Makhnos of Memory: Mennonite and Makhnovist Narratives of the Civil War in Ukraine, 1917-1921 by Sean David Patterson. It discusses a lot about the anarchist rapes In hand with reports of murder and torture were the reports of rape. The rape of Mennonite women in particularly is stated as a motivating factor for joining the Selbstschutz. Indeed, Makhnovist raids became synonymous with rape. By 1920 some 100 women and girls were being treated for syphilis in Chortitza alone.66 Apologists for the Makhnovists may suggest that a whole host of armies equally guilty of horrendous atrocities were present at various times in the colonies, but for the women who suffered the attacks there is no doubt as to their rapists’ identity. Furthermore, the accounts given all correspond with the known periods of Makhnovist occupation.67

4. Rempel, David G.; Carlson, Cornelia Rempel (2003). A Mennonite Family in Tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union

How, they wondered, could God have permitted the murder of so many innocent people, the rape of defenceless women, and the commission of so many other acts of unconscionable brutality?

5. Playground of Violence: Mennonites and Makhnovites in the Time of War and Revolution Mikhail Akulov The Kazakh-British Technical University, Almaty, Kazakhstan What ensued, however, was the reign of semi-indiscriminate terror. Extensive is the dolorous panoply of the Makhnovite murder scenes: Eichenfeld, where more than 80 colonists were shot, Orlovo with 44 victims, Hochfeld with 19, etc. (Venger, 2011, p. 10). 22 To those executed must be added the uncounted victims of rape theft, physical and moral abuse. Typhus brought into colonies by the infected Makhnovite armies further decimated the villagers, cementing the Mennonite impression of facing the Satan himself and giving rise to the narrative of martyrdom (Patterson, 2013, p. 25).

If you want i can bring a little more. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Nestor Makhno, but it is not about his army. Read up on WP:COATRACK.--Galassi (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

It may be acceptable in the Free Territory article.~~----

I deleted the sections about his army. I think we must add them in Free Territory article. But ...wait a minute, he was a leader of the army that raped every women in the area. We can't write it in one very small sentence? Why? It is wasn't his fault? But historian view is Makhno's troops infected the Mennonite women that they raped and the Mennonite families from whorn they demanded food and lodging. It was his army of rapists. I think that we can write it. Except you deny the facts...Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:ILIKEIT. And WP:POV--Galassi (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Try to add that to the Free Territory, presumably in WP:GOODFAITH.--00:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

He was leader of army who did gang rapes. Why not to write it here in a very simple sentence according to up-to-date historians/professors of Universities? Tell me one reason. Historians wrote about Makhno's troops. So you are proposing to leave fringe theories of Skorda Voline, one of his biggest supporters who was active for several months in the movement, reports that Makhno and his associates engaged in sexual mistreatment of women: "Makhno and of many of his intimates – both commanders and others... let themselves indulge in shameful and even odious activities, going as far as orgies in which certain women were forced to participate."[39] However, Voline's allegations against Makhno in regards to sexual violations of women has been disputed by some on the grounds that the allegations are unsubstantiated, do not stand up to eyewitness accounts of the punishment meted out to rapists by the Makhnovists, and were originally made by Voline in his book The Unknown Revolution which was first published in 1947, long after Makhno's death and following a bitter falling-out between Makhno and Voline.[40](!!!!!!) This is a tottaly LIE of a single anarchist supporter. Historians proved that he was leader of anarchists rapists. So your is to delete historians, and leave only apologists of Makhno? Ok i am finished here, if another user don't say his opinion. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

fringe theories as the main theory

Historian Sean David Patterson in his master thesis wrote about the historian (?) Skirda: The Mennonites were privy to the darkest side of the Makhnovshchina and have faithfully recorded it in alls its horror. For this reason the Mennonite sources, commonly overlooked by today’s supporters of Makhno, are critical to understanding the Makhnovshchina. 12 However, Mennonite sources, like any other, are perspectival (footnote 12:) For example,Alexandre Skirda’s assesses the accusations of Makhnovist banditry as follows: “It is consequently noticeable that none of the charges of banditry aired by this one or that, stands up to a serious examination of the facts. In spite of all that, how are they to be explained? Perhaps in terms of the age-old fear that the rural bourgeoisie and squire-archy felt of the dark, nameless peasant mass, these ‘yokels’ whose wrathful vengeance they rightfully feared.” Skirda, Nestor Makhno, 337.

Obvious fringe theories that have first place in EN:WP! Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

This sounds like en:WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The real question is: Are there any RS (secondary of course) that deal with a certain extent with the "rapes" of the anarchists? I second Galassi's opinion. He is crystal clear. Cinadon36 (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes i provided 5 sources from historians. If you need more just ask for it :)

i am very sorry to ask you. But please tell me you are fact denier of the rapes of anarchist army? i feel that in 2019 holocaust deniers and katyn massacre deniers must have not place in Wikipedia. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

A)No, you didnt provide 5 sources from historians. Voline is not a historian. Other sources do not deal with Makhno. You need to provide 1 source from an author that deals with Makhno. Otherwise, we would be violating DUE weight (at least) B)Dont ask/comment personal beliefs. Stay on topic. Cinadon36 (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

A i provided 5 sources 3 are from historians. B I dont care about your personal beliefs but if you are a fact denier like holocaust deniers i wont participate in "conversation". So i ask again :do you deny the rapes of the anarchist army as 3 up-to-date historians suggesting?  Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

You are getting out of line. You have no right to question my beliefs or place such a shameful burden on my shoulders, morally stigmatizing me. Cinadon36 (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

i feel so sorry for that and i apologize. but i don't like to discuss with fact deniers. Katyn massacre deniers/holocaust deniers/ anarchist rapes deniers are very exhausting to discuss. So i dont find a reason for that. I saw that you wrote "rapes" and i feared that you denied the facts of anarchist rapes. But, for sure i was wrong and i sincerely apologize. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Or WP policy deniers I may add. Cinadon36 (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

please read Wikipedia:FRINGE/PS Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeap, I have. I am not going to chit-chat here. Please explain your position in details. Cinadon36 (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

A clear case of POV, ILIKEIT, and a number of other taboos.--Galassi (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

i am thinking that is a clear case of pure censorship of the other view. It is very sad that you not allow historians opinion and you only leave fact deniers amateur historians. But as you wish. You are 2 users i am one. So i cant fight with you. Maybe someday a user change this propaganda. I didn't want to insult anyone Just to write the truth 100 years after but i failed. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

It is not censorship, it is sticking with the WP rules and policies. It was discussed before. [5]. Cinadon36 (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Is Alexandre Skirda a historian?

I think he is just an anarchist amateur historian. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Certainly RS Cinadon36 (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree.--Galassi (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Does Skirda write history? Yes. Is Skirda trained as an academic historian? Absolutely not. He has written nothing that is peer-reviewed by other academics. He has a good handle on the sources but is not a neutral source.--Kairos1919 (talk) 06:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

alcohol

1. Marshall, Peter H. (1993). Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. Fontana. ISBN 978-0-00-686245-1. pag. 475
2. page 216 The Russian Anarchists
3. James Joll His personal habits -- he was drinking heavily and his affairs with women were notorious -- and the inevitable compromises in which anarchist principles were sacrificed, worried some of his anarchist supporters from the Nabat group: 'While possessing many valuable revolutionary qualities,.The Anarchists (book)

3 prominent anarchists historians admitted that he was into alcohol. Is it possible to write something? Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Of course it is possible, WP is a free encyclopedia, anyone can edit. But oh, look! it is already there: "Makhno was also accused of alcoholism. Voline wrote that "[Makhno's] greatest fault was certainly the abuse of alcohol...Under [its influence], Makhno became irresponsible in his actions; he lost control of himself."[41] This charge by Voline, like the aforementioned accusations, was not made until years after Makhno's death. Alexandre Skirda notes that Bulgarian comrades who knew him throughout his life categorically deny this charge. Skirda further notes that he was unable to unearth any first-hand evidence of Makhno's alcoholism.[42]"Cinadon36 (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

IMHO this is not a neutral presentation. It isn't an accusation (like he was an antisemite, cause he wasn't), cause many historians say so. It isn't just volin opinion but also James joll, peter Marshall  and avlirch. If it is needed i can bring more.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

As for Marshall and Avrich, they do not discuss the issue to a certain extent, so they are really weak sources. Joll a)is half a century old and b)does not state that he was an alcoholic. Not all heavy drinkers are alcoholics.[6] Cinadon36 (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Same from here from an anarchist friendly historian Michael Malet Pages 100-101. if someone want to add all the opinions please ping me if needs some help.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

5th historian George Woodcock His debaucheries were on a Karamazovian scale; even his admirer Voline admitted them and added graver accusations: Under the influence of alcohol, Makhno became irresponsible in his actions; he lost control of himself. Then it was personal caprice, often supported by violence, that suddenly replaced his sense ofrevolutionary duty; it was the despotism, the absurd pranks, the dictatorial antics, of a warrior chief that were strangely substituted for the calm reflection, perspicacity, personal dignity, and self-control in his attitude to others and to the cause which a man like Makhno should never have abandoned.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Is section "Relations between the Makhnovists and Mennonite colonists" WP:UNDUE?

The section "Relations between the Makhnovists and Mennonite colonists" in the current version is 6,498‎ bytes. The text of the article is 33,480‎ bytes. (intro to the last section, excluding "see also" section, bibliography and whatever follows. That means 19,5% of article text is dedicated Makhno-Mennonite relation. This is in sharp contrast to bibliographies on Makhno. I haven't seen any biography of Makhno (RS) dedicating so much volume (one fifth) on Mennonites. We are zooming in way too much. Cinadon36 06:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

You should check the biography of Victor Peters, it is a little anti-anarchist but i guess it is ok to answer your question. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, if you don't like Victor Peters, you should check Alexandre Skirda, but he doesn't mention Mennonites but just German Settlers but i guess it's the same for me, i don't know if you have an objection about this. Please just inform me.

In this climate, a dramatic incident played a capital role in the movement's birth; this was the matter of reprisals taken by the Austro-Germans and the local squires {especially German settlers) against the township of Dibrivka. They put 608 khatas to the torch and beat, tortured and murdered the peasants, raping the women. All these actions left the peasants of the region thoroughly outraged. Makhno and his detachment acted as the executive arm of this thirst for vengeance, and they showed no pity this time in laying waste the homes of the squires.page 63 Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeap, why should we use Victor Peter's book, a book by an unknown editor published half a century ago, which by the way does not have any chapter dedicated on Mennonites and not Skidra's book which is much more mainstream and has much more citations (10 vs 31)? Anyway, neither of these two books deal with mennonites in such extent (1/5)...Cinadon36 10:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Please, read again what i wrote. I suggested to add both books. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

So, do you agree that the section is UNDUE? Cinadon36 12:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

No and i have already shared my opinion.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I think this section is UNDUE to an extent. Its length is unnecessary as compared to the other sections. I suggest trimming it down.Kairos1919 (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree.-Galassi (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

"Further reading

Due to reasons, I advise, that Wikipedia:Further reading requires titles listed in this section to be "high-quality reliable sources." and states that"Works named in this section should present a neutral view of the subject,". WP:Verfiability states that: "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in topics such as history, medicine, and science.". For some reasons, this and this keep getting edited into the list without any consideration of this beeing supposed to be a list of scientific literature on the topic. -- Liberaler Humanist (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Further reading is not a policy nor guideline, and nowhere does it say that it requires any of your claims. It does, however say;

Editors most frequently choose high-quality reliable sources. However, other sources may be appropriate, including: historically important publications

Going back to your examples, I'd undoubtedly consider Emma Goldman's work on the topic historically important enough to be included there. Not sure what your point is by quoting WP:Verfiability when we are talking about an independent work and not Wikipedia content based on it, but as WP:NPOV states, "biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view." Oqwert (talk) 10:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Expansion and restructuring

I'm currently undertaking the expansion of this article and something that has struck me is the lack of focus in the section titled "Makhnovists and formation of the anarchist Black Army". This part of the article is, for all intents and purposes, supposed to be a biography about Nestor Makhno himself, yet this section seems to be largely dedicated to an oddly-structured overview of the Makhnovist movement as a whole. I wonder if much of the content there wouldn't be a better fit for the articles on the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine or the Makhnovschina, as opposed to an article specifically about Makhno himself. Some parts, such as the "allegations of antisemitism" and "national issues" subsections, might also be better off moved to a different part of this article, as they are incredibly confusing in the mid-section of the biographical segment. Per the article structure used for Mikhail Bakunin and Vladimir Lenin, it may be worth creating sections titled "Criticism" and "Political ideology" respectively, although these would need more content than just the above-mentioned subsections specifically. If anyone else has thoughts on this, I'd love to hear them before I make any bold edits to the text. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I am now temporarily moving the above-mentioned sections of this article to the talk page, until we can figure out a better place for them, either within this article or elsewhere:

Extended content

Relations between the Makhnovists and Mennonite colonists As a revolutionary peasant leader Makhno has been called a "colourful personality" and his career "legendary". The German and Mennonite communities in Ukraine considered him to be an instigator of paramilitary banditry against innocent farmers, and an "inhuman monster whose path is literally drenched with blood." He is consistently referred to as a terrorist or bandit in Mennonite literature. At the age of 11 Makhno began working as an ox driver on a Mennonite estate. Here he began to develop a hatred for the ruling classes. In his memoirs he writes: "At this time I began to experience anger, envy and even hatred towards the landowner and especially towards his children – those young slackers who often strolled past me sleek and healthy, well-dressed, well-groomed and scented; while I was filthy, dressed in rags, barefoot, and reeked of manure from cleaning the calves' barn." Makhno also worked at the Mennonite owned Kroeger plant in Gulyai-Polye. Makhno and his troops raided many German and Mennonite colonies and estates in the Katerynoslav Oblast. The larger rural landholdings of Mennonites were prominent targets due to their wealth and proximity to Gulyai-Polye. The Schönfeld colony, located adjacent to the Huliaipole area, was unique in that it consisted predominantly of Mennonite estate settlements across an expansive area. File:Nestor Makhno.png Nestor Makhno during the start of the Russian civil war While their religious beliefs did not allow them to serve in the Tsar's army, many Mennonites had assisted the Russian war effort by performing national service in non-fighting roles, notably forestry and medical units. The Mennonites' Germanic background also served to inflame negative sentiment. Makhno's own brother, Emelian—a disabled war veteran—was murdered and his mother's house burned to the ground by the Germans. The Mennonites themselves, having been stripped of their wealth and property during the revolution, embraced the occupation which promised to re-establish them as landowners. Some Mennonites accompanied punitive detachments against the peasantry, which greatly contributed to the growing bitterness between Mennonites and Ukrainians. In October 1918, Austro-Hungarian forces and German colonists burned down the pro-Makhnovist village of Bolshe-Mikholaivka and murdered many of its inhabitants. Makhno responded with a sustained campaign of retribution against German/Mennonite colonies and estates. At the same time Makhno voiced his opposition to the indiscriminate slaughter of the colonists and established "ground rules" for occupying the colonies. Throughout 1918 a total of 96 Mennonites were killed in the Schönfeld-Brasol area. By the winter 1918–19 most residents of the Schönfeld colony had fled to the relative safety of the Molotschna colony. The Mennonites had been encouraged to form self-defence (Selbstschutz) units. Mennonite youth were trained and armed under the supervision of German officers. Breaking with nearly four centuries of pacifism, tacit approval of the Selbstschutz was given by the Mennonite leadership at the Lichtenau Conference [June 30- July 2, 1918]. Intended exclusively for the defence of the colony, with the arrival of General Denikin's White Volunteer Army the Selbstschutz was gradually drawn into offensive operations against Makhno. Later some Mennonites also formed ethnic battalions within the White Army. The Selbstschutz was initially successful in protecting their communities against Makhno's partisans but was overwhelmed once the anarchists aligned themselves with the Red Army, which had entered Ukraine in February 1919. The Mennonites of the Molotschna colony were under joint Makhnovist-Red occupation until the Whites broke through the southern front in May 1919. Following Makhno's devastating attack on Denikin's rearguard in September–October 1919, the Mennonite colonies found themselves once more under Makhnovist occupation. The year 1919 saw the greatest number of Mennonites killed – some 827 or 67% of all Mennonite civil war deaths. The great majority of these occurred between October and December. During this period major massacres occurred in Eichenfeld (Yazykovo), Blumenort (Molotschna), Steinfeld and Ebenfeld (Borozenko) and Münsterberg (Zagradovka) while under the administrative control of the Makhnovists. The Chortitza colony also suffered a great degree of death and robbery. According to the research of Peter Letkemann 3,336 Russian Mennonites, or three percent of their total population, died between 1914 and 1923. Ninety-six percent of these deaths occurred in Ukraine. National issues While the bulk of Makhno's forces consisted of ethnic Ukrainian peasants, he did not consider himself to be a Ukrainian nationalist, but rather an anarchist. His movement did put out a Ukrainian-language version of their newspaper and his wife Halyna Kuzmenko was a nationally conscious Ukrainian. In emigration, Makhno came to believe that anarchists would only have a future in Ukraine if they Ukrainianized and he stated that he regretted that he was writing his memoirs in Russian and not in Ukrainian. Makhno viewed the revolution as an opportunity for ordinary Ukrainians – particularly rural peasants – to rid themselves of the overweening power of the central state through self-governing and autonomous peasant committees, protected by a people's army dedicated to anarchist principles of self-rule.

