Talk:Nestor Makhno/Archive 1

"however, town mayors and many officials were drawn directly from the ranks of Makhno's military and political leadership"
Is there a source for this claim? 86.153.59.54 (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Do not try to translate "Маkhnovshchina" from Russian, because it's Ukrainian. The meaning is clear and precise: "a rebellion led by Makhno", just the same as any other rebellion in Ukrainian history e.g. Koliivshchina (1768), Khmelnytshchina (1648), Pavlukovshchina (1637), Taborshchina (1569) etc. Noteworthiness 15:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To my ear as a native Russian speaker from Kiev, rebellion is way too narrow a definition. I believe that this suffix signifies a phenomenon in the broadest sense- in this case specifically the phenomenon of Makhno. This concept encompasses his movement and his ideas as well as the events that occurred as a consequence of these. It is also, as has already been stated, at the very least mildly derisive. This is almost definitely a Ukrainian suffix and I seem to recall that it might be of Turkic origin, though I am not at all sure about this last possibility. But whatever its origins, It has also made its way into Russian. See 'жириновщина' as an example of this, as well as an example of how rebellion just does not cut it. Here's a useful take on this suffix that I just found: http://russianmentor.net/gram/mailbag/topics/shchina.htm 24.146.204.47 (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


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

http://www.marxist.com/History/russia_peasants.htm
Does anyone have any ideas as to which is more true? It seems to me that both have suitable reasons for bias (unsigned comment by User:Real World)


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

Concentration camps of Ukraine/Norilsk?
The article reads:

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

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

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

Edit by 58.170.91.7
The edit by this user, supposedly to remove IMMENSE bias, instead introduced bias. It would appear this user has something against Makhnovists. As such, this page needs editing by a credible source, and has been flagged for bias. Supersheep 09:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the page to prior to that person's POV editing. Although some of his claims may have validity, that they are Bolshevik claims needs to be stated. Supersheep 10:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It is clearly stated that these are claims by Makhno' opponents, including Bolsheviks. Fisenko 19:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That is only stated in the first paragraph. I will return to this tomorrow (barring time problems) and integrate the criticisms in an unbiased manner (I'm drop-dead tired at the moment). Supersheep 22:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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

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


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


 * The book The White Generals: An Account of the White Movement and the Russian Civil War, by Richard Luckett also makes no mention of any "Black Army", and indeed refers (briefly) to the "Makhnovist movement" as being among the "Green armies". I can't cite a page as I've since sold the book, unfortunately. It appears to me that both scholarly sources as well as the Russians (Marxist-Leninist or otherwise) all seem to have referred to the anarchist army as a part of the broad swath of partisan rebellions known as the Green Armies. So far as I can tell - and I can't tell very far! - it is the Makhnovists themselves as well as sympathetic anarchists who referred to it as the Black Army, alone. Also, cites Peter Arshinov's A History of the Makhnovist Movement (1918-1921), ca. 1974, in its' claim that "The RIAU was also called the Makhnovists (after Nestor Makhno), the insurgent army and the black army after it’s distinctive black flags (black being the color of anarchism)." Being that the referenced book was not published until 1974, (and Luckett's work itself having been published, according to Amazon.com and to my own memory, no earlier than 1971), I think that a fine temporary conclusion would be that the anarchist army was not widely known as "The Black Army" outside of, perhaps, anarchist circles. Zanturaeon 01:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Zanturaeon. Any ideas on how the article can be adjusted to reflect this discussion? Larry Dunn 14:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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


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


 * Victor Serge refers to the 'Black Army' several times, in Memoirs of a Revolutionary and elsewhere.
 * Wnjr 12:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

sk 09:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Donetsk Basin
Have deleted:

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

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

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


 * Look in Nestor Makhno. —Michael Z. 2008-05-03 17:56 z 
 * Well, do you have some more reliable sources supporting these claims? Although the book is scholarly reference, Paul Robert Magocsi is not an authority in the field of anarchism. He has written several book on Ukrainian history, not about anarchism.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

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


 * Well, he is a mainstream historian (while Chomsky in your example is considered somewhat fringe). Can you cite some others who have a contradictory view?  Is it just the one statement you have a problem with? —Michael Z. 2008-05-04 15:05 z 
 * "Chomsky in your example is considered somewhat fringe" it is your personal opinion. You need other views? Emma Goldman, Libcom, Richard Stites, Mikhail Khvostov, Andrei Karachtchouk, Hiroaki Kuromiya, David Porter - any more?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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


 * I have to dispute your rationale.


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


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

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


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


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


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

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


 * Yes, but it clearly does in this quotation.


