Talk:Makhnovshchina/Archive 1

Map request

Can anyone add the actual territorial area the Free Territory actually covered? Buckshot06 23:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be great, I have no idea where it is and have actually sought out said information. I could not find it. Zazaban (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have now added a map. Zazaban (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Heather-Noël Schwartz as a reference

Zazaban, you tried reverting the change I made that included two good sources. I added another source that corroborates the source you questioned, and in addition wish to dispute your questioning of that source. Your objection was that it is hosted on an aol server, and that AOL is not a reliable source. I agree that AOL is not a reliable source, however, AOL is not the source, the source is Heather-Noël Schwartz, and the essay is simply hosted on an AOL webpage. Furthermore, this academic website cites it as information about the subject, which by the guidelines of wikipedia means it is welcome as a reference. [1] -(76.176.116.89 (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

My mistake then. Zazaban (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Source number one led to a page that no longer was there, and source number two led to a preview of a book that did not allow the ability to view the pages in question. I removed the sentence that was being cited. The other source linked to another book preview, but the page in question failed to load. I'm leaving that one for now. The first one can come back if actually accessible sources turn up. Zazaban (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You can't delete a source just because you don't have access to it, as this would disqualify the majority of actual academic books out there. "It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet." - wikipedia: reliable sources With regards to the other source, you can't delete it either just because it is no longer immediately accessible. It is still accessible through use of the internet tool that researchers are aware of called the wayback machine at [www.archive.org]. The last archived copy of it is right here: [2], and it is cited on an academic webpage. Since you should be able to access that one even if you cant access the other one, it should stay even though it cites the other one as its source.

On another note, it is funny that the two pages that i did cite are the only two pages that are blocked from the preview of that chapter, and they weren't blocked yesterday. Maybe google shifts which pages are accessible and did this randomly, or there is a conspiracy to prevent you from verifying it!

-(76.176.116.89 (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC))

"secret police forces"

I agree that this mention should stay, but the wording should perhaps be different. The source is too vague to lead to categorizing them as this, although they do sound somewhat nasty. I couldn't think of anything, so I'm leaving it for now. Any ideas? Zazaban (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Petro Skoropadsky

Petro Skoropadsky did not have any difficulties to conquer Ukraine. First of all he was not conquering and second of all he was not conquering. First of all refers to the fact that he was part of the Ukrainian Republican Army fighting against Bolsheviks, being a patriot of Ukraine, and second of all he played a inferior role in conquering Ukraine as it was recovered back by the Ukrainian Republican Army and the German troops as the RKKA withdrew due to the conditions of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Later in November of 1918 Makhno did joined the Directory organized anti-Hetman revolution, not a Palace Revolution managing to oust the remnants of the former government in eastern Ukraine as P.Skoropadsky resigned (not recalled to Germany) due to advancing troops of the Ukrainian Republican Army led by Petliura. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Invented country

This country is invented. It never existed. It is the same as to claim that the Southern Ukraine was part of France due to the Entente occupation. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

So your claim is that this was an "occupation" rather than the establishment of a distinct socio-political entity? Perhaps it is more like the "occupation" of Paris by its inhabitants during the Paris Commune. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.10.85 (talk) 03:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Anarchist Ukraine

Is there any sourced reason to call Free Territory "Anarchist Ukraine" in the opening paragraph. Was it ever referred as such anywhere except for this article? I am planning to remove that title unless the sources will be given. Beta M (talk) 11:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

2014 Resurrection

I removed this section since it relied on conjecture and had no established connection to the Free Territory. ldvhl (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Your claim is obviously false, as it is literally the same territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.212.4.12 (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

First of all, the rebels have drawn parallels to the Donetsk–Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic (as mentioned | here), not the Free Territory, which are different things. Second, outside of Donetsk Oblast, this is not the same territory (what Novorossiya claims and what it controls are different things). If a reference can be provided that clearly states that the Donetsk People's Republic or Luhansk People's Republic claim direct descent from Makhno and his anarchists, that's one thing, otherwise this section is original research.Konchevnik81 (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to back up your claim? Also, please don't revert without agreement on the talk page. I'm removing the not-encyclopedic content again. If you find sources, we can discuss fixing that section. ldvhl (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Once again removed this section as it cited blogs (non-reliable-sources) and two websites. One website cited (http://www.eurasiareview.com/21062014-historical-basis-novorossiyas-independence-analysis/) makes Novorossiya more connected to communist soviets than the Makhnovist soviets. The other website (http://www.thenation.com/article/189137/eastern-ukraine-becoming-peoples-republic-or-puppet-state#) references only one leader in the ongoing conflict and not an over-arching tie to the Free Territories as claimed. Again, please discuss edits before making them. Also, speculation has no place on Wikipedia. ldvhl (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The references are sound. Your claims of "not an over-arching tie to the Free Territories" are not. The ref is to e.g. "the commander of a unit called the Ghost Brigade who names Vladimir Lenin and Ukrainian anarchist leader Nestor Makhno as political influences, dreams of a direct democracy with state control of key economic sectors.". That clearly demonstrates "an over-arching tie". Be real. Don't edit-war. Respect facts. Pls don't let yr political views stand in the way of facts listed on Wp. Don't make up new pretexts for deleting facts when yr old pretexts are refuted. Allow the fact that the East-Ukrainians in "Novorussiya" see themselves as ideological heirs to Makho's Free Territory to stand. Pls. 85.164.61.86 (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