If anyone has any ideas for where these can go, please mention here or boldly move them yourself. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I have now also rewritten the section using citations from Anarchy's Cossack and tagged it as such for one source. I will be adding more sources at a later date, but the section is now far more focused on Makhno himself than it was previously. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I just reincorporated the "allegations of antisemitism" into a new "Controversy" section, also featuring charges of banditry against Makhno. I tried to find more information about Makhno's personal connection to persecution against the Mennonites, but have found very little on that front. I was even surprised to see that Victor Peters, himself a German Mennonite historian, mostly spoke of Makhno having good relationship with individual Mennonites. Makhno was himself arrested in Danzig on charges of anti-Mennonite persecution, but I'm not sure that is enough to dedicate a whole section to. If anyone can enlighten me of further sources that detail Makhno himself being involved in persecution of Mennonites, I would happily work to incorporate that into the article. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

As part of the peer review process, it was pointed out to me that the above-mentioned "Controversy" section actually lends undue weight to these topics, so I have vastly cut down on it and incorporated relevant sections into other parts of the article. For posterity, I'm going to archive the previous version of the text here, in case it needs to be referred back to at any point:

Extended content

==Controversy== Due to his role as a military leader during the Ukrainian War of Independence, Nestor Makhno has become a figure of some controversy, with charges of antisemitism, banditry and militarism all being levelled against him. ===Allegations of antisemitism=== Like the White Army, the Ukrainian People's Army and Red Army, Makhno's Insurgent Army was also accused of conducting pogroms against Jews in Ukraine. While in exile, Makhno found himself personally being accused of antisemitism and took to actively defending himself from the charges. He responded by claiming that he had actually protected Ukrainian Jews from pogroms, admitting that there had been cases of insurgent violence against Jewish communities, which he blamed on "criminal elements" within their ranks. Makhno was also defended from accusations of antisemitism by a number of prominent Jewish anarchists, including Alexander Berkman, Emma Goldman, Sholem Schwarzbard, Senya Fleshin, Mollie Steimer and Voline. One former Nabat member, Isaac Teper, even commented that "Makhno was as far removed from nationalism as from the antisemitism ascribed to him by many". According to Peter Kenez, "[Makhno] was a self-educated man, committed to the teachings of Bakunin and Kropotkin, and he could not fairly be described as an anti-Semite." From as early as April 1918, following the outbreak of war, Makhno had expressed his worries about a rise in antisemitic violence. When he returned to Huliaipole to incite an insurrection, he cautioned against acts of violence against a local Jewish company, as he feared any antisemitism would "compromis[e] the region's revolutionary reputation". At one point, Makhno had even responded to reports of antisemitic violence by threatening to commit suicide. In July 1919, Makhno also oversaw the assassination of Nikifor Grigoriev, due in part to Grigoriev's leading role in a number of antisemitic pogroms. By the next month, Makhno was forced to discharge many of Grigoriev's former soldiers due to their unrepentant antisemitism. But Peter Kenez claimed that "the anarchist leader could not or did not impose discipline on his soldiers. In the name of 'class struggle' his troops with particular enthusiasm robbed Jews of whatever they had." The historian David Footman concurred that "[s]ome antisemitism, of course, persisted, but cases of ill-treatment or of incitement against Jews were on occasion severely punished." In one case, Makhno executed an insurgent commander who had conducted a raid on a Jewish town and shot another soldier just for displaying an anti-semitic poster. When a White provocation resulted in insurgents massacring a Jewish settlement, Makhno insisted on shooting those responsible, even against Bolshevik orders to first establish an inquiry, and then redistributed weapons and ammunition to other Jewish settlements for their protection. Makhno also resolved to establish specifically Jewish insurgent detachments, including both artillery and infantry units, which took part in the defense of Huliaipole against the White Cossacks. It was for this reason that Alexandre Skirda concluded: "[if] Makhno had any anti-Semitic tendencies, not one of these insurgents and anarchists of Jewish origin would have tolerated or countenanced them and would instantly have dissociated themselves from the movement." Although Leon Trotsky had himself described Makhno as displaying a "pugnacious antisemitism", allegations of Makhno's antisemitism were rebutted by a number of prominent Bolsheviks. Dmitry Lebed wrote of Makhno's "declar[ation of] war on antisemitism" and how Makhno had "stressed the unacceptable nature of antisemitism and combated signs of it through extreme repressive measures." Makhno's former commander Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko likewise defended him from the allegations, declaring that "[t]here was no basis for accusing Makhno of personally supporting antisemitic tendencies. Quite the contrary, he did all in his power to combat pogroms." The Soviet historian Mikhail Kubanin also affirmed that "Makhno was not personally antisemitic", himself detailing a rise of Ukrainian nationalism within the insurgent ranks, without noting any antisemitic tendencies. The Soviet dissident Pavel Litvinov even went so far in repudiating the allegations as to say Makhno "deserves to be held in high regard and have his memory honored by Jews." According to Michael Malet, "[m]ost of the allegations are of a very vague and general nature, and the authors concerned not very reliable." As far back as the 1920s, Jewish scholars have investigated reports of antisemitism in Ukraine, with one Berlin-based committee having found themselves unable to verify reports of Makhnovist pogroms, as they had successfully done with antisemitic violence carried out by the White and Red Armies. During his own investigation into the pogroms, the Jewish historian Elias Tcherikower noted that reports of anti-semitic violence by the Makhnovists had been negligible when compared to the other factions of the war. Tcherikower concluded his report by declaring: "Let us not speak of pogroms supposedly organized or encouraged by Makhno himself. That is calumny or error. Nothing of the sort occurred." The historian Paul Avrich followed up on this investigation by doing his own research in the archives of the Yiddish Scientific Institute, during which he found no indication of Makhno's involvement in any pogroms, discovering only one photograph among hundreds that was attributed to the Makhnovists. Likewise, Avrich declared of Makhno's alleged antisemitism that: "[c]harges of Jew-baiting and of anti-Jewish pogroms have come from every quarter, left, right, and center. Without exception, however, they are based on hearsay, rumor, or intentional slander, and remain undocumented and unproved." ===Charges of banditry=== The Makhnovist movement were charged with banditry by a number of sides during the conflict, most notably by the Bolsheviks. As early as Makhno's interview with Vladimir Lenin, the Bolshevik leader had justified the repression of the Russian anarchist movement by accusing them of "hiding well-known bandits". Makhno himself was given the label of "bandit president" by a number of prominent Bolshevik military leaders, such as Efim Shchadenko and Vitaly Primakov. During the breakdown of the Bolshevik-Makhnovist alliance in May 1919, Pavel Dybenko had been noted to have said of Makhno: "I've given one bandit a thrashing, one more won't be any problem". Leon Trotsky himself also affirmed his belief that "Makhno's anarchism was only kulak banditry in fancy dress", declaring his willingness to hand Ukraine over to the forces of Anton Denikin rather than allow the continuation of the Makhnovshchina. Before long, the Bolsheviks declared the fight against "the bandit Makhno" to be equally important as the fight against the White movement and the Ukrainian nationalists. The Bolsheviks were not alone in charging Makhno with banditry. A report by the Ukrainian People's Army described Makhno as "a regular bandit on horseback", while conceding that he was making efforts to "transform the gangs of bandits into more respectable units." Ukrainian nationalist charges of banditry became so widespread that even Halyna Kuzmenko, Makhno's future wife, was warned of the violent excesses committed by "a bandit by the name of Makhno", while she was travelling to Huliaipole to work as a teacher. The White movement also charged Makhno with banditry during its own campaign in Ukraine. During Makhno's conflict with the forces of Yakov Slashchov, the White Cossack commander described Makhno as a "typical bandit [...] who kowtowed to no power and fought them all in turns." When Makhno's assaults against the Whites in Ukraine forced a halt to the advance on Moscow, the Caucasian commander Pyotr Wrangel attempted to turn Denikin's attention back to the "bandit Makhno's insurgent movement which threatens our rear." It was for this reason that the Ukrainian anarchist Max Nomad came to describe Makhno as "the Bandit Who Saved Moscow". Nevertheless, Bolshevik charges of banditry continued throughout the war, culminating in a secret order on September 21, 1920, which ordered the "complete eradication of the banditry of the Makhnovshchina." This was followed up in December 1920, when Mikhail Frunze was given the task of "annihilating banditry" by the Ukrainian Soviet government, which intensified the attacks against the Makhnovists. When Makhno fled into Romania, the Bolsheviks cited these charges of banditry against him, in an attempt to demand his extradition back to Ukraine. But the Romanian government understood the label of "bandit" to be a designation for a political opponent of the Bolsheviks, refusing the extradition demands, while also affirming that "it is beyond doubt that if the bandit Makhno and his accomplices were to be tried in a Bessarabian court they would be condemned to death." After the war had come to an end, the Bolshevik politician Dmitry Lebed noted that Makhno had actually shot his own insurgents for looting, as he had forbidden the seizure of goods from the peasantry and "issued reminders that the insurgents had to be friendly and considerate towards the local population." The Soviet historian Mikhail Kubanin also noted that Makhno had taken measures to prevent looting and banditry, describing one case during the Makhnovist occupation of Katerynoslav, during which Makhno had executed a number of looters on the spot. References

Grnrchst (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Makhno in Huliaipole Museum.jpg (discussion)
• Пам'ятник Нестору Махно в Гуляйполі.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Dybenko & Makhno.jpg (discussion)
• Nestor Makhno au centre avec Fedir Shchus à droite, 1919. bis.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Nestor Makhno.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Durruti-militia retouched small.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Bank expropriation

Makhno also oversaw the release of still imprisoned workers and peasants, defended Huliaipole successfully against a Don Cossack raid, and expropriated 250,000 rubles from a bank to fund the activities of the local soviet.

Sources

Moving this to the talk page from the peer review. The question is how to contextualize the size/importance of "250,000 rubles" for today's audience, or to remove it, if easier. If inflation was wild during the revolutionary period, it might not be useful to "convert" into another currency, but I'm hoping there would be a way to footnote the relative value, such as what rubles were able to buy in that time period or how how annual income (officer or peasant) worked. A few leads:

the type of info that would be helpful to have in our Imperial ruble article

Note that some of these sources are unreliable, but added here to give a sense of what to look for During World War I, Tsarist Russia’s economy was wracked by hyperinflation caused, in part, by excessive currency printing. As the war bled into the Russian Revolution and then into civil war, the Bolsheviks deliberately brought on the ruble’s collapse by printing even more money. They did so to try to annihilate the bourgeoisie’s power and bring the country one step closer to the utopian money-free economy promised by Karl Marx. Bank notes became so large, and so useless, that the million-ruble notes were sometimes called “lemons” (limony, a play on miliony). This caused everyday hardships for the very workers whose lives the socialist revolution was supposed to improve, who often responded by walking off the job. The Bolsheviks quickly realized this was an unsustainable strategy and reversed course. They launched a currency reform that introduced a new ruble for domestic use and a gold-backed currency, the chervonets, for foreign trade. By the end of the currency reform, the 1924 ruble was worth 1/5,000,000 of a 1922 ruble. This helped to stabilize the money economy and workers’ wages and living standards. — Ironside, Kristy (February 28, 2022). "The ruble has plummeted. It's not the first time". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. At that time [1898?] it might take 2-3 months for an average working man to earn 100 rubles. A teacher’s salary, depending on his qualification, ranged from 100 to 500 rubles a year. The last imperial coin ruble was made in 1915, and resurfaced again in the form of new banknotes issued by the Provisional Government in 1917. ... By 1917 paper banknotes replaced coins, but even they were constantly devalued. In the early 1920s the amount of unsecured paper banknotes on the market was so high that it was more rational to burn them rather than buy wood. The Provisional Government started to issue 20- and 40-ruble banknotes that looked like stamps and were not valued by the pubic that liked to called them “kerenki” in ‘honor’ of Alexander Kerensky, the chairman of the Provisional Government. These were supplied on uncut sheets without perforation and initially were planned to be a temporary means of payment. But even after the fall of the Kerensky government in October 1917 they remained in use up until 1922. — Zubacheva, Ksenia (May 29, 2018). "How the ruble outlived its competitors and became Russia's currency". Russia Beyond. Retrieved June 7, 2022. After the 1917 Bolshevik revolution, the ruble lost one third of its value, and in the following years while the country was gripped by civil war, the ruble dropped from 31 against the dollar to nearly 1,400. The ruble hit its historic low of 2.4 million per USD after the civil war and the year the revolution’s leader Vladimir Lenin died. It was re-denominated to 2.22. — "The Russian ruble's tumultuous history". RT. January 6, 2015. Retrieved June 7, 2022. Egorova, Kira; Zubacheva, Ksenia (May 14, 2020). "The ruble's journey through time, from the Middle Ages to the present day". Russia Beyond. Retrieved June 7, 2022. A quiz citing no sources: Sinelschikova, Yekaterina (February 23, 2018). "QUIZ: What was the cost of living in Russia before the Revolution?". Russia Beyond. Retrieved June 7, 2022.

1. This book looks promising but I don't have a copy and we should be looking at its own sources rather than citing directly, since Cambridge Scholars Publishing is on Beall's List[7]:

   Khodjakov, Mikhail V. (2014). Money of the Russian Revolution: 1917–1920. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4438-7147-1.

2. Asked on Stack Exchange, which already has some bites

And if there's no clever way to contextualize this figure, worst comes to worst, we can just strike it.

Cross-posting to WT:NUMIS, WT:RUSSIA, WT:HIST, & WT:MILHIST. czar 15:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there a way to convert that sum at that time to US Dollars or Pounds Sterling at that same time (better question: are there conversions for this already out there)? That would immediately throw the door open for understanding that figure for financial laymen such as myself. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

My understanding from the above quotes/links is that Ukraine would have been in a period of hyperinflation in 1918, so there is no natural conversion formula to modern rubles, nevertheless USD or GBP. I think our best bet would be sources that could contextualize the buying power of the Imperial ruble in Ukraine in 1918, i.e., a salary or goods with a typical cost that could contextualize the worth of 250,000 rubles. czar 02:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense. That's the approach usually taken by authors to contextualize inflation in the Weimar Republic. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• I've removed the magnitude in rubles from the text for now since it's unclear and there aren't immediate answers for how to phrase. Feel free to restore if you have an accessible way to phrase it. czar 17:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Azarov source

• Azarov, Vyacheslav (2008). Kontrrazvedka: The Story of the Makhnovist Intelligence Service. Translated by Archibald, Malcolm. Edmonton: Black Cat Press. ISBN 978-0-9737827-2-1. OCLC 233786926.