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


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


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


 * —Michael Z. 2008-05-04 16:46 z 

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

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

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

This appears to be the source of this translation:

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

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

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

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

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

Mzajac misrepresentation
The POV-pushing edits by the above user are inappropriate for the following reasons: He supported the Bolsheviks, the Ukrainian Directory, the Bolsheviks again, and then turned to organizing the Free Territory of Ukraine.
 * He changed the lead of the article with sentences

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * See No original research, and Attribution. —Michael Z. 2008-05-10 18:26 z 

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

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

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

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

Civility
Don't call me a "religious propagandist". You are far off of the mark, but don't resort to any name-calling in your edit summaries. —Michael Z. 2008-05-09 08:28 z 
 * Are you volunteering to the title? I have not named anyone. So it is not "name-calling".  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 10:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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


 * the preceeding comment has zero credibility

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

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

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

I Assume He Wasn't Married to His Sister?
I have never editted on here before and have no idea how to change this, but the wording of the sentence under the 'Exile' section make it sound as if he was married to his daughter: 'Makhno's widow and daughter, Yelena, were deported to Germany for forced labor at the end of the WW2.' Now, if he was married to his daughter, my apologies. Otherwise, I would argue that this sentence should read: 'Makhno's widow, along with his daughter Yelena, were deported to Germany...' (Joshstride (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)) 24.143.11.227 (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person.

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

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

Religion in the infobox
There have been several RfCs on religion in the infobox:


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nestor Makhno. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120917155008/http://rus-history.com/kino.html to http://rus-history.com/kino.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nestor Makhno. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051118120011/http://old.mbconf.ca/old/historian/98-06/feature-2.html to http://old.mbconf.ca/old/historian/98-06/feature-2.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080602015840/http://recollectionbooks.com/bleed/Encyclopedia/Makhno/MakhnoFromBleed.htm to http://recollectionbooks.com/bleed/Encyclopedia/Makhno/MakhnoFromBleed.htm
 * Added tag to http://bokov.net.ua/index.php?pages=1&act=3&id=12750

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Eichenfeld-Massacre
i am searching informations about N.M involvement in this massacre Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is already covered in the article.--Galassi (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


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


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

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

Rapes of the anarchist army (in english)
Bibliography: Time of War and Revolution Mikhail Akulov The Kazakh-British Technical University, Almaty, Kazakhstan.
 * 1) The Makhnos of Memory: Mennonite and Makhnovist Narratives of the Civil War in Ukraine, 1917-1921 by Sean David Patterson
 * 2) Rempel, David G.; Carlson, Cornelia Rempel (2003). A Mennonite Family in Tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union
 * 3) Historian Mennonite A PUBLICATION OF THE MENNONITE HERITAGE CENTRE and THE CENTRE FOR MB STUDIES IN CANADA, Eichenfeld Massacre Revisited by Sean Patterson
 * 4) Playground of Violence: Mennonites and Makhnovites in the

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

Can we add one sentence about the rapes of the anarchists? Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 06:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * All armies commit rapes. It has to be encyclopedically notable. A good example is rapes by the Soviet army in Germany in 1945, extensively documented on a scholarly level.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you want i can bring a little more. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This article is about Nestor Makhno, but it is not about his army. Read up on WP:COATRACK.--Galassi (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It may be acceptable in the Free Territory article.


 * I deleted the sections about his army. I think we must add them in Free Territory article. But ...wait a minute, he was a leader of the army that raped every women in the area. We can't write it in one very small sentence? Why? It is wasn't his fault? But historian view is  Makhno's troops infected the Mennonite women that they raped and the Mennonite families from whorn they demanded food and lodging.  It was his army of rapists. I think that we can write it. Except you deny the facts...Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:ILIKEIT. And WP:POV--Galassi (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Try to add that to the Free Territory, presumably in WP:GOODFAITH.--00:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * He was leader of army who did gang rapes. Why not to write it here in a very simple sentence according to up-to-date historians/professors of Universities? Tell me one reason. Historians wrote about Makhno's troops. So you are proposing to leave fringe theories of Skorda Voline, one of his biggest supporters who was active for several months in the movement, reports that Makhno and his associates engaged in sexual mistreatment of women: "Makhno and of many of his intimates – both commanders and others... let themselves indulge in shameful and even odious activities, going as far as orgies in which certain women were forced to participate."[39] However, Voline's allegations against Makhno in regards to sexual violations of women has been disputed by some on the grounds that the allegations are unsubstantiated, do not stand up to eyewitness accounts of the punishment meted out to rapists by the Makhnovists, and were originally made by Voline in his book The Unknown Revolution which was first published in 1947, long after Makhno's death and following a bitter falling-out between Makhno and Voline.[40](!!!!!!) This is a tottaly LIE of a single anarchist supporter. Historians proved that he was leader of anarchists rapists. So your is to delete historians, and leave only apologists of Makhno? Ok i am finished here, if another user don't say his opinion. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeap, I have. I am not going to chit-chat here. Please explain your position in details. Cinadon36 (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * A clear case of POV, ILIKEIT, and a number of other taboos.--Galassi (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * i am thinking that is a clear case of pure censorship of the other view. It is very sad that you not allow historians opinion and you only leave fact deniers amateur historians. But as you wish. You are 2 users i am one. So i cant fight with you. Maybe someday a user change this propaganda. I didn't want to insult anyone Just to write the truth 100 years after but i failed. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