This issue has been forwarded on to the admins at [[3]]. ldvhl (talk) 13:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Tnx. Pls keep in mind that the term "Direct Democracy" (as in ref.-quote above) is a subset of Anarchism, tying directly in to Makhnos Free Territory.85.164.61.86 (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I know what direct democracy and anarchism are. You still need to address the points I made above regarding reliable sources in order to include that section as-written. Please discuss such sources here before reverting again. ldvhl (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Part of the Donetsk People's Republic?

I have again reverted Guto2003's inclusion of the Free Territory as part of the Donetsk People's Republic. The DPR is an unrecognized rebel group that de jure holds no territory. Please do not revert without sourcing or a change in official status. ldvhl (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

"Unrecognized state"

Is this really an accurate and neutral label for "an attempt to form a stateless anarchist society"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.82.134 (talk) 05:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding the name “Free Territory”

I’ve been researching this topic over the last month or so, and I’ve yet to find a scholarly article or primary source referring to the “country” as “Free Territory.” Now, this could just be because of my limited reading, exacerbated by relying on English language sources, but the sources cited on this page that I’ve looked at so far (about 75% of them) don’t refer to the area as “Free Territory” either. So, I’m wondering if there are any scholarly or primary sources that actually refer to the area as “Free Territory.” If not, I propose we rename the page to something that’s actually supported by the literature, such as Makhnovia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WiJaMa (talk • contribs) 21:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

do we know of any official Makhnovist documents that refer by the territory by some name? Thespündragon 19:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Unfortunately, I don’t think I’ve read any official Makhnovist documents that give the territory a name, but I’ve only been researching this topic for a few months and I haven’t spent much time with primary sources outside of my books. One interesting thing is that if you search on Google for “Free Territory”, there aren’t any results from before 1 May 2006 that refer to the area under Makhnovist control. 1 May 2006 was the date this article was created. While there are a few webpages originally published before May Day 2006 that do call it Free Territory, that name was invariably added after that date. I do remember reading somewhere, in Anarchy’s Cossack or Anarchism of Nestor Makhno or Apostles of Revolution that the area was called by some “Makhnovia”, but unfortunately I don’t remember enough to give a reference and it’s not in my notes. WiJaMa (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

From the Makhnovist writings I can recall, they do not seem to use a specific name for their controlled territories itself, only using wither a geographic designation or something like 'the regions under our control'. If we can't find any Makhnovist writings with 'Free Territory', or any writings about it using that name prior to 2006, it may be most appropriate to use Makhnovia, Makhnovist Ukraine, Makhnovist territories, etc, as the title. Thespündragon 14:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

civilians treatment

Historians view

1. 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.

2. 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

3. 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).

4. From the same author of above:Mikhail Akulov. PHD thesis of Harvard University.

While I don't see much about him online, I did find some scathing criticisms of Akulov by former colleagues http://www.beaubranson.com/roussev-statement-about-kbtu/ It doesn't necessarily discredit him, but I would look at his sources to make sure that he's representing them fairly. IanH84 (talk) 00:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Memoirs

1. From anarchist view: 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. From Mennonites view Rempel, David G.; Carlson, Cornelia Rempel (2003).

i)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?

ii) )No Songs Were at the Gravesite' The Bltunenort (Russia) Massacre (November 80-12, 1919) Translated and Edited by John B. Toews, Regent College The (Malikizovzi) command, a [robber] band, small in size but aggressive in its actions, resided in Mr. Goossen's house in Ohrloff. They carried on throughout the district-eating, drinking, robbing and harassing the people. At that point something seemed to curb their excesses and they stopped short of murder and rape. It was possible to pursue one's daily affairs and travel from village to village. Towards the east all was quiet in the villages of Gnadenfeld district. Rumor had it that units of the White Army were coming from the northeast

Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

These are some interesting findings. The current article is essentialy fandom, I wouldn't call most sources to be up the standards of WP:Verifiability. There also seems to be a lack of sources on the topic in general. As a result of this, the article makes no statements on the civilian population of this apparent state. The impression I'm getting from the available sources and especially your findings is, that Makhno would be best described as a warlord and that this "free territory" should be described less as a state with institutions but rather as an area where Makhnos Troops held military power. I'd consider the sources claiming things like "Workers and peasants were organised into anarchist communities governed via a process of participatory democracy and were linked via an anarchist federation." to be dubious, given that they all avoid making statements on Makhnos support with the population of these areas. -- Liberaler Humanist (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

