Talk:Nestor Makhno

Châtelain film
Hélène Châtelain's 1996 documentary Nestor Makhno, un paysan d'Ukraine might have some answers to the Makhno FAC image copyright discussion. Here's a quote from an interview:

If it's possible to find some detail on this published film, I imagine many of the Makhno images will clearly be proven as public domain. The source of this St. Petersburg film wasn't clear from the film's credits sequence. czar 19:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * This article by Châtelain is freely available but doesn't appear to mention the footage. Might want to double check. (It would, however, serve as a good source on cultural depictions of Makhno over the years, apart from her own.)  czar  19:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Czar: Having seen the documentary, I actually already know which photo this is talking about. This is the still from the film. I imagine that means that this photograph may also be from the film (or taken at the same time), judging from all the people in the shot, how they're dressed and positioned. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Any ideas on who the St. Petersburg director might be? czar  19:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "Director from Saint Petersburg" isn't much to go off tbh. We're still trying to find a needle in a haystack, that haystack is just slightly smaller now. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Noting for posterity that it looks like File:1919. Повстанцы и батька Махно. Юг Украины. Кинохроника гражданской войны..ogv is a portion of the Romanian reel in question. czar  15:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've found a high-quality version, unlisted on the YouTube account of Seance Magazine. The clip bears the watermark of the Russian State Film and Photo Archive, and the high-quality scan was posted in 2017, so it's probably still in there somewhere. I've tried to trace it back through their online resources (which unfortunately do not provide complete transfers for everything), but my knowledge of Russian is perhaps not good enough for this task. 144.82.8.11 (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Brief update: located it. Archival material No. 30501, 'Selected Scenes from a Soviet Newsreel' (Отдельные сюжеты советской кинохроники). The archive listing says it's from a film institute in Hungary, with intertitles in Hungarian. Makhno appears at the end of the listing: "Southern Ukraine, spring 1919. Leader of the insurgent movement in southern Russia Nestor Makhno, one of the leading commanders of Makhno's army Semyon Karetnik, and other leaders of the insurgent movement standing by a train carriage, walking on the railway tracks." There's no other information on the archive's website on who took the footage or where it came from. 144.82.8.11 (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Nicely done. Thank you! czar  00:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for looking into this! --Grnrchst (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Public domain: 1928
Just checking in as yesterday was public domain for works published in 1928. I would like to reinstate the image of Nestor Makhno and his daughter in Paris, which was published in Ogoniok on 27 May 1928. Is this now safe to add back into the article? I wanted to make sure through a mini-image review before going ahead. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Has anyone seen the image in context in Ogoniok to see if it credits another photographer or publication for the photo, which could be evidence of earlier publication? If none is listed then the Russian PD tag (for works with unknown authors) and the US PD tag (for works published before 1929) together cover what Commons needs. I think we can remove France and Ukraine's copyright rationale as the image in Ogoniok wasn't first published there. czar  09:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Czar: Wikicommons actually has an archive of Ogoniok, with the specific issue in question. Reading over it, I can't find any information about the photographer, although it does say that the photograph was sent by Makhno to his relatives in Huliaipole - I'm assuming the newspaper then published this. Nothing indicates to me that there was an earlier publication. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Nice! Sounds safe to add back to the article to me czar  10:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Cheers pal. :) --Grnrchst (talk) 10:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

'anarcha-feminist Lucile Pelletier'
I'm sure she was both an anarchist and a feminist, but also that she wasn't quite so illiterate as to describe her convictions by means of this morphological monstrosity, which I'm sure is of much more decent coinage - from the time when the creation of neoclassical compounds by people who don't understand or don't care how they work, and/or the use of distorting all rules of the language in childish wordplay for dead-serious purposes had become normal. The idea that the -o- in anarcho- is somehow masculine and must be made feminine by replacement with -a- is surreally silly. I suppose the same people would make gynaecologists into gynaecalogists and mammography into mammagraphy, perhaps also democracy into demacracy (or, say, demecracy to include both genders?). Further, a female adherent of socialism must presumably be a sacialist, and a decidedly male one is necessarily a sociolist? I suppose the idea is that a true anarchist rejects all rules, including the rules of grammar (and presumably also those of logic, mathematics, the laws of physics etc.) Anyway, given that the term 'anarcho-feminist' is still 'allowed' by the relevant Wiki article, arguably it's the one that should be used for people from the time before the current level of intellectual and linguistic degeneration had been reached. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The more important question, I think, is whether scholarly secondary sources characterize her this way. That sentence is supported by Skirda (1982, 2004), and it's possible that qualified scholars could retroactively apply this neologism to a figure from the 1920s. If, on the other hand, it's not used by expert sources, we as WP editors shouldn't either, even if we think it would fit. We just need to figure out which is happening here. I see her described more often as a "libertarian feminist." Still, I don't have access to the Skirda source.--MattMauler (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @MattMauler: Skirda also describes her as a "libertarian feminist", so I've changed it to that. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I also think "anarcho-feminist" would be perfectly reasonable.--MattMauler (talk) 13:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)