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

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

Certainly RS Cinadon36 (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree.--Galassi (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Does Skirda write history? Yes. Is Skirda trained as an academic historian? Absolutely not. He has written nothing that is peer-reviewed by other academics. He has a good handle on the sources but is not a neutral source.--Kairos1919 (talk) 06:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

alcohol

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * So, do you agree that the section is UNDUE? Cinadon36 12:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No and i have already shared my opinion.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I think this section is UNDUE to an extent. Its length is unnecessary as compared to the other sections. I suggest trimming it down.Kairos1919 (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree.-Galassi (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

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


 * Further reading is not a policy nor guideline, and nowhere does it say that it requires any of your claims. It does, however say;
 * Editors most frequently choose high-quality reliable sources. However, other sources may be appropriate, including: historically important publications


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

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

Relations between the Makhnovists and Mennonite colonists
As a revolutionary peasant leader Makhno has been called a "colourful personality" and his career "legendary". The German and Mennonite communities in Ukraine considered him to be an instigator of paramilitary banditry against innocent farmers, and an "inhuman monster whose path is literally drenched with blood." He is consistently referred to as a terrorist or bandit in Mennonite literature. At the age of 11 Makhno began working as an ox driver on a Mennonite estate. Here he began to develop a hatred for the ruling classes. In his memoirs he writes: "At this time I began to experience anger, envy and even hatred towards the landowner and especially towards his children – those young slackers who often strolled past me sleek and healthy, well-dressed, well-groomed and scented; while I was filthy, dressed in rags, barefoot, and reeked of manure from cleaning the calves' barn." Makhno also worked at the Mennonite owned Kroeger plant in Gulyai-Polye.

Makhno and his troops raided many German and Mennonite colonies and estates in the Katerynoslav Oblast. The larger rural landholdings of Mennonites were prominent targets due to their wealth and proximity to Gulyai-Polye. The Schönfeld colony, located adjacent to the Huliaipole area, was unique in that it consisted predominantly of Mennonite estate settlements across an expansive area.



While their religious beliefs did not allow them to serve in the Tsar's army, many Mennonites had assisted the Russian war effort by performing national service in non-fighting roles, notably forestry and medical units. The Mennonites' Germanic background also served to inflame negative sentiment. Makhno's own brother, Emelian—a disabled war veteran—was murdered and his mother's house burned to the ground by the Germans. The Mennonites themselves, having been stripped of their wealth and property during the revolution, embraced the occupation which promised to re-establish them as landowners. Some Mennonites accompanied punitive detachments against the peasantry, which greatly contributed to the growing bitterness between Mennonites and Ukrainians. In October 1918, Austro-Hungarian forces and German colonists burned down the pro-Makhnovist village of Bolshe-Mikholaivka and murdered many of its inhabitants. Makhno responded with a sustained campaign of retribution against German/Mennonite colonies and estates. At the same time Makhno voiced his opposition to the indiscriminate slaughter of the colonists and established "ground rules" for occupying the colonies. Throughout 1918 a total of 96 Mennonites were killed in the Schönfeld-Brasol area. By the winter 1918–19 most residents of the Schönfeld colony had fled to the relative safety of the Molotschna colony.

The Mennonites had been encouraged to form self-defence (Selbstschutz) units. Mennonite youth were trained and armed under the supervision of German officers. Breaking with nearly four centuries of pacifism, tacit approval of the Selbstschutz was given by the Mennonite leadership at the Lichtenau Conference [June 30- July 2, 1918]. Intended exclusively for the defence of the colony, with the arrival of General Denikin's White Volunteer Army the Selbstschutz was gradually drawn into offensive operations against Makhno. Later some Mennonites also formed ethnic battalions within the White Army. The Selbstschutz was initially successful in protecting their communities against Makhno's partisans but was overwhelmed once the anarchists aligned themselves with the Red Army, which had entered Ukraine in February 1919. The Mennonites of the Molotschna colony were under joint Makhnovist-Red occupation until the Whites broke through the southern front in May 1919.

Following Makhno's devastating attack on Denikin's rearguard in September–October 1919, the Mennonite colonies found themselves once more under Makhnovist occupation. The year 1919 saw the greatest number of Mennonites killed – some 827 or 67% of all Mennonite civil war deaths. The great majority of these occurred between October and December. During this period major massacres occurred in Eichenfeld (Yazykovo), Blumenort (Molotschna), Steinfeld and Ebenfeld (Borozenko) and Münsterberg (Zagradovka) while under the administrative control of the Makhnovists. The Chortitza colony also suffered a great degree of death and robbery. According to the research of Peter Letkemann 3,336 Russian Mennonites, or three percent of their total population, died between 1914 and 1923. Ninety-six percent of these deaths occurred in Ukraine.