Thought this was an interesting work, if useful, but unclear to the extent of its reliability based on the publisher. Also didn't easily find where it was originally published in Russian, pre-translation. czar 17:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

It's well sourced enough to be considered reliable, in my opinion. But it's more about a division of the Insurgent Army, so is going to be a better source for other articles, rather than this one. Grnrchst (talk) 09:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nestor Makhno/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: UnknownVolin (talk · contribs) 21:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I will be providing my review comments for good article status of the Nestor Makhno article here. UnknownVolin (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Preliminary Assessment

@Grnrchst @Czar Thank you again for asking me to review the Nestor Makhno article. I believe it can be raised to GA standards but it will require a fair amount of careful editing and revision. Below are my preliminary statements regarding each of the six GA criteria. This assessment will be followed up with detailed comments and suggestions for each section of the article.

1. Well-written

- The article broadly meets this criteria. There are some grammatical errors and minor stylistic issues that should be fixed.

2. Verifiable with no original research

- The article provides a clear list of all sources used. The article contains no original research and no apparent copyright violations.

- The article mainly uses reliable sources and is on the whole verifiable. However, some sentences that could be challenged are missing citations.

- The biggest issue with sources is the heavy reliance on Alexandre Skirda's Nestor Makhno: Anarchy's Cossack. In my opinion, Skirda's work is highly biased and badly sourced with numerous errors and questionable claims. Some of the latter have slipped into the Wikipedia article due to its reliance on Skirda. Specific examples will be provided later. While Skirda is knowledgeable in the topic, he is neither a professional historian nor are his works peer-reviewed.

3. Broad in its coverage

- The article is sufficiently broad in its scope and stays focused. In some minor instances unnecessary detail is provided.

- The article should address controversies around Makhno's person in more detail (see next point).

4. Neutral

- The article is generally neutral but on specific issues does not fully meet this criteria.

- Specifically commentary related to Makhnovist violence against German/Mennonite colonists and Jews should be reworked in a more neutral way, incorporating sources that are do not have an explicit pro-Makhnovist bias (more commentary will be given later). Given the importance of these topics to both Makhno himself and contemporary scholars, I suggest creating a section that presents the controversy/debate focused on historiographical interpretation. Since this is the Nestor Makhno article, this section could be framed around Makhno's personal views on and history with German colonists and Jews.

5. Stable

- The article is stable and is not currently suffering from any edit wars or disputes.

6. Illustrated

- The article is well-illustrated by relevant and properly tagged media.

UnknownVolin (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up the review, I look forward to working on improving this article with your recommendations.

1. I'll have another look over the article to catch any errors that may still be up.
2. I had a feeling that the Skirda issue would come up. While I do still think it's a good book, if I were to do this all over again then I wouldn't have used it as the article's foundation. (I think in terms of sources, Darch's 2020 book is by far the most well-researched and balanced.) I already made sure not to include Skirda's more egregious biases in the first place, and to properly attribute certain claims he made, but I'll be sure to cut down on sections overly-reliant on Skirda with the examples you provide.
3. I'm currently working on other articles about the military history of the Makhnovshchina, so some cases of excess detail here will likely be worked into those once I've gotten around to that.
4. There was actually a "Controversy" section included in a previous version of this article, but during the Peer review process it was vastly cut down on, due to feelings other editors had that it was lending undue weight to the subject, in relation to the other sections of the article. There is a section about charges of antisemitism against him that I think is a good length for an encyclopedic article, but if you disagree then I'd be happy to hear your thoughts.
   In respect to Makhno's personal relationship with/views of German colonists, this was something I actually had a difficult time finding information on, hence the lack of mentions in this article. There had been a section in a previous version of the article dedicated to the attacks on Mennonites, but it made scant references to Makhno himself, so I figured it would be better incorporated into a different article (currently planned for the "Nationalities and ethnic groups" section of the Makhnovshchina article).

Grnrchst (talk) 11:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@Grnrchst

2. I agree that Darch is the best English language work out there at the moment. Your approach to balance Skirda with other references is good. It is not necessary to completely remove him, just make sure he's checked against other sources.

4. Thank you for directing me to the old controversy section. It is difficult to say what is best. I believe the controversies should be addressed in the article, but definitely you don't want any such section to dominate. As you indicate it is also important to stick to the personal aspects of these controversies. The personal involvement and culpability of Makhno in the violence is a key historiographical question these days. After I finish the review, I could put together some sources/info on Makhno's personal relationship to German/Mennonite colonists. UnknownVolin (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

2. I'll be sure to peek back through sources and try and cross-check stuff. It can be tricky though because it is by far the longest and most extensive book, so it inevitably touches on stuff that others don't. But if I can pare down the more egregious aspects I'll try and do that as best I can.

4. Thanks, I will look forward to that. Grnrchst (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Info Box and Introduction

My goal in the following sections is to comment on all possible issues in order to improve the article to the greatest extent possible. All factual errors and any question of bias should be corrected to reach GA standards, other commentary should be considered suggestions for improvement.

1. Olena Makhno

- This is an ahistorical Ukrainian variant. Elena did not speak Ukrainian. Her main language growing up was French, and to a lesser extent Russian. She did not use Makhno as her last name. The full Cyrillic name used in Soviet documents and on her gravestone is Elena Nestorovna Mikhnenko. The name on her German passport and in French documents is Helene Miknienko. She also sometimes signed her name Ellen Miknenko and was informally known as Lucie. I suggest using Elena Nestorovna Mikhnenko.

2. Ataman Makhno

- I do not believe Makhno or his movement used this term. For example, neither Arshinov nor Volin use it in their histories, although they refer to "Ataman Grigoriev." However, outsiders, such as enemies and the media, did refer to "Ataman Makhno." Something to consider but not a necessary change. Also the Ukrainian spelling of ataman is otaman.

3. Nationality

- Ethnicity is the more accurate term here. Ukraine as a nation-state didn’t exist in 1888. Makhno was formally born a subject of the Russian Imperial Empire. He self-identified as ethnically Ukrainian.

4. Makhno's Parents

Father: Ivan Rodionovych Mikhnenko (Makhno), 1846-1889

Mother: Evdokiia Matveevna Mikhnenko (née Perederyi)

- Makhno's father was born Mikhnenko but used Makhno.

- "Makhnovka" is very suspicious even as a nickname. The name Makhno (like Mikhnenko) doesn't change between male and female forms. Peters is the only source for this claim and provides no citation. Peters's commentary on the name "Nestor" is pure conjecture and probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedic entry, even in a footnote.

5. Bat'ko

- The link should not go to the English term for father. While bat’ko means father, it also has connotations not found in English. For example, it was a common title of respect. In his memoirs, Makhno refers to a respected work supervisor as "Bat'ko". Bat’ko was also historically used as an honorific title to refer to Cossack leaders, the Tsar, and local Civil War Ukrainian military leaders. The term could be linked to the wiktionary for батько.

- I am uncomfortable with the translation “little father” as indicated by Skirda in the footnote. Bat'ko means “father” in Ukrainian. A diminutive form would be more like батя, батечко or батенька. I think Skirda (and others) are trying to capture the honorific aspect but it is a bit clumsy. Bat'ko as a term of respect can't really be properly translated to English. But "little father" is used in various sources, so I leave it up to the editors whether to make reference to Skirda's commentary.

6. “commander of the RIAU from 1917-1921"

- The term "Revolutionary Insurgent Army of Ukraine" was not adopted until September 1, 1919 (Source: Belash, 300-301)

7. Use of term “Russian Civil War”

- The question of what to call the Civil War is controversial in today’s scholarship. I suggest in the context of Makhno it is best to use the term Ukrainian Civil War.

- When referring to the Civil War as a noun, it should always be capitalized.

8. “Makhno and the movement’s leadership were anarcho-communists …”

- The majority certainly were but the leadership included Left SRs and others at various times. For example, Ivan Chernoknizhny (listed in the info box) was a Left SR.

- To clarify, you can simply write, "Makhno and the majority of the movement's leadership were anarcho-communists ..."

9. “credited as inventor of the tachanka”

- It is true that Makhno is often credited as the inventor but is likely not historically accurate.

- See https://www.ukrinform.ru/rubric-polytics/1910272-nestor-mahno-ne-pridumyival-pulemetnuyu-tachanku.html

The main point is that Makhno perfected the use of the tachanka by creating a separate mobile unit composed of hundreds of tachanka that could mow down opponents en masse.

- Malet writes “Makhno could be described as the inventor of the motorised division” but admits the “origins of the ‘tachanka’ are not clear.” (Malet, 85) Malet’s claim that Makhno was its originator is not backed up by any documentary evidence.

- The Russian wiki for tachanka talks about machine-guns mounted on carriages prior to the Civil War. The article provides a pre-Revolutionary picture and cites a 1909 Russian Army document that discusses mounting machine-guns on light carriages.

- I will leave it up to the editors how to deal with the tachanka question. I suggest either adding a clarifying footnote or changing the text to emphasize Makhno's innovation rather than invention of the tachanka.

UnknownVolin (talk) 08:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I have dealt with each of these points to the best of my ability so far:

1. This has been rectified, in both this article and the source article. I'm not sure how I ended up with the Ukrainised version of her name, as all my sources used the Russified variant or her French nickname "Lucie". (I also didn't know that she used "Mikhnenko", so thanks for providing that detail)
2. I used "Ataman" here as, while it was used by anti-Makhno voices and other media, it captures Makhno's military leadership in the Makhnovshchina as the RIAU's commander-in-chief. I'll think over this point while considering other changes.
3. The template for the infobox doesn't contain an "ethnicity" field, instead it has "nationality" and "citizenship". Seeing as it would indeed not be possible for Makhno to have been born a citizen of a Ukrainian nation-state, I used the nationality field instead. I'd be happy to take advice on how to clarify any issues here.
4. This has been rectified, thanks for the information.
5. I redirected the link to wiktionary, per your comments. As for Skirda's information about the term "Bat'ko", I've left most of it up for now, as it's useful information, but removed the diminutive. It may be worth expanding the disambiguation page Batko into its own article at some point, and incorporate that information there.
6. I have replaced the specific timing with "during the Ukrainian Civil War".
7. This is terminology I've also come to grief with over my time writing and expanding these articles. I have now replaced it in the article's lead, which is the only place it was actually mentioned by that name. (Obviously I can't change the sources)
8. Clarified.
9. I will come back to this point some time soon, as this seems like an issue that might be better resolved with more information on the article about the tachanka itself. Currently I'm leaning towards removing that line from the lead or at least rephrasing it for more accuracy. Do you have any suggestions?

Grnrchst (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@Grnrchst

3. If there is no ethnicity field then leave it as is.

9. I agree with removing the line. The tachanka question could be dealt with in other more military-related articles. UnknownVolin (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

9. Resolved. Grnrchst (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Early Life

1) Ivan Mikhnenko

- Ivan's background could be expanded on. Ivan was from the village Shahariv, just north of Huliaipole. Both Ivan and Evdokiia were serfs of a local estate owner named Shabels'kyi. After emancipation, Ivan continued working for Shabels'skyi as a stablekeeper. At some point, he adopted the last name Makhno, which was passed on to Nestor. By the time Nestor was born, Ivan had left Shabels'kyi and was working as a coachman for a local Jewish industrialist named B. Kerner, who owned a factory in Huliaipole. (Sources: Palij, Chp. 6; Makhno, "My Autobiography" in Young Rebels Against the Empire)

2) Unneccesary detail?

- Is the near drowning incident important enough to include? What is the source that it triggered his breathing problems?

3) "went to work on a kulak estate"

- Makhno specifies in his memoirs this was the Janzen estate, also known as Silberfeld. (Sources: Makhno, "My Autobiography"; Patterson, Makhno and Memory)

4) "gifted student"

- what is the source for this? I doubt his student records have survived. If a primary source suggests he was gifted, I suggest writing "According to X, Makhno was a gifted student."

5) “Nestor's aversion to the landlords only increased over time, nurtured by stories his mother told him of her time in serfdom and tales of the Zaporozhian Cossacks.”

- The link made here is dubious. In his memoirs, Makhno says his mother told him stories about Cossacks but not in the context of his distaste for landlords.

6) “He quickly alerted an older stable boy "Batko Ivan”

- Ivan was not an older boy but a full grown man.

7) “led a wildcat strike action”

- This is an anachronistic use of the term wildcat since all strikes at this time were wildcat strikes. Unions were illegal but in this case there was no union, it was a spontaneous workers’ uprising

8)  “Found a job in a foundry.”

- This was the Krieger factory, built by Jakob Krieger (sometimes spelled Kroeger) in 1882 and later operated by his sons Jakob and Wilhelm. It was an agricultural machinery factory. In 1915 its ownership was transferred to a joint-stock company and became the “Bogatyr” factory. (Source: Vladimir Shak, Neizvestnyi Nestor Makhno)    

9) Makhno's brothers

The names of Makhno’s brothers should be given somewhere in this section. I don't know whether they themselves used Ukrainian or Russian spellings but if unknown I suggest using Ukrainian variants: Polikarp, Sava, Omelian, and Hryhorii.

10) “which began his life-long distaste for alcohol, according to Alexandre Skirda. ”

- This is highly suspect. Makhno did drink alcohol, sometimes excessively. Both Volin and Halyna Kuzmenko documents some nasty scenes. He probably wasn’t an alcoholic as the Soviets sometimes claimed but neither was he a teetotaler. This is more an opinion of Skirda's than a fact.

UnknownVolin (talk) 07:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Here I have resolved most of the cases, but have some questions about certain details:

1. How necessary is this detail? I've summarized most of the main points here already. (No problem adding it though, especially the detail about Kerner, who comes up later in Makhno's story)
2. Aye this is probably unnecessary detail, so I cut out the story. The source here is Skirda 2004, p. 18, but he doesn't cite his own source, so this is likely one of those above-mentioned issues with Skirda's book.
3. Is the estate owner's name a necessary detail to include? No problem if so, I just try to avoid using names unless they are significant in some way.
4. I cut this detail, as even if it's true, it risks running into POV issues. The source for this was Skirda 2004, pp 18-19, so again, probably dubious. The remainder of the passage sourced from this has more basis though, as Skirda directly pulled from Makhno's memoirs here.
5. Apparently Nestor was inspired by the Cossacks' armed struggle to "safeguard their freedom". It was my own mistake linking this to landlords, so I've cut this detail. (Might be worth reincorporating elsewhere, in a better context, at a later date)
6. Stable boy is a job title, more so than an indicator of age. But I have changed it to "stable hand" for clarity.
7. I changed the anachronistic "wildcat strike action" to "spontaneous workers' revolt", although I kept the wikilink in place. Let me know if I'm better off removing the wikilink.
8. As per points 1 and 3, are the names of the foundry's owners a necessary detail? Also, Malet 1982, p. xxi attributes the foundry's ownership to Kerner (his father's former employer), while Peters 1970, p. 15 distinguishes between Nestor's time working at the foundry and his time working at the Kroeger factory.
9. Nestor's brothers' names (except for Polikarp, who I have absolutely no information on) are given in an explanatory footnote marked [d]. Currently the articles for Nestor's more notable brothers are titled Savely Makhno and Grigory Makhno. (In an AfD discussion, the article for Emilian Makhno was determined to be non-notable and deleted) Should I Ukrainize these names? I will note that, out of my sources, only Malet 1982 and Palij 1976 use the Romanization of Ukrainian, whereas almost all the others use the Romanization of Russian.
10. I've removed this detail, as it's clearly centring the POV of a single author, and cut down the sentence for the sake of concision.