"Vasilis Vourkoutiotis: Reform in Revolutionary Times: The Civil-military Relationship in Early Soviet Russia" appears to contain information on this topic. -- Liberaler Humanist (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear friend thank you. You described everything within a word: fandom. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Human Rights section written and cited in bad faith

The section in question cites an entire appendix of An Anarchist FAQ, but lists only the accusations, not the extensive writing and references from Anarchist, Marxist-Leninist, and other sources contemporary to the existence of the Free Territory and the Makhnovist movement that contradict those allegations. The source provides numerous sources stating that Makhno outspokenly opposed antisemitism, Jewish anarchists chaired three of four Makhnoist regional conferences and others served in critical roles in the Black Army, and that the response to antisemitic crimes was to execute the perpetrators. I can find no reference in the appendix to sexual abuse of women except by the Red Army, and several sources mentioning that women were treated as equals. IanH84 (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Movied IP comment to talk page section

The IP user at 78.104.14.17 made the following comment within a cleanup template, while it appeared to be better suited as a talk page comment with the appropriate issue templates. The cleanup template is also not meant to be used for content disputes.

"This article lacks secondary, scientific sources. The sources listed are almost exclusively political pamphlets that are obviously biased. The article itself was probably written as fanfiction and continues to be used as such. Sourced information on this civil war groups ethnic cleansing against the german-speaking menonite minority was recently replaced with additional quotes from anarchist propaganda literature. The lack of reputable sources and literature points towards another problem with the subject: The articles claim that the thing described was a state seems doubtfull. There may have been a militia and a warlord, but there are apparently no sources that indicate the existence of any institutions or anything else that would constitute a state or any society." -78.104.14.17
-Thespündragon 23:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 10 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

---

Free Territory → Makhnovia – The name "Free Territory" does not seem to be a common name for the territories controlled by the Makhnovists, and none of our sources used for this article use the term. The term does not appear in any sources that I can find relating to the subject. From what I can find, terms more commonly used to refer to this region are Makhnovia(Google Books), the romanized term Makhnovshchyna(Google Books), or the phrase Makhnovist region(preferred by some Anarchist sources such as Nestor Makhno: Anarchy's Cossack and History of the Makhnovist Movement). The article name also creates unneccesary ambiguity with the Free Territory of Trieste, which is sometimes referred to as simply the Free Territory. Thespündragon 02:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support per well-reasoned and well-supported nomination. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

category

Bvcitizen,

please read the status in the infobox as well: "stateless territory". As read the categories description: "This category collects on states...", so obviously states are expected there.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC))

"The category of communist states. This category collects on states that communist parties monopolize ruling power.

• For former communist states, see Category:Former socialist republics."

That is what this category says and nowhere does it mention a stateless territory is not considered a state, and also a state is another term for a country so why is Maknhovia not considered a state. Bvcitizen (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Whether it is or isn't a state might be a relevant question at State (polity) or Sovereign state, but it isn't relevant here. When discussing a category for this article, you don't need to resolve the question about whether it is or isn't a state. Per WP:DEFCAT, the only thing you have to worry about is whether "reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having" the characteristic of "communist state". In my opinion, this discussion should try to concentrate on resolving that question, rather than issues about statehood. Mathglot (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The category Communist State brings a sense of authoritarianism and totalitarianism that was, in fact, the very opposite of Makhnovia's status as anarchist. Additionally, Communist States usually have some connection to Marxism-Leninism, unlike Makhnovia, which directly opposed Lenin's policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.200.227 (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, but I doubt KIEGIR will respond to finish this convo. But after reading the Communist State page I think we’re both wrong. Bvcitizen (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I uphold what I said, it does not have to mention what you say, as a car category does not have to mention that an average passenger car has 4 wheels.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC))

Any sources for "Free Territory" name?

Hello, I have been looking through our sources, and none of them seem to use the name Free Territory to refer to the territory controlled by the Makhnovists. I have also been unable to find any other reliable sources using the name. Do we have any sources using this name? If not, I believe the page should be moved to the common academic term "Makhnovia", or to the name "Makhnovist region" as used in Nestor Makhno; Anarchy's Cossack and History of the Makhnovist Movement. -Thespündragon 23:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Is there any source to suggest the term "Makhnovia" was ever once used at the time by a single partisan of the FT? Seems far more likely to be a subsequent exonym. 2A00:23C5:1203:CE01:89E:8D1F:FF:4E0D (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 28 June 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Makhnovshchina. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Makhnovia → Free Territory – More common name and previous title for 10 years. See: 1 and 2 Des Vallee (talk) 10:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Simple google search reveals over 440,000 results for "Free Territory" with google using the name for it. Makhnovia brings up a mere 37,000, over 90% less then the Free Territory. This is taking into account the extreme differences and the fact much of the search results for Makhnovia are just redirects to Free Territory.