National issues
While the bulk of Makhno's forces consisted of ethnic Ukrainian peasants, he did not consider himself to be a Ukrainian nationalist, but rather an anarchist. His movement did put out a Ukrainian-language version of their newspaper and his wife Halyna Kuzmenko was a nationally conscious Ukrainian. In emigration, Makhno came to believe that anarchists would only have a future in Ukraine if they Ukrainianized and he stated that he regretted that he was writing his memoirs in Russian and not in Ukrainian. Makhno viewed the revolution as an opportunity for ordinary Ukrainians – particularly rural peasants – to rid themselves of the overweening power of the central state through self-governing and autonomous peasant committees, protected by a people's army dedicated to anarchist principles of self-rule.


 * If anyone has any ideas for where these can go, please mention here or boldly move them yourself. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have now also rewritten the section using citations from Anarchy's Cossack and tagged it as such for one source. I will be adding more sources at a later date, but the section is now far more focused on Makhno himself than it was previously. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I just reincorporated the "allegations of antisemitism" into a new "Controversy" section, also featuring charges of banditry against Makhno. I tried to find more information about Makhno's personal connection to persecution against the Mennonites, but have found very little on that front. I was even surprised to see that Victor Peters, himself a German Mennonite historian, mostly spoke of Makhno having good relationship with individual Mennonites. Makhno was himself arrested in Danzig on charges of anti-Mennonite persecution, but I'm not sure that is enough to dedicate a whole section to. If anyone can enlighten me of further sources that detail Makhno himself being involved in persecution of Mennonites, I would happily work to incorporate that into the article. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


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


 * ==Controversy==
 * Due to his role as a military leader during the Ukrainian War of Independence, Nestor Makhno has become a figure of some controversy, with charges of antisemitism, banditry and militarism all being levelled against him.
 * ===Allegations of antisemitism===


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

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

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Makhno in Huliaipole Museum.jpg (discussion)
 * Пам'ятник Нестору Махно в Гуляйполі.jpg (discussion)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Dybenko & Makhno.jpg (discussion)
 * Nestor Makhno au centre avec Fedir Shchus à droite, 1919. bis.jpg (discussion)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Nestor Makhno.png

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Durruti-militia retouched small.jpg

Bank expropriation
Makhno also oversaw the release of still imprisoned workers and peasants, defended Huliaipole successfully against a Don Cossack raid, and expropriated 250,000 rubles from a bank to fund the activities of the local soviet. Moving this to the talk page from the peer review. The question is how to contextualize the size/importance of "250,000 rubles" for today's audience, or to remove it, if easier. If inflation was wild during the revolutionary period, it might not be useful to "convert" into another currency, but I'm hoping there would be a way to footnote the relative value, such as what rubles were able to buy in that time period or how how annual income (officer or peasant) worked. A few leads:

Note that some of these sources are unreliable, but added here to give a sense of what to look for




 * A quiz citing no sources:

And if there's no clever way to contextualize this figure, worst comes to worst, we can just strike it.
 * 1) This book looks promising but I don't have a copy and we should be looking at its own sources rather than citing directly, since Cambridge Scholars Publishing is on Beall's List:
 * 2) Asked on Stack Exchange, which already has some bites
 * 1) Asked on Stack Exchange, which already has some bites

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


 * Is there a way to convert that sum at that time to US Dollars or Pounds Sterling at that same time (better question: are there conversions for this already out there)? That would immediately throw the door open for understanding that figure for financial laymen such as myself. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  02:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My understanding from the above quotes/links is that Ukraine would have been in a period of hyperinflation in 1918, so there is no natural conversion formula to modern rubles, nevertheless USD or GBP. I think our best bet would be sources that could contextualize the buying power of the Imperial ruble in Ukraine in 1918, i.e., a salary or goods with a typical cost that could contextualize the worth of 250,000 rubles. czar  02:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. That's the approach usually taken by authors to contextualize inflation in the Weimar Republic. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  19:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


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

Azarov source


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


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

Related discussions on Makhnovist symbols/iconography and citogenesis
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anarchism czar  16:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Part one

