Talk:Regional Congress of Peasants, Workers and Insurgents

Point of view
The article's point of view is skewed and is not neutral. It mentions some "Ukrainian nationalists" and it is wikified towards the Ukrainian nationalism. What is the purpose and point of that? What are those nationalists and who determined their political point of view? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 06:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm not sure how simply using the term "Ukrainian nationalists" constitutes POV, but maybe you could enlighten me. The term "Ukrainian nationalist" refers to someone that supports a Ukrainian nation-state, and the term is used in this article to refer to supporters of the Ukrainian People's Republic. I don't see how it's not neutral, it's entirely descriptive. Grnrchst (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

How come the Russian forces of Whites and Reds are not called as invaders in the article, while at the same time Ukrainian patriots are labeled as some kind of nationalists? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


 * One of the lines in this article literally refers to a "Red Army invasion", but maybe you didn't read that far. Again, "nationalist" here is not used here as some kind of a pejorative label, it's a descriptor for people that supported a Ukrainian nation-state. If anything, I think your use of the terms "invaders" and "patriots" would constitute POV, as it would assign a moral value to each side. Grnrchst (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Also worth pointing out that all of the cited sources in this article refer to supporters of the UPR as "Ukrainian nationalists" or simply "nationalists". So I think this falls safely under the NPOV naming policy, given its wide use in the sources. Grnrchst (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I have now responded to your dispute here and also asked you on your talk page to please engage in this discussion. If you continue failing to discuss the issue, then I will be asking for a third opinion in order to resolve this. — Grnrchst (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Answering 3O: Although the word nationalist in modern contexts sometimes has a negative connotation, I don't think that's true here. The sources use this term, and it is likely the most precise term, so I see no reason to describe these people otherwise. The rest of the article feels neutral too. Femke (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Dybenko & Makhno.jpg

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

Article title
I have a question about the title. Were the congresses explicitly named and referred to formally by the name (translated, obviously) "Regional Congress of Peasants, Workers, and Insurgents"? Or is that a descriptive name?

Wikipedia reserves capitalization in article/section titles for proper names only, and otherwise uses sentence case. So the capitalization is very dependent on how the congresses (or their members) described themselves. And I ask, primarily, because one such congress (the Huliaipole District Soviet of Peasants', Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies) is used in the Infobox to represent the congresses.

Now, the differences could simply be slightly different translations of a formal name, of course. OTOH, perhaps the article title is more of a descriptive label than formal designation. That's fine it would just mean that the title should be "Regional congresses of peasants, workers, and insurgents", and a move is easy enough. Or perhaps "Regional Congresses of peasants, workers, and insurgents", if the Regional Congresses themselves were formally referred to as such.

If the title does represent [a translation of] the formal name used by and for the Congresses, then that's fine and the title is correct as-is. It wasn't clear to me one way or the other, from perusing the article and sources, so I thought I'd check. FeRDNYC (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)