Get back to me when you can on the above queries. Cheers. -- Grnrchst (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Given the existing length of the biography, I'd recommend keeping the details as tightly to what a general reader would need to know about Makhno. I think it makes sense to leave aspects like the names of siblings in a footnote, since it would come across as trivia if mentioned in the article text and distract from the main content. czar 04:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Czar Sounds good! I'll try not to get carried away with detail.

@Grnrchst

1. No need to add if you feel there is enough info already.

2. The name of the estate is Mennonite, which is important in determining Makhno's relationship and attitude towards Mennonites and German colonists. It is also important because it was specifically his experiences of abuse on German colonist estates as a youth that he says he first developed his hatred of the ruling class. But it would probably be more appropriate to mention this if you add a section about Makhno's relationship with Mennonites. The same goes for mentioning Kerner as Jewish. Also "kulak estate" is an incorrect term since it was pomeshchiks not kulaks that owned the estates. "Kulak" is more of a term of abuse for a vaguely defined "well-to-do" layer of the peasantry. I think it makes most sense to change this to simply "local Mennonite-owned estate."

7. I would remove the wiki link. I don't see the relevance to union led wildcat strikes.

8. That is true, Makhno worked at both the Kerner and Krieger factories. It's just extra info, not necessary to include.

9. The brothers' names in the note are good. I would change the names to Ukrainian variants but only because Makhno's patronymic in the article is Ukrainianized (Ivanovych vs Ivanovich). So for consistency sake I would use Ukrainian, although like I mentioned I don't know what they themselves used. By the way, Polikarp's home in Huliaipole was recently turned into a museum. UnknownVolin (talk) 05:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey apologies for not responding, I've been away. I'll get around to resolving your new points as soon as I can. Grnrchst (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Revolutionary Activity

1. 17 year old Makhno in the 1905 Revolution

- A pedantic correction: Makhno turned 17 in November, 1905. The Revolution broke out in January. So he was 16 when it started.

2. “dozen-strong Union”

- The group had 69 identified members and many more sympathizers (Source: Intro to Young Rebels Against the Empire)

3. “campaign of "Black Terror" against the Tsarist autocracy”

- True in a broad sense but more accurately in this context it was aimed against wealthy local landowners and the police.

4. “expropriated from local businessmen.”

- Grammar: "expropriated local businessmen", no "from". You could add "..., and set fire to local estates."

5. Makhno “Ukrainian Social Democratic Labor Party”

- I suspect this is incorrect. The Russian Social Democratic Labor Party was also active in Ukraine. It is reported Makhno fell in with the Mensheviks, which was exclusively a faction of the RSDLP.

6. "When the Stolypin reform abolished community assemblies (obshchina), the landowning peasant kulaks grew even wealthier, leading the group to begin setting fire to the property of wealthy landowners."

- This is misleading. The reforms did not abolish the peasant obshchina/mir. They allowed and encouraged peasants to leave the mir and become independent homesteaders. These peasants could claim their communal land allotment as a consolidated piece of land. The reforms had mixed results. By 1916, only 20% of peasants claimed title to their land, and only 10% had actually received their consolidated plots (Source: Encyclopedia Britannica). The remaining peasants and land continued within the traditional obshchina and its regional variants.

- However, in his memoirs Makhno wrote that the reforms “eliminated communal property in land.” He was wrong in this regard. It eliminated the mir’s monopoly over peasant held land but not communal tenure, which continued to be how the majority of peasants held their land.

- I could go on much more about this topic but I think it can be resolved by writing something like, “Stolypin’s 1906 agrarian reforms sought to disempower the traditional peasant commune (obshchina/mir) through the creation of a rural private land-owning class. Peasants were allowed to detach their land allotments from the commune and establish independent khutors (homesteads). In the wake of these reforms, the Union of Poor Peasants initiated their campaign of ‘Black Terror’ against these newly-formed khutors as well as the region's large estates.”

7. “This new group quickly found themselves infiltrated. Two spies were executed and the Okhrana broke up one of the study group's meetings."

- From Makhno’s memoirs it doesn’t seem like he is speaking about the new reading group being infiltrated but the Union of Poor Peasants itself. They held an underground conference which was attended by all the old membership. In this context, Makhno mentions the group suspected two members of being spies. He says they killed one, not two, on June 2, 1908. Skirda says they killed two spies. I don't know where he got this information from as he doesn't offer a source.

8. “The group plotted to execute the provincial governor in retaliation, but their attempts failed and Makhno was arrested following another shootout”

- Makhno discusses an aborted plan to assassinate the governor, however this was not the incident that led to Makhno’s arrest. After they dropped the assassination plan they decided to blow up the local secret police station. He mentions a brief shootout the night of August 24 when he and a couple Union members were stopped by Cossacks, but they escaped. On August 26, several hours before the planned bombing, Makhno was arrested. No shootout during his arrest.

- Skirda’s paraphrase of Makhno’s memoirs make it seem like the above events occurred in immediate succession.

- I suggest rephrasing to something like, "The group plotted to the bomb the local secret police station but the Huliaipole police thwarted their efforts, leading to Makhno's arrest." UnknownVolin (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

1. I see you've changed this. I will note that many of the sources mention he started political activity in 1906, with Avrich 1988 specifying that he was seventeen. I'm wondering if it would be better to change the specific years of age to "teenage", as there's some ambiguity in the time here.
2. Wee query about the name "Union of Poor Peasants": I can't actually find this name in my written sources, which seem to mostly refer to it vaguely as the "Huliaipole anarchist/anarcho-communist/libertarian communist group". Others (Darch 2020; Malet 1982) also refer to it by the name of the "Peasant Group of Anarcho-Communists", while the main use of "Peasant Union" seems to be in reference to the one established by Makhno in 1917. Do you have any thoughts on the naming issue and how I could best clarify this?
3. I've now rewritten this section and added sources.
4. Grammar for expropriation has been noted. Does "expropriations against local businessmen" make sense in this context?
5. I have rewritten it as simply "Social Democratic Labor Party". My sources seem to say he worked with the "Social Democrats" or "Mensheviks", would it be better to clarify this or leave it as is?
6. Thanks for the clarification on this. I have cut down on this section for concision, in order to keep it to the basics relevant to a biography on Makhno and to the verifiable information in the given sources. (I honestly think it could be cut down further but will wait for your thoughts first)
7. I've tightened up the information about this and added further sources.
8. I've cut down on this for concision and added further sources. More information on this is in the main Union of Poor Peasants article anyway.

Grnrchst (talk) 09:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Imprisonment

1. “Makhno's sentence was commuted to a life sentence of hard labor, due in part to his young age.”

- The latest research (from Ivan Kushnirenko) suggests the commutation was due entirely to his age.

2. “Makhno met the anarcho-communist politician Peter Arshinov, who took the young anarchist under his wing as a student.”

- There is some debate around whether Arshinov and Makhno had a teacher-student type relationship. Not critical but the sentence could be phrased more neutrally: i.e. "Makhno met Arshinov, whom he greatly respected as a thinker and activist and developed a close long-term friendship with."

3. “Makhno vowing that he would "contribute to the free re-birth of his country".”

- Add source of this quote. Is it primary or something somone alleged Makhno said? If so, I suggest writing "according to X, Makhno vowed ..." I could be incorrect but the phrasing sounds a bit nationalistic for Makhno.

4. “Although influenced by the ideas of Ukrainian nationalism …”

- What is the evidence for this?

- Makhno describes how he and fellow inmates discussed Ukrainian issues, read Vynnychenko’s Khachu and Gogol’s Taras Bulba, but stated that “My convictions forced me to distance myself from separatist tendencies and did not allow me to give in to the temptation of contemplating an independent state, despite the sense of kinship I felt towards my Ukrainian prisoner comrades.”

- Makhno was exposed to Ukrainian nationalism but influenced by is a step too far in my opinion, given his lifelong opposition to ideological nationalism.

5. “he was finally convinced to return to Huliaipole by his family”

- A very minor point but Makhno writes he was convinced to return by "my mother and my comrades from the old anarcho-communist group in Huliaipole."

UnknownVolin (talk) 06:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Grnrchst Regarding point 3, I was incorrect. Makhno does indeed use these words. It is in the context of him talking about the Zaporizhian Cossacks as "for me a source of inspiration for the rebirth of our country." I'll leave it up to you whether you want to change the wording at all. UnknownVolin (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

1. Thanks for catching this.
2. Where is there debate about this? All of the cited sources describe Arshinov as Makhno's teacher or mentor, Makhno as Arshinov's pupil, or at the very least that Makhno received an education from Arshinov. Only Skirda 2004 describes their relationship in terms of "long-term friendship", which is why I used the above-mentioned wording. Right now, my instinct is to revert this.
3. I'm going to leave as is for now, as it leads in nicely to Makhno's relationship with (but not acceptance of) Ukrainian nationalism.
4. "Exposed to" is probably a better wording for this. The cited source (Skirda 2004) describes his exposure to the nationalist ideas of other Ukrainian prisoners as "interest" rather than "influence".
5. Both of the cited sources describe it in these terms, not sure why I whittled that down to "family". Thanks for catching that.

Grnrchst (talk) 10:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Grnrchst

2. This is something that has been discussed amongst Makhno researchers in a more informal environment. I probably shouldn't have brought this up because I guess it goes into original research territory. If so, I apologize. Some of the Russian and Ukrainian researchers may have addressed this issue in print. I could check.

The basic critique is as follows: the assumption that Arshinov was Makhno's mentor/teacher is based exclusively on an interpretation of Makhno's writings. Makhno never explicitly referred to Arshinov as his mentor or teacher. This is an assumption imposed on the material by earlier researchers. Here is the full direct quote from Makhno about Arshinov in prison: "I soon made the acquaintance of Comrade Arshinov, whom I had heard of previously. Meeting him was a joyous event me. He was one of those rare anarchists who preferred to engage in practical work, even in prison. He regrouped and organized the prisoners, while keeping in touch with the outside world. I used to pester him with notes about all sorts of things—both servious and frivolous. Comrade Arshinov was an introvert, but he showed great patience and always found time for me. Our relations were close so long as we remained in prison, and after we got out our alliance became even stronger." (Source: Makhno, "My Life in Prison.")

Keeping my revision or reverting is completely your choice. UnknownVolin (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I think I'll be reverting this change, in this case, as I want to stick to the analysis of the secondary sources that I have available to me. If you can find the Russian and Ukrainian research into this, I'd very much appreciate it. Grnrchst (talk) 08:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. UnknownVolin (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Grnrchst I found a quote from Makhno that may interest you. It was originally published in Makhno's 1928 booklet sized response to the Soviet historian Kubanin. Archibald translated and published it in 2021 in The Makhnovshchina and its Aftermath (Black Cat Press). After ridiculing the idea that urban anarchists had seized control of the movement, Makhno writes: "Back to comrade Arshinov, my teacher and guide, according to Kubanin and his ilk." (57) He then goes on to assert Arshinov played a subordinate role in the movement. Here Makhno is clearly mocking the notion that Arshinov was his "mentor." UnknownVolin (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Agrarian Activism

@Grnrchst

1. “Makhno proposed that libertarians take the role of a revolutionary vanguard in order to ignite mass action among the peasantry …”

- I don't think “revolutionary vanguard” the correct term here especially given the link redirects to an article about Leninist vanguardism? Makhno’s entire career was dedicated to rejecting this type of vanguardism.

- I suggest not using the term "revolutionary vanguard" because of its Marxist-Leninist connotations.

2. “disorganization among the wider Ukrainian anarchist movement”

- I suggest clarifying that M.'s critique was aimed at anarchists in general across the entire former Russian Empire.

3. “organized communes on former Mennonite settlements.”

- Change settlements to estates. The settlements or colonies were not seized.

4.  “After dispatching his brother Savely to Oleksandrivsk at the head of an armed anarchist detachment, Makhno was brought onto the local revolutionary tribunal, from which he oversaw the prosecution of counterrevolutionary army officers, even placing the man who had prosecuted him in the same cell that he had been imprisoned in a decade earlier. Makhno also oversaw the release of still imprisoned workers and peasants, defended Huliaipole successfully against a Don Cossack raid, and expropriated from a bank to fund the local soviet.”

- I apologize if I get too detailed here but I think this paragraph should be rewritten for more context and accuracy. Specific to Oleksandrivsk, context needs to be given that Savelii Makhno’s detachment was sent to help the Left Bloc (Bolsheviks and Left SRs) retake the city from Ukrainian People's Army forces. January 11, 1918 Makhno’s detachment set off for Oleksandrivsk. Soviet power was restored in three days.

- Makhno was not appointed to a formal “revolutionary tribunal.” The latter were bodies of the Cheka which the wikilink goes to. This should be removed. Makhno was chosen as the anarchists’ representative to the Oleksandrivsk Revolutionary Committee. He was also appointed to a seven-member “Front-Line Military Revolutionary Commission” attached to a Red Guard unit, and elected chairman of this Commission. If you don't want to mention these details you can just write "commission" instead of "tribunal" with no wikilink.

- The Commission’s responsibility was to assess the cases of military prisoners (not just army officers).

- Makhno was part of Oleksandrivsk’s defence (not Huliaipole) against an attack by the Don and Kuban Cossacks. They were en route back to their homelands. After being beaten off by the city’s revolutionaries, the Cossacks agreed to be disarmed and negotiated safe passage through Oleksandrivsk.  

- The bank expropriation occurred in Huliaipole after M.’s return from Oleksandrivsk. The funds were confiscated by the Huliaipole District Revolutionary Committee (not the Soviet). UnknownVolin (talk) 07:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

1. It seems like most of the sources don't use this terminology, so neutralising to "leadership" may be the best option. The term "revolutionary vanguard" comes from the following sources:
   1. Skirda 2004, p. 34 states: "To the [libertarian communist group] he spelled out his analysis of the situation; without waiting for the libertarian movement nationwide to recover its strength and start to organize itself, anarchists ought to be in the vanguard of mass revolu­tionary action."
   2. Malet 1982, p. 165 states: "Nestor's argument that the group must be in the vanguard of the struggle against the hirelings of the counter-revolution was accepted."
2. Seems like you resolved this.
3. Thanks for clarifying.
4. Regarding your points here:
   1. Thanks for clarifying this, I think the right amount of detail was used here.
   2. Neither of the cited sources (Malet 1982, p. 7; Skirda 2004, p. 40) use the specific term "Military Revolutionary Commission". Malet describes it as a "tribunal" and Skirda describes it as a "commission of inquiry". (Archibald 2007, who is not cited here, also describes it as a "tribunal") Any ideas for a better term to use? Because I hesitate to use unsourced terminology.
   3. Note: One of the cited sources, Skirda 2004, p. 40, specifies that the commission was to inquire "into imprisoned officers accused of conspiring against the revolution". While Malet 1982 doesn't mention who the tribunal was prosecuting, Archibald 2007 says it was for "political prisoners". I'm not disputing the change, just providing info.
   4. Thanks for correcting this. I'm not sure how I ended up writing that it was a defence of Huliaipole, as clearly the sources state it was in defence of Oleksandrivsk.
   5. I propose changing the specific organ to "revolutionary activities". As Malet 1982, p. 7 only states the funds are for the "revolutionary cause", while Skirda 2004, p. 41 goes into further detail: "The money was seized from the bank in the name of the revolution to meet the needs of the soviet; delivered within a few days; it was shared, at Makhno's instigation, between a home for war orphans set up in the residence of the former superintendent of police, and the soviet's procurement branch; the remainder was to meet the needs of the revolutionary committee."