 * prose comments per note at Featured article candidates/Nestor Makhno/archive1


 * I'll do lead last


 * "Unable to feed his family on their small plot of land, following Nestor's birth, Ivan Mikhnenko went to work as a coachman for a wealthy industrialist" - suggest "Following Nestor's birth, Ivan Mikhnenko went to work as a coachman for a wealthy industrialist, since he could not feed his family from their small plot of land"
 * Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "After the summer, Nestor returned to school," - here and elswhere in this part of the article I'd expect to see the surname being used. Is there a particular reason to use Nestor?
 * Usually it's because of close proximity to his family members. So "Nestor" is used in the early life section and when his brothers are mentioned later, as "Makhno" could be more ambiguous. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've re-read inserting Makhno for Nestor and I think in pretty much all cases you could make the switch (not for example "leaving only the young Nestor and Hryhorii with their mother") but happy to see what other reviewers say. Mujinga (talk) 11:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Czar seems to have agreed with you on this, so most of the uses of "Nestor" in early life have been replaced with "Makhno". --Grnrchst (talk) 07:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ok Mujinga (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "As the rest of the group's members had been outlawed" - not 100% sure what this means - the group itself had been outlawed and/or everyone else had gone underground?
 * It's the latter. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * OK so they had been sentenced in absentia? still trying to work out if they went underground by choice or because they were charged/wanted Mujinga (talk) 11:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * They went underground because they were wanted. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * so maybe say that or say who they had been outlawed by? Mujinga (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Said they were "outlawed by the Tsarist authorities". Let me know if I need to clarify further. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "launched a crackdown against the anarchist group " - could just say "group"
 * Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "Makhno's frequent boasting in prison earned him the nickname "Modest"" - sidecomment that's hilarious!
 * Aye, I do like a good ironic nickname. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "The disease kept him returning to the prison hospital throughout his sentence" - sounds odd, suggest "Throughout his sentence he spent periods in the prison hospital" or similar
 * Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "But during this time," - suggest removing "but"
 * Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "became disillusioned with intellectualism after seeing the differences between how the prison guards treated the intellectual prisoners and those inmates from the lower classes" - i see what you are wanting to say, i think, but would prefer the second "intellectual" to be changed for something else
 * Any suggestions? I've added a link to intellectual for now. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * yeah sorry maybe i don't see what you mean haha! at the moment it seems to me you are setting up difference between clever prisoners and lower class idiots, whereas i assume that you want to say the higher class prisoners were treated better than illiterate prisoners or something like that? Mujinga (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Aye it's a class thing, the "intellectuals" had a background as members of the more educated middle/upper-class. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * so its currently "also became disillusioned with intellectualism after seeing the differences between how the prison guards treated the intellectual prisoners and those inmates from the lower classes", I'd suggest something like "also became disillusioned with intellectualism after seeing the class prejudice with which guards treated different prisoners", if that still summarises up the source Mujinga (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Rewritten based on your suggestion, with a couple adjustments. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * your version works for me, nice one Mujinga (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "When the prison doors were flung open during the February Revolution of 1917,[48] Makhno was released from bondage for the first time in eight years, even finding himself off-balance without the chains weighing him down[46] and in need of sunglasses after years in dark prison cells" - this feels a bit sensationalist with "flung open", "released from bondage" and "even"
 * Re-written to hopefully be a bit more neutral. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * nice Mujinga (talk) 11:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "finally convinced him" / "the 28-year-old Makhno finally returned" - not sure if either finally is needed
 * Removed. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "All this gave him an image of social banditry" - feels odd, can't quite put my finger on why, suggest "He became known as a social bandit" or similar
 * Rewritten. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "Makhno called for the local bourgeoisie to be disarmed and their property expropriated, with all private enterprise to be brought under workers' control. Peasants withheld rent and took control of the lands they worked. Large estates collectivized and transformed into agrarian communes. Makhno personally organized communes on former Mennonite estates" - this feels a bit choppy, suggest joining up some sentences
 * Joined the two middle sentences. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * that reads better and i've substituted in two "he"s which I'm fine with you changing back if you don't like, it just flowed funny for me with so many "Makhno"s Mujinga (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "he organized the town bank's expropriation to fund their revolutionary activities " - who is "their" referring to here?
 * The anarchists. Clarified. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * which anarchists? if it's the "armed anarchist detachment to assist the Bolsheviks" it's ok, otherwise needs explaining Mujinga (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * noting this is still open Mujinga (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mujinga: It's referring to the anarchist movement in Huliaipole. I clarified to "local anarchist movement". Let me know if it still needs work. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * done! Mujinga (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "Map of Southern Russia " red numbers on red background doesn't seem optimal for accessibility
 * I've already notified the creators, hoping they'll make a change soon. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * oh yes I saw that discussion, thanks for that Mujinga (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * New map got! --Grnrchst (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * looks great! Mujinga (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "late April 1918 against their former allies within the Ukrainian People's Republic" - add "(UPR)" after
 * Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "due to the risks of killing innocent civilians" - "risk"?
