Talk:Nestor Makhno/GA1

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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[1] 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: [2][3][4][5] and this on the squatting incident: [6]

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.