Grnrchst (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Grnrchst for the responses. The biggest issue here is that all the information for this period ultimately comes from Makhno's memoirs. Darch, Malet, Palij, Skirda, Archibald all derive their histories of this period almost entirely from reading Makhno. As far as I know, none of them consulted Russian or Ukrainian archives. Each of these authors make small mistakes, be it through translation or misreadings. For example, point three about the "commission/tribunal" all rely on volume two of Makhno's memoirs. It's just the different authors rewording Makhno's memoirs (in Skirda's case, sometimes with his own embellishments). The strange thing about quoting these secondary sources, instead of directly quoting Makhno, is that more often than not they just introduce small errors. I don't intend this as a critique at all, I'm just trying to explain what's going on here. The info I provided in my comments comes directly from Makhno's memoirs. I hope this helps. UnknownVolin (talk) 06:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the info here. For what it's worth, the reason Makhno's memoirs aren't used in the article is because of Wikipedia's policy on primary sources. Descriptive facts from Makhno's memoirs are fine so long as they are verified by an independent secondary source. At the very least, it's good that you're digging into the primary source for the sake of cross-referencing. Grnrchst (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

To clarify about terminology. Makhno uses the terms:

2. “Front-Line Military Revolutionary Commission” (Makhno, The Russian Revolution in Ukraine, p.124). This was its formal name.

3. Makhno describes the prisoners as follows: "Here were generals, colonels, and other ranks of officers. There were chiefs of police, public prosecutors, and simple soldiers from haidamak units." (Makhno, The Russian Revolution in Ukraine, p.125). So they were military and law-enforcement related prisoners.

5. "revolutionary activities" is acceptable. Here is what Makhno writes about the expropriation: "I propose that the Gulai-polye Raion Revkom resolve to disregard the Left Bloc government and demand that the directors of the bank hand over to the Revkom 250,000 rubles to be used for revolutionary goals and that they do so within 24 hours." (Makhno, The Russian Revolution in Ukraine, p. 167) UnknownVolin (talk) 07:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

2. I've simplified it to "commission". I don't think the full formal name necessarily needs to be used here, considering it's only brought up in a single sentence.

3. Ok thanks, I've left "accused counter-revolutionary military prisoners" as is.

5. Seems like it has some basis in the primary source then, thanks. Grnrchst (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Journey to Moscow

1. “Following the 1918 Central Powers intervention in Ukraine …”

- This is a very convoluted period of time. I think it would help the reader to give some brief context to the Austro-German invasion, especially the Brest-Litovsk Treaty and agreement signed between the Germans and the Ukrainian Central Rada to occupy Ukraine. The latter is especially important in understanding Makhno's hatred for the Nationalists. He felt they had betrayed Ukraine to foreign occupation and never forgave them for it.

2. "formed a volunteer detachment to resist the occupation. They traveled to join the Red Guards in Oleksandrivsk."

- This is true, however Makhno was not physically present with this detachment. This could be clarified. He had been called to Red Commander Alexander Egorov’s train. However, Makhno he failed to link up with Egorov, who was in fast retreat.

- You could also add that Huliaipole was occupied in April 1918

3. "Unable to return home, the Makhno detachment retreated to Taganrog ..."

- Better to say just Makhno, as he wasn't present with the previously mentioned Oleksandrivsk detachment

4. “ local Soviet's propaganda department”

- "local soviet" (no cap)

5. “pejoratively dubbed "the capital of the paper revolution", with local anarchist intellectuals more predisposed to slogans and manifestos than action.”

- For better readability I suggest changing "with" to "where he found"

6. “He also met the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries beginning to turn against the Bolsheviks.”

-   Grammar: change to, "... who at this time were beginning to turn against the Bolsheviks."

7. "to cross the Ukraine border"

- Change to either "to cross Ukraine's border" or "the Ukrainian border"

Question: For small typos and grammar, should I make the changes myself as not to clog up this space? UnknownVolin (talk) 08:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Definitely. In general, when I review, I tend to edit the article directly, leaving frequent edit summaries so others can follow my train of thought. And anyone can always contest any individual edit, if discussion is needed. This way the review is more about the structural or stylistic issues. czar 14:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Czar Thanks! I'll do that. UnknownVolin (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Czar @Grnrchst I personally made edits for all the points I previously outlined. I tried to keep interventions as small as possible. Most edits just consisted of changing a word or two. At most, in a few cases, I added one or two clarifying sentences. The article is looking good. UnknownVolin (talk) 07:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

1. I think there may have been too much detail here, so I've cut it down.
2. Thanks for clarifying this.
3. Noted.
4. Noted the capitalisation issue. Side note: I sometimes wonder about the English language use of the term "soviet", which is just Russian for "council". Why do we use the Russian word and not the English one? It's especially strange given the Ukrainian word "rada" isn't as widely used. Anyway, that's just my personal griping.
5. That reads better, thanks.
6. This also reads much better.
7. "The Ukrainian border" reads the best, I think. This was initially "Russia-Ukraine border", I don't know how it ended up as simply "Ukraine border".

Grnrchst (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Leader of the Makhnovist movement

@Grnrchst I edited this section today. My main changes revolved around grammar, confused chronology, adding some context, and removing what I considered unnecessary detail. I also removed some anachronistic wikilinks. Here are some highlights:

1. At the beginning of the section I added some brief context about the German coup and Hetmanate puppet government. I think it helps situate the reader before delving into the very complicated and confusing events of the civil war.
2. I emphasized the aftermath of the battle of Dibrivka. The destruction of Velykomykhailivka (Dibrivka) was a key turning point for both the movement and Makhno personally. This paragraph could be furthered expanded with a sentence or quote about Makhno's personal reaction but I'll leave that up to you.
3. I removed a sentence derived from Skirda saying Makhno avoided indiscriminate violence during this period. It's more complex than this. Makhno initially let loose his forces on collaborators (especially German colonists). Makhno acknowledges this in his memoirs. However, according to him, he subsequently reconsidered the situation and established so-called rules of engagement. This might be something you want to note in any future section about Makhno and controversies around violence.

UnknownVolin (talk) 06:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

1. As per the details about the Central Powers' invasion, I've cut this down slightly for concision and added sources. I agree that it's relevant context.
2. I think this is good for now, thanks for adding it.
3. That paragraph was next on my list for a drastic rewrite, given its reliance on Skirda, so thanks for helping with that. Again, I've added more sources.

Grnrchst (talk) 10:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Commander in the Red Army

@Grnrchst I started editing this section. Here are some highlights so far:

1. Added an introductory paragraph for context. Like the previous section, I think this will help the reader navigate a very confusing timeline. I tried to keep it as tight and brief as possible, which is difficult given all the forces at play.
2. I removed part of a sentence that said Makhno stook in the way of the Bolsheviks seizing Katerynoslav. This is not strictly correct. The city was attacked jointly by Makhno and the Bolsheviks and Makhno's proposal of joint rule through a Revkom was accepted.
3. I propose removing the following sentence as unnecessary detail: "He also engaged in debates with Josef Dybets, an anarcho-syndicalist turned Bolshevik, during which Makhno reiterated his intention to establish a self-governing "Anarchist Republic", after defeating the White movement and the Bolsheviks." My main issue here is that Makhno may or may not have literally said "Anarchist Republic." This comes from Dybets' memoirs recounting a conversation with Makhno. If you feel it is a necessary inclusion I suggest adding a clarifying clause "according to Dybets ..."
4. I added the sentence with sources: "The Makhnovist Military Revoltionary Soviet issued an excortiating reply to Dybenko rejecting his demands out of hand." This was a famous reply so I think it is worth briefly noting.

UnknownVolin (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Grnrchst I finished this section now. I made some fairly minor grammatical/syntax edits and added a few clarifying sentences and wikilinks. The main thing you can do for this section is to double-check solo Skirda citations against others sources and add them accordingly. Here are a couple points you can help resolve:

1. a "temporary diplomatic with Makhno's army" - Is "alliance" missing after diplomatic? Also add a citation for this quote.
2. Nikofor Grigoriev - I noticed the other wiki pages often use the spelling Nykyfor Hrihoriev. I assume this is a kind of Ukrainian transliteration. You might want to consider using the Ukrainian transliteration, however, the correct modern spelling is Nykyfor Hryhoriv[8] The link goes to the Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine. This is operated by the University of Toronto and University of Alberta. They use proper modern Ukrainian transliterations for all their articles. It's also a great research resource in general.

Below are some sentences/clauses I identified as possible unnecessary detail. You might consider removing them:

1. “and reunited him with his "old acquaintance" Maria Nikiforova”
2. “Makhno further elaborated on the material shortages that the insurgents were suffering and bemoaned the problems caused by the 9th Soviet Reserve Division, which he described as "prone to panic", claiming that "its command's sympathies lay with the Whites". Following another discussion with Makhno about the newly established Hungarian Soviet Republic and the situation at the front lines against the Whites,
3. Makhno even led the rescue of Voroshilov's detachment from a White encirclement, despite knowing the intentions of his "would-be executioner".

UnknownVolin (talk) 05:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the easily resolved points:

1. This appears to be a misreading of a quote from Skirda 2004, p. 101. As follows: "In that Rostov has not been taken, we need to be temporarily diplomatic with Makhno's army, dispatching Antonov [Ovseenko] and holding him personally accountable for Makhno's troops." As it's unclear, I have gone ahead and removed this. I also removed the section following it, as only Skirda mentions this alleged assassination attempt (without himself citing any sources) and he even calls Arshinov's speculation about Kamenev's reason for the trip a "hypothesis".
2. This maybe a better conversation to have on Talk:Nikifor Grigoriev, as transliteration for this person's name specifically has been a historical problem.

As for the unnecessary detail:

1. I've cut this, it's more relevantly mentioned in the article for Maria Nikiforova anyway.
2. I cut basically the whole paragraph for the sake of concision. The details of Antonov-Ovseenko's visit aren't as important as his conclusions.
3. Cut. Only Skirda mentions this and his source is Makhno himself, who may have been exaggerating.

Grnrchst (talk) 10:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

2. Sounds good. I wrote a proposal on that talk page to agree on a consistent Ukrainian transliteration. UnknownVolin (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I've added a move request to that, which should attract more people to the discussion. To be honest, I think it's likely this will run up against the common name policy, but it's a discussion worth having, at least for the sake of consistency. Grnrchst (talk) 08:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your preliminary highlights:

1. I rewrote this slightly and added sources.
2. The cited sources seem to contradict eachother as to who/what appointed Makhno as commander-in-chief, so I have cut the excess detail about Lenin. Also, upon rereading the sources, it would appear Makhno never actually rebuffed the appointment of commander-in-chief, but instead was quibbling about terminology. Per Skirda 2004, p. 78: "Makhno replied that there were no "soviet" forces, only the Makhnovist insurgent army." I'm also tempted to cut out the part about the revkom, considering it doesn't last very long before the nationalists retake the city.
3. Removed this sentence, as it's not so important in the grand scheme of things and its only source is Skirda.
4. I fixed a citation error and a couple spelling mistakes here. Also, I changed "Military Revolutionary Soviet" to "Revolutionary Military Soviet" per its other uses. Is this not the correct variation?

Grnrchst (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Grnrchst. Here is some further info.

2. In Makhno's "The Makhnovshchina and its Erstwhile Allies" he writes, "The Anarchists, Left SRs, and even the Bolsheviks themselves, will recall what I said at the time about this appointment as commander-in-chief. I told them: there are no Soviet troops here. The main forces here are the revolutionary Makhnovist-Insurgents ... 'And for me,' I added, 'it's completely incomprehensible how Comrade Lenin could have come up with the notion of appointing me as commander-in-chief of forces which are too slender in numbers to require a commander-in-chief.' Then I proposed to the Anarchists, Bolsheviks, and Left SRs,that instead of the committee cooked up by the Bolshevik Party, we organize a Provisional Revolutionary Committee in conjunction with the Yekaterinoslav unionized workers and the Insurgents. This Committee would be put together on a party basis with five representatives from each of the political and trade union organizations." (Archibald, ed., The Makhnovshchina and its Aftermath, 15-16) Basically Makhno told Lenin to get lost and proposed a more democratic power-sharing alternative. Overall, its not an important event, just an interesting piece of info, so it could be removed as unnecessary detail if you want.

3. I have seen it written both ways but the correct literal translation is "Military Revolutionary Soviet". The term used in Makhnovist archival documents is Военно-революционный совет. You can see an example of this here UnknownVolin (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

2. Thanks for the info, I'll have a think over this section.

3. I have brought this up in Talk:Revolutionary Military Soviet (Makhnovshchina), looking to move the page. (After which I'll edit the wikilinks directing to it) Grnrchst (talk) 08:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Against the White Army

Hi @Grnrchst. I did some light editing. The biggest edit I made was to clarify some confused chronology around the return of the Bolsheviks in January 1920 and Makhno's bout with typhus. I also added a sentence of context at the start of the section. Below are some further suggestions:

1. I suggest adding at least a few sentences about the Makhnovists and Nationalists meeting in Uman in September 1919, just prior to the Battle of Perehonivka. Historically, this is important because it led to a formal signed agreement between Makhno and Petliura. It lasted only about a week and resulted in mutual recriminations but is nonetheless historically notable. I suggest looking a Darch, Malet, and Palij for this event. Sysyn also wrote a little about it.
2. I suggest emphasizing the Oleksandrivsk Regional Congress more, especially the Draft Declaration that came out of it. This is the movement's most important document. It clearly lays out their program and vision for society. Skirda provides a translation in his book's appendix.
3. October-December 1919 is also when the largest Mennonite massacres occurred, over 800 killed in six weeks. If you add a controversy section it is probably best to discuss this there. Otherwise, I suggest noting these events in this section. For these events see Sean Patterson, Makhno and Memory (University of Manitoba Press, 2020) and John B. Toews,ed., Mennonites in Ukraine: Amid Civil War and Anarchy (2013). The latter is a document collection.
4. The term "Black Guards" is used once in this section. It was my impression these were armed voluntary anarchist detachments from early in the Revolution and Civil War.
5. You could emphasize the terms of the last agreement with the Bolsheviks. The political terms of the treaty were especially contentious and never ratified by the Bolsheviks. Darch, Malet, and Palij will have good material on this.
6. I suggest emphasizing the importance of Wrangel’s defeat to the broader Civil War. Could mention the Makhnovists role in the Siege of Perekop. This was the end of the White movement on the southern front, and effectively the end of the civil war between Reds and Whites. This allowed the Bolsheviks to then turn their full attention to perceived internal enemies and rebellions on the periphery of their territories.
7. I think the following could be reduced or removed as unnecessary detail : "the Cheka began to resort to the use of agent provocateurs and informants to entrap Ukrainian anarchists. One anarchist that the Cheka attempted to bring under its wing was Fedya Glouschenko, who they commissioned to assassinate Makhno on 20 June 1920. Despite Glouschenko immediately informing Makhno of the plot, he was shot the following day as a servant of the secret police."

UnknownVolin (talk) 05:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

1. Added a sentence a short sentence about this.
2. I added a detail about the Draft Declaration but hesitate to add more, as the Oleksandrivsk Congress is already covered extensively by the article on the Regional Congress of Peasants, Workers and Insurgents.
3. I'll get back to you on this point, as I still need to do more research on this - particularly on Makhno's personal involvement, considering this article is a biography about him, not a broad overview of the movement.
4. The de-capitalised "black guard" was used in Skirda 2004, p. 225 like so: "[Makhno] himself, wounded and unable to mount his horse, stayed in Gulyai-Polye along with his black guard". I'm assuming this refers to his personal bodyguard contingent, named "black guard". I have de-linked and de-capitalised the term for now.
5. I've added some very basic details - I hesitate to add too much detail here, as again, this is a biography. There's already info about the political agreement in the article about the Makhnovshchina and the military agreement in the article about the RIAU. I'm also currently working on a draft article about the agreement itself, which I hope to get up at some point in the near future.
6. Added this detail for context to the beginning of the subsequent section.
7. I replaced this with a mention of the proposed alliance, which leads into the next paragraph a bit more organically.