 * Changed. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "After defeating Austrian units in nearby Marfopil," - "After defeating Austrian units in the nearby village of Marfopil,"
 * Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "Makhno's detachment withdrew north, where it sought refuge in the Dibrivka forest, neighbouring the village of Velykomykhailivka.[129] There they joined forces with another small insurgent detachment led by Fedir Shchus.[130] Austrian units encircled the insurgents in their forest encampment.[131] To break the encirclement, Makhno launched a surprise counterattack against the troops in the village.[132]" - good summary but again a bit choppy, suggest joining some sentences
 * Joined the last two sentences. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "When Austrian units encircled the insurgents in their forest encampment, to break the encirclement," - suggest surrounded for "encircled" because you also have "encirclement" Mujinga (talk) 11:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * the insurgents bestowed Makhno with the title Bat'ko (English: Father) - ah so prob give the translation earlier for Batko Ivan as well
 * The reason I didn't give the translation earlier for Ivan is because he's just referred to by Skirda as "Batko Ivan", without explanation for what "Batko" means. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I see your logic but I think within the context of this article it's weird to have Batko 1 not defined one first mention 2 written in different ways Mujinga (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * still open for discussion Mujinga (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "equally representing Bolsheviks, SRs, and anarchists" - prob best to spell out what SR means
 * Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * " with Makhno subordinate himself to the command of Pavel Dybenko." - suggest either take out "himself" or make it "himself subordinate"
 * Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "To resolve the dispute, Makhno invited Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko to visit Huliaipole, which impressed the Ukrainian commander-in-chief and allayed his concerns about Makhno's command." if as the pic caption says Antonov-Ovseenko was himself the "commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian Soviet Army" this needs rephrasing since i thought " the Ukrainian commander-in-chief " referred to someone else
 * Clarified to "Ukrainian Soviet Army's commander-in-chief". How's that? --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "His reports quickly attracted Lev Kamenev" - can you clarify who Kamenev is
 * Described as "Politburo member". How's that? --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * yeah great that shows why he is worthy of mention Mujinga (talk) 11:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "In May 1919, the powerful otaman " - link otaman to ataman and/or define it?
 * Linked. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * " and even labeling him a "kulak"" - I was surprised by "labeling" not "labelling" since I had settled into thinking this was BrEng but it is indeed USEng. This then means it should be neighboring in "Makhno's detachment withdrew north, where it sought refuge in the Dibrivka forest, neighbouring the village of Velykomykhailivka", saber for sabre, defense for defence, criticize for criticise, traveled for travelled and so on
 * Ach, sorry about this. Although I'm theoretically a native writer of British English, I often find it difficult remembering the differences between the two. So while the article has the "Use American English" tag, I would have written it largely in British English. What should I do? --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh no worries this is the sort of thing that comes out in FA review when all the microscopes come out :) Per MOS:RETAIN if the "Use American English" tag was there first you should keep it... unless you have a particularly persuasive rationale Mujinga (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Kulak is mentioned earlier thus should be linked first time round and maybe here too. also I'd suggest using Template:Lang per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC. And there's no doubt other instances of foreign words that could use this too, eg sotnia
 * Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * done for the first part, second part not done which is ok for me as long as you are consistent. if you did want to do it, you'd need to do other terms eg Makhnovshchina Mujinga (talk) 12:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Another point courtesy of the WMF Cloud/Tools Lab peer reviewer: Per Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 520 kilometers, use 520 kilometers, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 520 kilometers.
 * Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "Makhno thus relinquished command of the 7th Ukrainian Soviet Division and declared his intention to wage a guerrilla war against the Whites from the rear.[180] Trotsky then ordered Kliment Voroshilov to arrest Makhno, but sympathetic officers reported the order to him, thus preventing his capture by the Cheka" 2x thus, not sure if either is needed
 * Removed. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * define sotnia?
 * Is a link not sufficient? --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer a definition prbably but I'm fine with you waitign to see if other reviewers flag it up. Just to add on kulak, I don't think I noticed before that it is first linked as a pipe via wealthier land-owning class - I suggest keeping Kulak lined but put "wealthier land-owning class" in brackets or similar Mujinga (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "where he met with Hryhoriv's green army." - sidecomment bloimey green as well on top of blacks, whites and reds!??
 * It's one of the nice things about the post-revolutionary factions, they're all colour-coded :P --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * query - makhno is also considered a green leader by our wikiarticle, does that need bringing out more? as i read the article now he seems separate to the greens ... also if makhno's forces were called the Revolutionary Insurgent Army of Ukraine then this term should be used a bit more in the article, since it's in the lead but not really used in the body
 * To be honest, the term "green army" is rather vaguely defined, as it was used to refer to many different autonomous peasant formations. I've added a first case of Revolutionary Insurgent Army of Ukraine, but because it's quite a long name, I use "insurgent army" and "insurgents" for concision (as do the sources). --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * cool on green, and I like what you've done for the RIAU Mujinga (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * caption "Nykyfor Hryhoriv (left), otaman of the green army in Kherson, who would be assassinated during a meeting with Makhno" is good, i'm just wondering if it's Antonov-Ovseenko on the right?
 * It is, should I mention that in the caption? I left it because Hryhoriv is more relevant to this section. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ummm I guess? or use the chopped version which is just him? i mean it's not a huge issue, just seems worth mentioning it since Antonov-Ovseenko was described just above Mujinga (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "begging him to subordinate himself again to Bolshevik command, to which Makhno refused" - remove "to" from "to which", or replace with "a request which"?
 * Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


