Talk:Nestor Makhno/Archive 1

Archive 1

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

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

Маkhnovshchina=Makhnovism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concentration camps of Ukraine/Norilsk?

The article reads:

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

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

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

Edit by 58.170.91.7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Black Army

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wnjr 12:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Bias

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

RIAU

Have the following deleated:

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

.

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

sk 09:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Donetsk Basin

Have deleted:

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

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

Edits by Mzajac

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Magocsi as reference

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

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

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

I have to dispute your rationale.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, but it clearly does in this quotation.

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

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

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

 —Michael Z. 2008-05-04 16:46 z

Long quotation misinterpreted

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

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

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

This appears to be the source of this translation:

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

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

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

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

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

Mzajac misrepresentation

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

• He changed the lead of the article with sentences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Civility

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

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

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

Missing dates and places

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

References format

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

Accusations of raping

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

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

the preceeding comment has zero credibility

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

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

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

I Assume He Wasn't Married to His Sister?

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

Mennonite Massacre Apologetics

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

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

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

"Marxist Dogma" & Neutrality

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

Image of money or stamps

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

FA

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

Request for Comments

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

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

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

Non-neutral (anarchist) sources

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

Religion in the infobox

There have been several RfCs on religion in the infobox:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nestor Makhno. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120917155008/http://rus-history.com/kino.html to http://rus-history.com/kino.html

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

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

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nestor Makhno. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

Eichenfeld-Massacre

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

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

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

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

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

Rapes of the anarchist army (in english)

Bibliography:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

fringe theories as the main theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Alexandre Skirda a historian?

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

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

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

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

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

alcohol

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Further reading

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

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

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

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

Expansion and restructuring

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

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

Extended content

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

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

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

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

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

Extended content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Nestor Makhno.png

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

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

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

• Durruti-militia retouched small.jpg

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

Bank expropriation

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

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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