Grnrchst (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

All sounds good. UnknownVolin (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Bolshevik Rebellion

The only change I made was to take out the reference to Komar, Altai Krai. This is in Siberia. The Komar Makhno was in was a Greek village located in modern-day Donetsk oblast. UnknownVolin (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Just added an interlanguage link to the correct article on Ukrainian Wikipedia. Grnrchst (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Exile

@Grnrchst Here are some corrections and suggestions for this section:

1. “By August, those wounds forced him to flee abroad for treatment. Leaving Viktor Belash in command of the Insurgent Army, Makhno took his wife Halyna and 100 loyalists to Poland.”

- This is a slight misreading of Skirda's account. The initial intention was to go to Poland but he was dogged by Red units, “whereupon the Makhnovists switched their itinerary and headed for the Romanian frontier.” (Skirda, 260)

2. "Makhno subsequently attempted to secure permission to move on to Czechoslovakia or Germany, but the Polish government refused in their attempt to force the dissolution of the Makhnovists into the Ukrainian nationalist movement."

- The last part's meaning is unclear.

3. “The Bolshevik government sent an agent provocateur to entrap Makhno and force his extradition by fabricating a Makhnovist plan to launch an insurgency in Galicia.”

-   This events around this are very murky. There is evidence to suggest it was not entirely fabricated but that the Makhnovists were somewhat successfully courted by the Bolsheviks. Galina allegedly discussed the Galician insurgency plan with the Soviet embassy in Warsaw. (See Darch, 134) Maybe, a better way to phrase is "by embroiling/entangling Makhno in a plan to launch ..."

4. "given residence permits for Poznań."

-  According to Darch Makhno and Galina were given permits for Torun. It was an accomplice of Makhno that was given one for Poznan.

5. "leaving Halyna behind in Poland."

- The opposite occurred. Halyna travelled with Makhno to Danzig. After his arrest, she and their daughter left for Berlin then Paris. This is confirmed by Halyna's memoir published in Sergei Semanov, "Pod chernym znamenem," Roman Gazeta 4 (1993): 32. I suggest removing or indicating Halyna left before Makhno.

6. “After a botched attempt to kidnap Makhno, Soviet agents reported him to Prussian police. Makhno was again imprisoned and falling sick. German anarchists managed to help Makhno escape from prison and clandestinely leave Germany.”

-   This is a confused chronology. The text reads as though these events occurred in Berlin but they happened in Danzig. The Soviet involvement in his Danzig arrest is suspected but not confirmed, although Makhno did confirm the botched kidnapping. For the Danzig incident see Patterson, Makhno and Memory, 33.

7. strong language barrier from his inability to learn the French language

- Makhno may have struggled to learn but he did learn it to some extent. I’ve personally worked with letters in French written in his handwriting. I suggest removing this sentence because it is more alleged than proven.

8. “documentary evidence that confirmed Petliura's role in the pogroms”

-      This is highly controversial and more an interpretation of Skirda. UPA forces committed many pogroms but Petliura condemned them and even arrested pogromists. See Christopher Gilley, https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/the-centenary-of-the-proskuriv-pogrom/. I suggest rephrasing in a way that is less categorical.

9. To the Jews of all Countries, published in Le Libertaire,

-  It was definitely published in Delo Truda. I haven’t seen a Le Libertaire copy. Skirda’s footnote itself doesn’t provide a date for Le Libertaire and instead provides one for Delo Truda. I suggest changing to Delo Truda, only because it is verifiable.

10. “Further investigations by Jewish historians, such as Elias Tcherikower”

-    This is a sticky issue. The alleged views of Tcherikower come from Volin’s unsubstantiated account. Volin claimed Tcherikower found no evidence of Makhnovist pogroms. However, Tcherikower’s archive in New York contains a file detailing alleged Makhnovist pogroms. We also have a letter from Tcherikower that reads, “there cannot be the slightest doubt that he [Makhno] is implicated in a series of pogroms. I have enough substantiated evidence in my archive to show that his men were exactly the same sort of bandits as all the others. Whether they perpetrated the pogroms with his permission or on their own initiative is difficult to say; either way – he is responsible”. Cited in Brenden McGeever, The Bolshevik Response to Antisemitism in the Russian Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 135. Either Tcherikower changed his views at some point or Volin misrepresented Tcherikower.

- How do you think this should be resolved?

11. “had used a pirate flag.”

- I suggest saying “skull-and-crossbones flag”. Many movements and armies, including those in Ukraine, have used the skull and bones insignia without reference to pirates.

12. “Neglected by the Russian and French anarchists in Paris, Makhno turned his attention towards Spain.”

- The extent of this is questionable. He certainly alienated himself from specific people but as the wiki article notes a paragraph later French anarchists organized a Solidarity Committee to assist him. I suggest rephrasing.

13. kept to writing about libertarian communist political theory

-  I wouldn’t describe what he wrote as political theory per se. He engaged in polemics and wrote memoirs. UnknownVolin (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I resolved most of these points, except for 6 and 10:

1. Seems the changes you made have resolved this point.
2. I've removed this detail as it's relatively unimportant. For clarification, the Polish government seemed to want to Makhnovists to join the nationalists. According to Skirda 2004, p. 268, one Lieutenant Blonski said to Makhno: "Why leave Poland? The Czechs are cowards, and they will hand you over to Moscow! As for Germany, the Bolsheviks are quite at home there! Stay with us; just adopt Petliura's platform, and all will be well for you!"
3. Rewritten per your suggestions.
4. My mistake.
5. Detail removed. This was sourced from Malet 1982, p. 186, but seems to imply that they were separated, not that Halyna remained in Poland: "In the end he did get into Germany, but he had first to double back into Poland, and leave Halyna behind."
6. So should this be moved or removed? Is the rest of the section, up until the end of the paragraph, correct as to what occurred in Berlin?
7. I've removed the detail about "inability" and kept the detail of the language barrier, as it still seemed like he had difficulties in learning the language. Per Malet 1982, p. 186: "Nestor never learnt French properly. He tried, and failed, to learn a dictionary by heart. He was desperately homesick, and the language barrier and frequent illness only made him more depressed."
8. Changed this to say the evidence was about the pogroms in Ukraine.
9. Changed.
10. This is complicated, as all of the cited sources (Avrich 1988, p. 122–123; Malet 1982, pp. 173–174; Peters 1970, pp. 94–95; Skirda 2004, p. 339) seem to themselves be citing Volin when they are quoting Tcherikower's comments. I guess, depending on when that letter was published, it's possible that Tcherikower changed his views, but this is clearly something I'll need to do more research into. I'll get back later on this point.
11. Changed.
12. Changed "neglected by" to "alienated from".
13. Cut this down to just "writing".

Grnrchst (talk) 10:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

6. I made some edits. I mainly shuffled the information to correspond to the correct chronology.

10. Yeah, it's a difficult situation. For decades, historians sourced Volin for this claim, which has now been thrown into doubt (or at least complicated). This letter was published in a book completed by Tcherikower in the 30s. Volin allegedly interviewed Tcherikower sometime in the 30s. Unfortunately I don't have specific dates. At minimum I think you should either remove Tcherikower's name, or clarify this claim as "according to Volin." UnknownVolin (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

6. Thanks for catching this!

10. I have rewritten to attribute this to Volin and moved some of the text around. Grnrchst (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Personal Life

@Grnrchst A few notes for this section:

1. “the two met and by November 1917 were married, at the insistence of Makhno's mother.”

-  Based on unclear sources. No solid proof Makhno was ever officially married to Nastia.

2. “After Huliaipole's anarchists were also forced into exile”

-  Better to say “forced underground”, some anarchists remained in Huliaipole

3. “Makhno married a local schoolteacher called Halyna Kuzmenko,”

-  Both Makhno and Halyna denied this. They referred to each other as husband and wife but say they never had a formal ceremony despite the rumours. There is a letter from Halyna in Peters’ book (appendix), where she writes this.

4. “Ida Mett later asserted that during Makhno's final years, Kuzmenko had begun an affair with his associate Volin, a relationship which came out into the open following Makhno's death.”

-  This was a rumour later denied by Kuzmenko. Volin never mentions such a relationship either in any of his writings. Mett also claims they got married but Volin himself was married at the time. Ida Mett was notorious for repeating rumour as fact, such as Makhno’s facial scar being result of Kumenko attempting to kill Makhno.

5. “deported to Nazi Germany for forced labor during World War II.”

-  Elena was recruited for factory work in Berlin. Halyna later followed her voluntarily. Darch says it was forced but in Kuzmenko’s memoir, published by Semanov, she simply says “I moved to Berlin in 1943, where my daughter lived and worked at the time.” They shared an apartment in the city, where they were arrested by the Soviets.

UnknownVolin (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Some of these points require another dig into the sources:

1. In this case, the cited source (Darch 2020, p. 10) is citing Vasilii Golovanov (2013) Nestor Makhno, p. 42 and Viktor Belash & Alexander Belash (1993) Dorogi Nestora Makhno, p. 32. I'll need to look into these sources and check if they say that they were married.
2. I changed "Huliaipole's anarchists" to "Makhno himself", as this sentence is about Makhno reuniting with Nastia in exile.
3. Is there a better word I can use than "married"?
4. Removed this, as it's clearly just rumour-mongering and the cited source (Skirda 2004, pp. 303-304) directly disputes this: "Here again Ida Mett was unable to provide detail and had retreated behind a "hearsay defense. Such allegations therefore must be taken with a large pinch of salt."
5. Both the cited sources (Darch 2020, p. 146; Shubin 2010, p. 190) seem to agree that Elena was deported to Berlin for forced labour and mention that Halyna also ended up there, but Darch is a bit vaguer about Halyna's circumstances while Shubin writes that Halyna was also there for forced labour. Per Darch 2020, p. 146: "In 1941, [Olena] was sent to undertake forced labour in Berlin, and Kuz’menko also ended up there." (Darch here is citing Viktor Savchenko (2005) Makhno, p. 413) Per Shubin 2010, p. 190: "Galina and their daughter, Helena, were later deported to Germany as forced labour." (Shubin doesn't cite his source for this) Any ideas for how to resolve this?

Grnrchst (talk) 11:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Grnrchst

1. I checked these sources. They do use the word "married." Belash was not yet present in Huliaipole, so he is speaking from hearsay not as an eyewitness. Golovanov provides no sources. As a specialist in this field, I can assure you no marriage certificates have been found. But secondary sources supersede in this case, so leave it as is. If you want, you could preface it with "allegedly." One problem is how the term "married" was used at the time. As atheists, ideological anarchists were against church rituals, but they still took on life partners, which they colloquially referred to as wife and husband, without it being legally confirmed by a church ceremony (as in the case of Makhno and Halyna).

3. They were life partners. Or you could say something like "became Makhno's wife" and put in a footnote, that their marriage status is disputed and was denied by Halyna herself.

4. This is an issue of English secondary sources being incorrect. Skripnik published parts of Halyna and Elena's secret police file in his book За золотом Нестора Махно (2011). The move to Berlin was very clearly voluntary due to unemployment. Here are the relevant quotes (I only have an epub version so I don't have page numbers):

Document 33 (Interrogation Protocol of Halyna Kuzmenko)

Question: Why did you move to Berlin?

Answer: Unemployment in France in general and especially difficult conditions for foreigners to find work. In 1942, I was denied unemployment benefits and asked to find work myself. Through a special bureau, which was in France for sending workers to Germany, I was sent to Berlin. By this time, my daughter was there, having left for Berlin for the same reasons in 1941, working at the Siemens factory as a simple worker. With the help of my daughter, I also got a job at this factory as a worker. After seven months, due to my illness and the end of the contract with this factory, I went back to Paris, in 1942 in August. After 2 months, I had to leave for Berlin again, because I could not find work in Paris. Upon arrival in Berlin, I got a job at the Getward factory.

Document 34 (Conclusion in the Criminal Case of H. Kuzmenko and E. Mikhnenko)

Mikhnenko, being the daughter of Makhno, the leader of the anarchist gangs in Ukraine, lived in Paris until 1941. In 1941, she voluntarily left Paris for Berlin, where until October 1944 she worked at the German military factory "Siemens" as a translator and draftsperson at the design bureau.

Hope all this helps. UnknownVolin (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

1. I decided to remove the detail about the marriage and Makhno's mother's insistence, as the cited source (Darch 2020, p. 10) even uses the word "apparently" in reference to this. So it's now cut to concision as just "became a couple".

3. Rephrased this per your suggestion.

4. Could this "bureau" not be a reference to the Service du travail obligatoire? The government of Vichy France did encourage workers to "volunteer" for work in Nazi Germany. Just trying to clarify this fully before making a change. Grnrchst (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Legacy

@Grnrchst

1. I added that the Huliaipole Local History Museum has a permanent exhibition about Makhno. The town's museum is the centre point around which Makhno history and lore live on in the region.
2. Removed claim "liubo bratsy liubo" was a favorite of Makhno. In one of Halyna's memoirs she says she heard Kuban Cossacks singing this song but never the Makhnovists.
3. "According to the Russian journalist Pavel Sadkov, that was the first time in the history of Russian cinema that Makhno was portrayed positively." — I removed this line. I believe this claim is a mistranslation of what Sadkov writes. He doesn't write that Makhno was portrayed positively, but writes that "this was, perhaps, the first time a negative character in our cinema enjoyed almost more popularity than a positive one." Makhno is depicted as an unhinged alcoholic in the film.
4. "the kind of monster that even Hitler's men are not often shown in movies." — This strikes me as hyperbolic. The Nazis are universally recognized as an ultimate evil. Is the depiction of Makhno in Roads to Calvary really worse than the many films that document the Nazis Holocaust? Makhno is depicted as deranged and violent but not genocidal.
5. Nine Lives of Nestor Makhno "historical accuracy" — whatever film critics have written, specialists on Makhno know this series for the opposite reason: a serious lack of accuracy. You can find commentary about the series on makhno.ru forum. The latter is frequented by Ukrainian and Russian specialists.
6. I strongly encourage you to add a section about Makhno's importance to anti-authoritarians fighting in the current war. Flags and patches are common and in interviews with anarchist soldiers Makhno is often mentioned. There is also the incident of the London Makhnovists squatting a Russian oligarch owned mansion in response to the war.

UnknownVolin (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

1. Do you have a source for the local museum? Even just a website or something? Just asking because the cited source (Darch 2020, p. 164) only mentions the museum in passing, as the supposed destination of Makhno's ashes after their repatriation.
2. No bother and thanks for the information on that song's popularity with the Kuban Cossacks.
3. This was most likely a mistranslation yes, thanks for catching it.
4. Removed the direct quotes and replaced with "presented in a negative light".
5. Removed mention of historical accuracy.
6. This is something I've been considering actually. Do you know of any sources to help me get started? So far I've gathered these on the war: [9][10][11][12] and this on the squatting incident: [13]

Grnrchst (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

1. The Encyclopedia of Ukraine mentions the exhibit in its article on Huliaipole. There is also this from the British Library.
2. Here is a good article in English. And a few more news articles [1] [2] [3]. Here's an interview with an anarchist soldier that mentions Makhno and another interview about building modern tachankas.
3. You could also mention Makhnofest (offically called Indepedence Day with Makhno) in the text. It ran from 2006-2009. There is also a famous French song called "La Makhnovtschina." It was written in the 60s and became popular throughout the 70s, when there was a resurgence of interest in Makhno in France. This resurgence largely due to the student/worker protests of 1969 and the writings of Daniel Cohn-Bendit. None of this is necessary to add, just some extra info to check out.

UnknownVolin (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

1. Thanks for that, I have added the Encyclopedia of Ukraine article.
2. Added a paragraph for this at the end of the section.
3. Makhnofest is already pictured in one of the thumbnails for this section. As for the Makhnovist legacy in France, this is something I'd need to look into more.

Grnrchst (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Notes and Further Reading

1. As mentioned previously, I suggest the names of Makhno's brothers use Ukrainian transliterations: Hryhorii, Savelii, and Omelian. Also add Polikarp. You can find some basic info on Polikarp here.