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

Part two

 * made some replies above, and now continuing Mujinga (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Nestor's brother Hryhorii died during one of these attacks" - coudl say "His brother"
 * Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "Symon Petliura" worth adding he was Supreme Commander of the Ukrainian People's Army (UNA) or whatever is appropriate
 * Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * sabers for sabres as discussed above
 * Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "The Makhnovists subsequently split up" - remove subsequently?
 * Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "research by Sean Patterson" - who he?
 * Clarified as "Canadian historian". --Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * link Nikopol, Ukraine
 * Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "with even Makhno himself" - no need for even?
 * Removed. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * " initiating a nine-month period of hostilities with the Bolshevik" - missing word?
 * No missing word, but "Bolshevik" should have been "Bolsheviks". Also added link to Bolshevik–Makhnovist conflict. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * cool Mujinga (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "comrade Batko Makhno" - another mention of Batko, when we have Bat'ko in lead
 * This is down to different transliterations of "батько", as the "ь" is often either transliterated as an apostrophe or dropped. Avrich 1988, Darch 2020, Footman 1961, Palij 1976 and Patterson 2020 use "Bat'ko", whereas Chamberlin 1987, Kantowicz 1999, Malet 1982, Peters 1970, Shubin 2010, Skirda 2004 and Sysyn 1977 use "Batko". As this quote was pulled from Peters and Skirda, "Batko" is used. Should I standardise it? And if so, how do I handle it when quoting directly from a source? --Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest standardising in the text and making a note saying pretty much what you said here Mujinga (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mujinga: I've been thinking about how to implement this and remembered that there's actually already an explanatory footnote in the lead about the translation of "Bat'ko", so I could incorporate other sources into that. Is there a way to link to the same explanatory footnote multiple times in the same article? Because ideally I'd just reuse that for the other times the word pops up in the text. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * yeah sounds good - Help:Footnotes suggests options for reusing footnotes more than once Mujinga (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * For now I've standardised the usage to "Bat'ko". I'll have a look at this footnote documentation and see if I can wrap my head around it. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "The still-wounded Makhno stayed behind in Huliaipole anyway, along with his black guard" - Black Guard / black guard mentioned only on third appearance?
 * What? --Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * wikilinked not mentined! so Black Guard / black guard wilinked only on third appearance? Mujinga (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think I sorted this. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "Wrangel's defeat in Crimea by the combined" - maybe time for a link to Pyotr Wrangel? wow this is all getting very confusing, nice one for keeping it relatively clear!
 * Linked. And aye, there's a lot of moving parts in this history. It's not remotely close to the most complicated civil war I've come across though. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking around here you probably need another map to geolocate some of the important battles
 * I guess I could probably put in another request for a map, although I still haven't received any response on my request for one for the battle of Dibrivka article. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Shame about the other request! I'd say to make this best possible article then a map would be very helpful. You could also look into making it yourself, I taught myself how to make this one at Securitas_depot_robbery which probably isn't the prettiest map out there but passed FAc and hopefully helps people to orientate themselves in the events a bit Mujinga (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "they finally managed to shake off the pursuing Cossacks" - who is they here?
 * Makhno's detachment. Is that not clear? --Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * that's what I expected but wouldn't a detachment be "it"? Mujinga (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "with only his black sotnia remaining" - black guard sotnia?
 * I think Makhno's "Black Guard" and his "black sotnia" were two terms for the same unit, but "black guard sotnia" isn't ever used in any of the sources... --Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ok thanks Mujinga (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * " and almost running them out of ammo, before they were finally able to shake the armored detachment off their trail." - this feels a bit sensationalist? also ammunition for ammo?
 * Sensationalist how? I don't see it. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * im not sure if ammo is acceptable and shaking a tail seems informal but if you think both/one are/is ok then i'm fine to wait to see what other reviewers think Mujinga (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've replaced "ammo" with "ammunition", but I still don't see the issue with the second part, so have left it as is for now. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Part three
Coming soon, starting at Exile Mujinga (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "shipped to a Polish Strzałkowo internment camp in April 1922" - the for "a"?
 * Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