2. In the further reading section you have a couple Polish language works but none of the major works in Russian or Ukrainian. I suggest either restricting your list to English only sources, or adding the most important works in other languages as well. This would include Ukrainian, Russian, French, and German. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnknownVolin (talk • contribs) 00:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

1. I have now corrected the transliterations here and on their respective articles. I just want to confirm for Polikarp, this says he was killed by the Ukrainian People's Republic in 1919? Also, are there any other sources for him than Rodovid?
2. Can you suggest which important works to add? It appears as though the Polish language resources are specifically about Makhno's time in Poland, so if I remove them here, I'll make sure they make their way onto Polish Wikipedia.

Grnrchst (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Final Comments

That brings an end to my GA review. Thank you @Grnrchst and @Czar for bringing me on board. It has been a really positive experience and enjoyable on my end. Thank you especially @Grnrchst for all your hard work.

After resolving any remaining points above, I have one last condition that we've previously discussed in order to give out the GA designation. To meet the neutrality criteria, the controversies around Makhno's involvement in extreme violence need to be addressed. Here are the main points I think should be in the article.

1. The article briefly mentions accusations of antisemitism against Makhno. A good job is done noting that Makhno rejected this, as have historians who have looked into the matter. An important piece missing here is that antisemitism was observed in Makhnovist movement and even acknowledged by them as a problem. For example, Makhno, Belash and Volin all admit a pogrom under the Makhnovist name occurred at the Jewish colony of Gorkaya in 1919. They say an investigation was launched and the perpetrators executed. Other instances of Makhnovist pogroms are found in primary sources as well. Malet notes some of these in his chapter on Antisemitism. And then there is the Tcherikower letter, in which he says he collected materials about the pogroms and felt Makhno was personally responsible even if he didn't order them. Why is this important to Makhno as a person and not just the movement? It contextualizes why these accusations against him personally emerged in the first place and lets the reader know the pogroms were not entirely Soviet fabrications. There is no evidence Makhno ordered or participated in this violence. In fact, the opposite is true: he consistently condemned manifestations of antisemitism in his movement.
2. Similar comments can be made about Makhno and the Mennonite/German colonists. Makhnovist troops committed all types of crimes against them, including massacres and rape. Mennonite literature from the time and later accused Makhno personally of perpetrating the violence. Makhno's role here is more complicated than in the Jewish case. From Makhno's own memoirs we find him launching a retributive campaign of "sword and fire" against German colonies in autumn 1918. He even describes an attack on a Catholic German colony that ends in the killing of all the men. In her diary, Halyna also describes a massacre of a Lutheran German colony in 1920, in which Makhno was present and men and women were killed. At the same, there are recorded instances where Makhno intervened against the violence. For example, Chubenko and Belash both recall an incident involving Shchus killing German colonists, where Makhno threatens to arrest him. As for the large-scale Mennonite massacres in fall 1919, which killed over 800 people in six weeks, there is no archival evidence Makhno directly ordered them. However, unlike the Jewish pogroms, we have no official condemnation of the Mennonite massacres by Makhno. Neither did he mention the massacres in his memoirs. As previously mentioned see Patterson and Toews's books. Also see Dyck, Staples, and Toews, Nestor Makhno and The Eichenfeld Massacre (2008) for a decidedly Mennonite perspective. Imo, in both the Jewish and Mennonite/German cases it is important to be transparent about the sources, the nature of the historiographical debates, and not unwittingly excise the reality of a darker side to Makhno and the movement.

UnknownVolin (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• I've seen hundreds of reviews on Wikipedia and this has definitely been one of the most thorough at any level. Your attention to detail makes me wonder how much I'm getting wrong when I paraphrase from other standard histories. @Grnrchst, apart from clearing up any structural issues you want to address, i.e., if you want to work more from Darch rather than Skirda, after a review like this, I think you're more than FA-ready. czar 02:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  haha. For better or worse I'm obsessive with detail. Thanks again. UnknownVolin (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not even mad, I want this article to be the best it possibly can be and you've helped a lot. So thanks so much. Grnrchst (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  The possible FA-ready status was going to be a question I had. :') Note that when I compared Skirda and Darch, I said "if I were to do this all over again" not that I plan to do this all over again. :P But aye, I still plan on adding more sourcing and maybe cutting back a wee bit more on Skirda-overreliance, as there are still gaps in the sources where I haven't grabbed anything from there yet. Grnrchst (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  re: FA, the key is lining up some support in advance, usually with a peer review or like this GA review does, otherwise you end up like my current FA nom. :) I'm figuring that you have two likely supports among us. I'll do a copy edit passthrough before supporting and am otherwise figuring that @UnknownVolin's featured article review standard is mostly covered by this current review.

  re: Skirda and Darch, I imagine you've already covered the major instances and that most others at a FAC won't probe the difference, but I will say that once this article is done, it's going to be (or already is today) the standard reference for Makhno on the Internet and it will be translated into a handful of languages over the next decade, where it'll live in perpetuity... and only you will know that it cites one and not another. This said, I definitely plan to continue citing Skirda myself, just with a little more skepticism from now on. czar 02:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Czar @Grnrchst Excellent. All looks good to me. Just the Mennonite/German colonist violence issue needs to be resolved. A paragraph somewhere would suffice or in a new section that addresses various controversies. Maybe also some previously discussed additions to the legacy section. As far as Skirda goes, I think we've rectified any suspect claims or bias that was introduced. Skirda-only references could be bolstered by other sources, just to cross-reference, but I don't think that is necessarily required. Anyways, we can also keep editing in the future if we missed something. How exactly does the FA process work? How many people assess it and is the decision made by consensus? UnknownVolin (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yep, you'll close this review when satisfied and when Grnrchst is ready they'll list the article as a featured article candidate (consideration for the highest grade assessment). The FA criteria is a bit more stringent than the GA criteria. And yes, with rare exception, everything on Wikipedia is decided by consensus, which is generally quite nice. By precedent, usually a successful FA candidate will have had at least three thorough reviews in support, an image (copyright) review, and a source (spotcheck for verification) review. You can see a bunch of current nominations here with the oldest (unfinished) reviews towards the bottom and the newer nominations (such as this one, if anyone is so inclined) near the top. czar 05:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it's absolutely necessary to address these controversies in order for this article to be its best, neutrality-wise.

1. The massacre at Gorkaya and other instances of pogroms, as well as their consequences, are actually briefly mentioned in the Makhnovshchina article and there was a reference to it in the now-deleted Controversy section. Is what was used in these places sufficient for adding to this article? If so, where would be the best place to put it and how much detail do you think is necessary? I'm thinking either somewhere in the "Commander in the Red Army" section (as the massacre occurred on 12 May 1919) or in the section of "Exile" where antisemitism is addressed.
2. This is admittedly a place I think this version of the article, and other related articles, has fallen very flat. On my own part, it's because the sources I currently have available to me either downplay the the cases of violence against Mennonites (some vaguely mentioning "Germans") or outright ignore them. Other sources I've seen have either been vague about the events, or didn't mention Makhno as being directly involved. This is the main piece of further research that I'll clearly have to do before this article is up to the mark. As with the section about antisemitic pogroms, I may also need an idea for where best to put such a section.

Thanks again for all the help you've provided in this review, your time and efforts have been invaluable. :) Grnrchst (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Grnrchst

1. If a new section is not created then a brief mention in the Exile section is sufficient. Just something noting that the Makhnovists acknowledged the problem of antisemitism in their own ranks and sometimes it led to pogroms like Gorkaya.
2. I completely understand the problem with many sources ignoring the issue. Until very recently Mennonite and Makhnovist literature largely stood in their own spheres without much interaction. Beyond the sources I've already mentioned there is also Wayne Foster's article from libcom.org. While not an "academic" article it is very well-written and sourced. If a new section is not created, I think a paragraph maybe after the current antisemitism one would work.

UnknownVolin (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

1. I have added a sentence in there about Makhno's attitude towards antisemitism and his punishment of the pogromists. Let me know if anything needs changing.
2. In the interest of expediency, I added a sentence about the Danzig authorities arresting him for his responsibility in the anti-Mennonite massacres, per Darch 2020 and Patterson 2020. As for more possible detail, I still need to do more research into this subject. Let me know if there's anything specific you think I should add here.

If there's anything more that you feel needs adding, changing or removing in order to sufficiently achieve neutrality, I'll try to solve it to the best of my ability. Grnrchst (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

2. Makhno was not arrested for Mennonite massacres in Danzig. Patterson (2020) argues the opposite, that this reason for the arrest was a myth. UnknownVolin (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Damn it would appear my eyes glanced over the "it is claimed" part of that sentence, apologies. This is what I get for rushing stuff. Grnrchst (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

No worries :) UnknownVolin (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I removed the addition about being arrested for alleged massacres in Danzig. It really didn't happen. This myth emerged from a misinterpreted memoir written by Halyna and published by Semanov (Patterson 2020, 32-35). UnknownVolin (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Grnrchst

Also the incorrect place name was added for Gorkaya. Gorkaya is now called Nazarovychova. It is so tiny it doesn't appear on most maps. https://www.jewishgen.org/ukraine/GEO_town.asp?id=613. I would just use the name Gorkaya since that is how this event is know. UnknownVolin (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Resolved. I just found that (incorrect) place via searches for it on Russian Wikipedia, saw it was in the general area, and assumed that was it. Didn't realise it was that small. Grnrchst (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Grnrchst A follow up on the deleted Controversy section. There is lots of good information in there. Regarding the Mennonite section it could be paired down quite a bit to hit just the main points. However I don't want to intervene too much on it and potentially introduce my own bias here. Once you've written something I can look it over for any factual errors.

Beyond the sources I previously mentioned Victor Peters (a Mennonite himself) describes some Mennonite-Makhno encounters and I believe closer to the end of the book he offers his own interpretation of the violence. David Rempel's A Mennonite Family in Tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union and Dietrich Neufeld's A Russian Dance of Death are both extremely insightful sources but are written by eyewitnesses, so primary. Malet actually wrote a double book review of Neufeld and Palij back in 1979 [1]. But I'd start with Wayne Foster's article for a solid article-length overview of the topic. UnknownVolin (talk) 05:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I've added some information about the attacks on Mennonites after the battle of Dibrivka and the battle of Peregonovka. I'm in the process of actively doing more research about this, so expect more of this information on other pages soon. Grnrchst (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I have now created an article about the Eichenfeld massacre, using some of the above-mentioned source, which I hope to improve over the coming days. I'd be more than happy to receive advice on this in its respective talk page. (I also plan on adding a relevant section to the article on the Makhnovshchina). Apologies if I've gotten anything wrong in this. I really want to make sure I'm being correct when it comes to topics like this. Grnrchst (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Grnrchst Looks great to me! UnknownVolin (talk) 05:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Closing up Shop

@Grnrchst Alright! Looks like everything has been resolved. The article is greatly improved and now meets all GA criteria. It was really great working with you on this. I'm going to now figure out how to close this thing up. UnknownVolin (talk) 06:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Czar @Grnrchst Ok I think I closed correctly. If I didn't let me know if I need to change something. I listed the article as GA in historical figures: other. UnknownVolin (talk) 06:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Czar @Grnrchst Is the vital article banner supposed to be changed from B-Class to GA? UnknownVolin (talk) 06:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Yep, but usually a bot comes through and cleans up stuff like that so no worries if you miss any of the little steps. Congrats on your first review! :) czar 07:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Related discussions on Makhnovist symbols/iconography and citogenesis

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anarchism#A note on historical accuracy and misinformation czar 16:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

FAC prose comments from mujinga

Part one

• prose comments per note at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nestor Makhno/archive1

• I'll do lead last

• "Unable to feed his family on their small plot of land, following Nestor's birth, Ivan Mikhnenko went to work as a coachman for a wealthy industrialist" - suggest "Following Nestor's birth, Ivan Mikhnenko went to work as a coachman for a wealthy industrialist, since he could not feed his family from their small plot of land"

• Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• "After the summer, Nestor returned to school," - here and elswhere in this part of the article I'd expect to see the surname being used. Is there a particular reason to use Nestor?

• Usually it's because of close proximity to his family members. So "Nestor" is used in the early life section and when his brothers are mentioned later, as "Makhno" could be more ambiguous. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I've re-read inserting Makhno for Nestor and I think in pretty much all cases you could make the switch (not for example "leaving only the young Nestor and Hryhorii with their mother") but happy to see what other reviewers say. Mujinga (talk) 11:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Czar seems to have agreed with you on this, so most of the uses of "Nestor" in early life have been replaced with "Makhno". --Grnrchst (talk) 07:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

ok Mujinga (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

• "As the rest of the group's members had been outlawed" - not 100% sure what this means - the group itself had been outlawed and/or everyone else had gone underground?

• It's the latter. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

OK so they had been sentenced in absentia? still trying to work out if they went underground by choice or because they were charged/wanted Mujinga (talk) 11:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

They went underground because they were wanted. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

so maybe say that or say who they had been outlawed by? Mujinga (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Said they were "outlawed by the Tsarist authorities". Let me know if I need to clarify further. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• "launched a crackdown against the anarchist group " - could just say "group"

• Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• "Makhno's frequent boasting in prison earned him the nickname "Modest"" - sidecomment that's hilarious!

• Aye, I do like a good ironic nickname. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• "The disease kept him returning to the prison hospital throughout his sentence" - sounds odd, suggest "Throughout his sentence he spent periods in the prison hospital" or similar

• Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• "But during this time," - suggest removing "but"

• Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• "became disillusioned with intellectualism after seeing the differences between how the prison guards treated the intellectual prisoners and those inmates from the lower classes" - i see what you are wanting to say, i think, but would prefer the second "intellectual" to be changed for something else

• Any suggestions? I've added a link to intellectual for now. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

yeah sorry maybe i don't see what you mean haha! at the moment it seems to me you are setting up difference between clever prisoners and lower class idiots, whereas i assume that you want to say the higher class prisoners were treated better than illiterate prisoners or something like that? Mujinga (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Aye it's a class thing, the "intellectuals" had a background as members of the more educated middle/upper-class. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

so its currently "also became disillusioned with intellectualism after seeing the differences between how the prison guards treated the intellectual prisoners and those inmates from the lower classes", I'd suggest something like "also became disillusioned with intellectualism after seeing the class prejudice with which guards treated different prisoners", if that still summarises up the source Mujinga (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Rewritten based on your suggestion, with a couple adjustments. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

your version works for me, nice one Mujinga (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• "When the prison doors were flung open during the February Revolution of 1917,[48] Makhno was released from bondage for the first time in eight years, even finding himself off-balance without the chains weighing him down[46] and in need of sunglasses after years in dark prison cells" - this feels a bit sensationalist with "flung open", "released from bondage" and "even"

• Re-written to hopefully be a bit more neutral. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

nice Mujinga (talk) 11:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• "finally convinced him" / "the 28-year-old Makhno finally returned" - not sure if either finally is needed

• Removed. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• "All this gave him an image of social banditry" - feels odd, can't quite put my finger on why, suggest "He became known as a social bandit" or similar

• Rewritten. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• "Makhno called for the local bourgeoisie to be disarmed and their property expropriated, with all private enterprise to be brought under workers' control. Peasants withheld rent and took control of the lands they worked. Large estates collectivized and transformed into agrarian communes. Makhno personally organized communes on former Mennonite estates" - this feels a bit choppy, suggest joining up some sentences

• Joined the two middle sentences. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

that reads better and i've substituted in two "he"s which I'm fine with you changing back if you don't like, it just flowed funny for me with so many "Makhno"s Mujinga (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• "he organized the town bank's expropriation to fund their revolutionary activities " - who is "their" referring to here?

• The anarchists. Clarified. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

which anarchists? if it's the "armed anarchist detachment to assist the Bolsheviks" it's ok, otherwise needs explaining Mujinga (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

noting this is still open Mujinga (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Mujinga: It's referring to the anarchist movement in Huliaipole. I clarified to "local anarchist movement". Let me know if it still needs work. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

done! Mujinga (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• "Map of Southern Russia " red numbers on red background doesn't seem optimal for accessibility

• I've already notified the creators, hoping they'll make a change soon. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

oh yes I saw that discussion, thanks for that Mujinga (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

New map got! --Grnrchst (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

looks great! Mujinga (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

• "late April 1918 against their former allies within the Ukrainian People's Republic" - add "(UPR)" after

• Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• "due to the risks of killing innocent civilians" - "risk"?

• Changed. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• "After defeating Austrian units in nearby Marfopil," - "After defeating Austrian units in the nearby village of Marfopil,"

• Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• "Makhno's detachment withdrew north, where it sought refuge in the Dibrivka forest, neighbouring the village of Velykomykhailivka.[129] There they joined forces with another small insurgent detachment led by Fedir Shchus.[130] Austrian units encircled the insurgents in their forest encampment.[131] To break the encirclement, Makhno launched a surprise counterattack against the troops in the village.[132]" - good summary but again a bit choppy, suggest joining some sentences

• Joined the last two sentences. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

"When Austrian units encircled the insurgents in their forest encampment, to break the encirclement," - suggest surrounded for "encircled" because you also have "encirclement" Mujinga (talk) 11:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• the insurgents bestowed Makhno with the title Bat'ko (English: Father) - ah so prob give the translation earlier for Batko Ivan as well

• The reason I didn't give the translation earlier for Ivan is because he's just referred to by Skirda as "Batko Ivan", without explanation for what "Batko" means. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I see your logic but I think within the context of this article it's weird to have Batko 1 not defined one first mention 2 written in different ways Mujinga (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

still open for discussion Mujinga (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• "equally representing Bolsheviks, SRs, and anarchists" - prob best to spell out what SR means

• Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• " with Makhno subordinate himself to the command of Pavel Dybenko." - suggest either take out "himself" or make it "himself subordinate"

• Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• "To resolve the dispute, Makhno invited Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko to visit Huliaipole, which impressed the Ukrainian commander-in-chief and allayed his concerns about Makhno's command." if as the pic caption says Antonov-Ovseenko was himself the "commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian Soviet Army" this needs rephrasing since i thought " the Ukrainian commander-in-chief " referred to someone else

• Clarified to "Ukrainian Soviet Army's commander-in-chief". How's that? --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• "His reports quickly attracted Lev Kamenev" - can you clarify who Kamenev is

• Described as "Politburo member". How's that? --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

yeah great that shows why he is worthy of mention Mujinga (talk) 11:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• "In May 1919, the powerful otaman " - link otaman to ataman and/or define it?

• Linked. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• " and even labeling him a "kulak"" - I was surprised by "labeling" not "labelling" since I had settled into thinking this was BrEng but it is indeed USEng. This then means it should be neighboring in "Makhno's detachment withdrew north, where it sought refuge in the Dibrivka forest, neighbouring the village of Velykomykhailivka", saber for sabre, defense for defence, criticize for criticise, traveled for travelled and so on

• Ach, sorry about this. Although I'm theoretically a native writer of British English, I often find it difficult remembering the differences between the two. So while the article has the "Use American English" tag, I would have written it largely in British English. What should I do? --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh no worries this is the sort of thing that comes out in FA review when all the microscopes come out :) Per MOS:RETAIN if the "Use American English" tag was there first you should keep it... unless you have a particularly persuasive rationale Mujinga (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• Kulak is mentioned earlier thus should be linked first time round and maybe here too. also I'd suggest using Template:Lang per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC. And there's no doubt other instances of foreign words that could use this too, eg sotnia

• Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

done for the first part, second part not done which is ok for me as long as you are consistent. if you did want to do it, you'd need to do other terms eg Makhnovshchina Mujinga (talk) 12:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• Another point courtesy of the WMF Cloud/Tools Lab peer reviewer: Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 520 kilometers, use 520 kilometers, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 520 kilometers.

• Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• "Makhno thus relinquished command of the 7th Ukrainian Soviet Division and declared his intention to wage a guerrilla war against the Whites from the rear.[180] Trotsky then ordered Kliment Voroshilov to arrest Makhno, but sympathetic officers reported the order to him, thus preventing his capture by the Cheka" 2x thus, not sure if either is needed

• Removed. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

the chopped version

• define sotnia?

• Is a link not sufficient? --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd prefer a definition prbably but I'm fine with you waitign to see if other reviewers flag it up. Just to add on kulak, I don't think I noticed before that it is first linked as a pipe via wealthier land-owning class - I suggest keeping Kulak lined but put "wealthier land-owning class" in brackets or similar Mujinga (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• "where he met with Hryhoriv's green army." - sidecomment bloimey green as well on top of blacks, whites and reds!??

• It's one of the nice things about the post-revolutionary factions, they're all colour-coded :P --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• query - makhno is also considered a green leader by our wikiarticle, does that need bringing out more? as i read the article now he seems separate to the greens ... also if makhno's forces were called the Revolutionary Insurgent Army of Ukraine then this term should be used a bit more in the article, since it's in the lead but not really used in the body

• To be honest, the term "green army" is rather vaguely defined, as it was used to refer to many different autonomous peasant formations. I've added a first case of Revolutionary Insurgent Army of Ukraine, but because it's quite a long name, I use "insurgent army" and "insurgents" for concision (as do the sources). --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

cool on green, and I like what you've done for the RIAU Mujinga (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• caption "Nykyfor Hryhoriv (left), otaman of the green army in Kherson, who would be assassinated during a meeting with Makhno" is good, i'm just wondering if it's Antonov-Ovseenko on the right?

• It is, should I mention that in the caption? I left it because Hryhoriv is more relevant to this section. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

ummm I guess? or use the chopped version which is just him? i mean it's not a huge issue, just seems worth mentioning it since Antonov-Ovseenko was described just above Mujinga (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• "begging him to subordinate himself again to Bolshevik command, to which Makhno refused" - remove "to" from "to which", or replace with "a request which"?

• Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• I got as far as "Against the White Army", stopping here for now Mujinga (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Part two

could add a pic of a tachanka?

• made some replies above, and now continuing Mujinga (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• "Nestor's brother Hryhorii died during one of these attacks" - coudl say "His brother"

• Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• "Symon Petliura" worth adding he was Supreme Commander of the Ukrainian People's Army (UNA) or whatever is appropriate

• Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• sabers for sabres as discussed above

• Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• "The Makhnovists subsequently split up" - remove subsequently?

• Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• "research by Sean Patterson" - who he?

• Clarified as "Canadian historian". --Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• link Nikopol, Ukraine

• Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• "with even Makhno himself" - no need for even?

• Removed. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• " initiating a nine-month period of hostilities with the Bolshevik" - missing word?

• No missing word, but "Bolshevik" should have been "Bolsheviks". Also added link to Bolshevik–Makhnovist conflict. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

cool Mujinga (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• "comrade Batko Makhno" - another mention of Batko, when we have Bat'ko in lead

• This is down to different transliterations of "батько", as the "ь" is often either transliterated as an apostrophe or dropped. Avrich 1988, Darch 2020, Footman 1961, Palij 1976 and Patterson 2020 use "Bat'ko", whereas Chamberlin 1987, Kantowicz 1999, Malet 1982, Peters 1970, Shubin 2010, Skirda 2004 and Sysyn 1977 use "Batko". As this quote was pulled from Peters and Skirda, "Batko" is used. Should I standardise it? And if so, how do I handle it when quoting directly from a source? --Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest standardising in the text and making a note saying pretty much what you said here Mujinga (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Mujinga: I've been thinking about how to implement this and remembered that there's actually already an explanatory footnote in the lead about the translation of "Bat'ko", so I could incorporate other sources into that. Is there a way to link to the same explanatory footnote multiple times in the same article? Because ideally I'd just reuse that for the other times the word pops up in the text. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

yeah sounds good - Help:Footnotes#H:PREGROUP suggests options for reusing footnotes more than once Mujinga (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

For now I've standardised the usage to "Bat'ko". I'll have a look at this footnote documentation and see if I can wrap my head around it. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• "The still-wounded Makhno stayed behind in Huliaipole anyway, along with his black guard" - Black Guard / black guard mentioned only on third appearance?

• What? --Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

wikilinked not mentined! so Black Guard / black guard wilinked only on third appearance? Mujinga (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I think I sorted this. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• "Wrangel's defeat in Crimea by the combined" - maybe time for a link to Pyotr Wrangel? wow this is all getting very confusing, nice one for keeping it relatively clear!

• Linked. And aye, there's a lot of moving parts in this history. It's not remotely close to the most complicated civil war I've come across though. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• I'm thinking around here you probably need another map to geolocate some of the important battles

• I guess I could probably put in another request for a map, although I still haven't received any response on my request for one for the battle of Dibrivka article. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Shame about the other request! I'd say to make this best possible article then a map would be very helpful. You could also look into making it yourself, I taught myself how to make this one at Securitas_depot_robbery#Robbery which probably isn't the prettiest map out there but passed FAc and hopefully helps people to orientate themselves in the events a bit Mujinga (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• "they finally managed to shake off the pursuing Cossacks" - who is they here?

• Makhno's detachment. Is that not clear? --Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

that's what I expected but wouldn't a detachment be "it"? Mujinga (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• "with only his black sotnia remaining" - black guard sotnia?

• I think Makhno's "Black Guard" and his "black sotnia" were two terms for the same unit, but "black guard sotnia" isn't ever used in any of the sources... --Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

ok thanks Mujinga (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• " and almost running them out of ammo, before they were finally able to shake the armored detachment off their trail." - this feels a bit sensationalist? also ammunition for ammo?

• Sensationalist how? I don't see it. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

im not sure if ammo is acceptable and shaking a tail seems informal but if you think both/one are/is ok then i'm fine to wait to see what other reviewers think Mujinga (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I've replaced "ammo" with "ammunition", but I still don't see the issue with the second part, so have left it as is for now. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Part three

Coming soon, starting at Exile Mujinga (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• "shipped to a Polish Strzałkowo internment camp in April 1922" - the for "a"?

• Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• sidecomment - starting to think this would make an excellent film

• There's already a tv show actually! (Nine Lives of Nestor Makhno) It's fine by the standards of early 2000s Russian television, but it's nothing to write home about. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• link relapsed?

• Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• " clandestinely leave for Berlin" - remove clandestinely?

• Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• tell us who Volin is?

• Clarified as "Russian anarchist". --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• "A bullet wound in his right ankle threatened amputation" - I'm guessing this is the same wound? I don't think a wound can threaten

• Suggestions for a better word? --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

something like "His foot was considered for amputation because of his old ankle wound"? Mujinga (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Rewritten. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

looks good now! Mujinga (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• "one time even celebrating" - this is getting a bit sensationalist again with the good old days but I think I'd be satisfied just with the removal of "even"

• Removed "even". --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• "Schwarzbard immediately informed the Batko " - surely Makhno makes more sense here than Batko ... sidequery: was Makhno referring to people like Petliura when he said "amongst a foreign people and political enemies whom I have so often declaimed against." becuase until this point i saw Petliura and Makhno as allies, so if they fell out maybe that needs stating

• Replaced "Batko" with "Makhno". As for Makhno's quote, I'm not sure who this is referring to specifically, the source doesn't clarify. I had assumed it was referring to French Communist Party members, but I could be wrong. As for Petliura, I wouldn't say he and Makhno were ever allies, they just weren't exactly enemies either. They signed a truce, more of a peace agreement than a proper alliance, when both were being attacked by the Whites. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

thanks, that makes sense Mujinga (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• " resulting in public debates on the matter" in Paris or all over Europe?

• In Paris, although it may have involved people from around Europe. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• since we've now had a few things written by Makhno I'm thinking a selected works section would be helpful for readers?

• Some of his major work is already in the further reading section. I could move it if need be? --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

To me it makes sense, don't mind if you want to wait to see what other people think Mujinga (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• "Alienated from many of the Russian and French anarchists in Paris" - purely by his behaviour or were there also doctrinal splits? becuase for example " April 1929, May Picqueray and other French anarchists established a "Makhno Solidarity Committee" to raise funds" - these guys still supported him

• Well you know with anarchists, doctrinal splits and bad behaviour aren't mutually exclusive. :P Anyway, I think there may be some chronological confusion here. It was only by 1931 that he had truly broken with the French anarchists and shifted his attention towards Spain. I've shifted the paragraphs around to better reflect this. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• ah ok then i read this "His ideological conflict with the synthesis anarchists escalate" - so something needs to be explained, is this still related to the Organizational Platform of the Libertarian Communists?

• Aye, the synthesis anarchists were opposed to the Organizational Platform. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• "Operations failed to help and" - "After several operations"?

• Changed. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• "Vasetskaia was eventually forced to flee Huliaipole after being threatened by Black Guards" - huh so Black Guards are simply anarchist soldiers, I thought they were Makhnovist anarchist soldiers, then I read this sentence as meaning Vasetskaia was threatened by Makhno's own soldiers. Also "eventually" is unneeded

• Aye I understand the confusion. "Black Guards" is a generic name for armed anarchist units, but when used earlier in the article, it was referring to Makhno's personal unit. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

cool - as mentioned above, still needs linking on first mention Mujinga (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• "and a leading figure in the Makhnovshchina.[315] With the defeat of the Makhnovshchina," - suggest changing one instance of Makhnovshchina

• Changed second one to "Makhnovist movement". --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• "Although other biographers" - don't think "although" is doing much unless you want to run the sentences together

• Removed. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• "militants of Revolutionary Action have also lain claim to" - laid claim? I'm not sure

• Changed. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• Appropriate although sad that the legacy ends up in the present day. Any recent updates?

• Unfortunately Huliaipole is still being shelled on a daily basis by the Russian Armed Forces. There have certainly been updates, but none specifically related to Makhno as far as I know. If you want to see how the war has affected the city, and the legacy Makhno has left there, I'd highly recommend the Thickets documentary. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

thanks for the recommendation! Mujinga (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• I like the see also section

• I know a few more people that could probably be added there, if need be. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• Lead:
• "He also played an important role in the development of platformism " - not sure if this is brought out in body

• There's an entire paragraph about it. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

platformism yes but i wasn't clear, I meant if you say he "played an important role" then that needs to be drawn out more in my opinion Mujinga (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

i just noticed what you did there - yeah works for me! Mujinga (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• Organizational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists (Draft) is only mentioned in lead?

• That's a different name for the Organizational Platform of the Libertarian Communists. As the "General Union of Anarchists" one is apparently a more accurate title, I've replaced the former with the latter. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• i think you need a bit more about his exile in the lead - Poland isn't mentioned, and paris coudl have a couple more sentences about writing and disputes

• Expanded. Let me know what you think. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

oops forgot to reply on this one - yeah looks great now Mujinga (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• "settled in Paris with his wife Halyna" - second wife? also Nastia Vasetskaia is not in infobox

• I hadn't considered adding Vasetskaia to the infobox, as they were only married for a short period and she's not really independently notable. I can add her if it's necessary. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

ummmm makes sense to me since the infobox would give the impression he was only married once Mujinga (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• ok that completes the prose sweep, well done on keeping on top of such a long epic story! Mujinga (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks the prose review, it has been very helpful! --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  Cheers for saying that, I know the nitpicks can get annoying sometimes :) I've made answers to your answers again. I'm pretty close to supporting now but will prob wait on a few matters to see what other reviewers think once we've got things tied up here. Mujinga (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  We are pretty much there so I moved the discussion back to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nestor Makhno/archive1 Mujinga (talk) 12:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm trying to answer the last of these comments. Apologies for not rounding this off sooner, health issues have interrupted most of my work and I'm trying my best not to stress myself out further. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  Oh no worries, real life should always come first, hope you feel better! I'll reply more back on the FAC page Mujinga (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)