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


 * link relapsed?
 * Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * " clandestinely leave for Berlin" - remove clandestinely?
 * Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * tell us who Volin is?
 * Clarified as "Russian anarchist". --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "A bullet wound in his right ankle threatened amputation" - I'm guessing this is the same wound? I don't think a wound can threaten
 * Suggestions for a better word? --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * something like "His foot was considered for amputation because of his old ankle wound"? Mujinga (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Rewritten. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * looks good now! Mujinga (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "one time even celebrating" - this is getting a bit sensationalist again with the good old days but I think I'd be satisfied just with the removal of "even"
 * Removed "even". --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "Schwarzbard immediately informed the Batko " - surely Makhno makes more sense here than Batko ... sidequery: was Makhno referring to people like Petliura when he said "amongst a foreign people and political enemies whom I have so often declaimed against." becuase until this point i saw Petliura and Makhno as allies, so if they fell out maybe that needs stating
 * Replaced "Batko" with "Makhno". As for Makhno's quote, I'm not sure who this is referring to specifically, the source doesn't clarify. I had assumed it was referring to French Communist Party members, but I could be wrong. As for Petliura, I wouldn't say he and Makhno were ever allies, they just weren't exactly enemies either. They signed a truce, more of a peace agreement than a proper alliance, when both were being attacked by the Whites. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks, that makes sense Mujinga (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * " resulting in public debates on the matter" in Paris or all over Europe?
 * In Paris, although it may have involved people from around Europe. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * since we've now had a few things written by Makhno I'm thinking a selected works section would be helpful for readers?
 * Some of his major work is already in the further reading section. I could move it if need be? --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * To me it makes sense, don't mind if you want to wait to see what other people think Mujinga (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "Alienated from many of the Russian and French anarchists in Paris" - purely by his behaviour or were there also doctrinal splits? becuase for example " April 1929, May Picqueray and other French anarchists established a "Makhno Solidarity Committee" to raise funds" - these guys still supported him
 * Well you know with anarchists, doctrinal splits and bad behaviour aren't mutually exclusive. :P Anyway, I think there may be some chronological confusion here. It was only by 1931 that he had truly broken with the French anarchists and shifted his attention towards Spain. I've shifted the paragraphs around to better reflect this. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * ah ok then i read this "His ideological conflict with the synthesis anarchists escalate" - so something needs to be explained, is this still related to the Organizational Platform of the Libertarian Communists?
 * Aye, the synthesis anarchists were opposed to the Organizational Platform. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "Operations failed to help and" - "After several operations"?
 * Changed. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "Vasetskaia was eventually forced to flee Huliaipole after being threatened by Black Guards" - huh so Black Guards are simply anarchist soldiers, I thought they were Makhnovist anarchist soldiers, then I read this sentence as meaning Vasetskaia was threatened by Makhno's own soldiers. Also "eventually" is unneeded
 * Aye I understand the confusion. "Black Guards" is a generic name for armed anarchist units, but when used earlier in the article, it was referring to Makhno's personal unit. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * cool - as mentioned above, still needs linking on first mention Mujinga (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "and a leading figure in the Makhnovshchina.[315] With the defeat of the Makhnovshchina," - suggest changing one instance of Makhnovshchina
 * Changed second one to "Makhnovist movement". --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "Although other biographers" - don't think "although" is doing much unless you want to run the sentences together
 * Removed. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "militants of Revolutionary Action have also lain claim to" - laid claim? I'm not sure
 * Changed. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Appropriate although sad that the legacy ends up in the present day. Any recent updates?
 * Unfortunately Huliaipole is still being shelled on a daily basis by the Russian Armed Forces. There have certainly been updates, but none specifically related to Makhno as far as I know. If you want to see how the war has affected the city, and the legacy Makhno has left there, I'd highly recommend the Thickets documentary. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks for the recommendation! Mujinga (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


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


 * Lead:
 * "He also played an important role in the development of platformism " - not sure if this is brought out in body
 * There's an entire paragraph about it. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * platformism yes but i wasn't clear, I meant if you say he "played an important role" then that needs to be drawn out more in my opinion Mujinga (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * i just noticed what you did there - yeah works for me! Mujinga (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)


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


 * i think you need a bit more about his exile in the lead - Poland isn't mentioned, and paris coudl have a couple more sentences about writing and disputes
 * Expanded. Let me know what you think. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * oops forgot to reply on this one - yeah looks great now Mujinga (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "settled in Paris with his wife Halyna" - second wife? also Nastia Vasetskaia is not in infobox
 * I hadn't considered adding Vasetskaia to the infobox, as they were only married for a short period and she's not really independently notable. I can add her if it's necessary. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ummmm makes sense to me since the infobox would give the impression he was only married once Mujinga (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * ok that completes the prose sweep, well done on keeping on top of such a long epic story! Mujinga (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks the prose review, it has been very helpful! --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Cheers for saying that, I know the nitpicks can get annoying sometimes :) I've made answers to your answers again. I'm pretty close to supporting now but will prob wait on a few matters to see what other reviewers think once we've got things tied up here. Mujinga (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We are pretty much there so I moved the discussion back to Featured article candidates/Nestor Makhno/archive1 Mujinga (talk) 12:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to answer the last of these comments. Apologies for not rounding this off sooner, health issues have interrupted most of my work and I'm trying my best not to stress myself out further. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh no worries, real life should always come first, hope you feel better! I'll reply more back on the FAC page Mujinga (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)