It can be argued that the term "Free Territory" can be used to describe various different societies or examples, however on search the results of "Free Territory" brings up mostly results on the Ukrainian Free Territory. If we search "free territory of Ukraine" alone, something which would never be confused with other entities called the Free Territory. The search results bring up 206,000 results still over 5 times more common then "Makhnovia". Per WP:COMMONNAME the Free Territory is utterly more common and this article was named "Free territory" from 2009 until 2019.

As for scholarly sources, using google scholar results for "Free Territory Ukraine" brings up 246,000 results, Makhnovia brings up 20 results. Nearly all of which describe it as a essentially a bandit state as the term Makhnovia was created for that reason for the Bolsheviks to discredit the Free Territory as a warlord state, see this.

While "Free Territory Ukraine" brings up many results not all are related to the anarchist Free Territory, searching "Free Territory Ukraine anarchist" shows 19,800 results and brings up only references to the anarchist society.

The term "Makhnovshchina" brings up 211 results, which still is 19,569/245,769 short of "Free Territory of Ukraine". This proves enough that the name "Makhnovia" is utterly fringe.

JSTOR a peer reviewed publication shows 2 results for Makhnovia, all of which are just quick mentions. While I could find at least 5 separate articles about the free territory 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Des Vallee (talk) 10:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The searches above are poor indicators and the result counts are misread. Search reliable sources with book search, not web search. Use quotation marks to search for the phrase “free territory,” and not just anything with isolated words “territory” and “free” in it. Read the counts from the very last page of results. Please read WP:SET for guidelines. —Michael Z. 14:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Fair "free territory" Ukraine anarchist brings up 665 results still much, much more then the 20 of Makhnovia, and I can't really find reliable sources using the term "Makhnovia" as a title, I can find mostly passing mentions, there is only 20 bare mentions for "Makhnovia". As an example Ukraine, l9l8-21 and Spain, 1936-39: A Comparison of Armed Anarchist Struggles in Europe Anarchist Struggles in Europe, an honors reviewed thesis uses the term "Free Territory" and "Revolutionary anti-authoritarian movements and anarchist studies 2020" and Envisioning an Anarcho Pacifist Peace: A case for the convergence of anarchism and pacifism and an exploration of the Gandhiam movement for a stateless society. As well most other sources on the matter. Des Vallee (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Move to Makhnovshchina. Since "free territory" Ukraine returned results about Zaporozhian Cossacks c.1650, I narrowed the results by adding “Makhno.”

• In Google Books:
  1. "Makhnovshchina" Makhno -Wikipedia, about 1,110
  2. "free territory" Makhno -Wikipedia, about 731
  3. "Mahknovshchyna" Makhno -Wikipedia, 111
  4. "Makhnovia" Makhno -Wikipedia, 66
• In Google Scholar:
  1. "Makhnovshchina" Makhno -Wikipedia, 135
  2. "free territory" Makhno -Wikipedia, 39
  3. "Mahknovshchyna" Makhno -Wikipedia, 23
  4. "Makhnovia" Makhno -Wikipedia, 13

 —Michael Z. 16:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose free territory (no caps, so to the dab) could mean anything - would suggest Makhnovia, an anarchist society during the Ukrainian Revolution 1917–1921. Better some variant of Makhnovshchyna. So Support Michael's counter-proposal above In ictu oculi (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support Michael proposal of a variant of 'Makhnovshchina', my belief a couple years back that 'Makhnovia' was the common name in English-language sources for this topic was incorrect per Michael. 'Makhnovshchina' seems to be the common name for both the Makhnovist movement itself and the territory they controlled, but addressing this would only require a slight wording change in the lede. -Thespündragon 05:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• Relisting note there seems to be consensus for some move, but not yet for any specific new name. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
• As "Makhnovshchina" is currently a disambiguation page for multiple pages relating to the Makhnovist movement, something like "Makhnovshchina (movement)" would be needed. How does that specific parenthetical disambiguation sound? (other options include (territory) or (faction)) -Thespündragon 05:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  One of those is a section link, another is an article that doesn’t mention the name, and the third is this article. So I would move that one to Makhnovshchina (disambiguation), because it doesn’t seem terribly important. —Michael Z. 13:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Restructuring/rewrites needed

I've recently been working on expanding the articles about Nestor Makhno and the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine, so I figured I should probably get around to working on this one in tandem. Just starting this talk section here to collate my thoughts before starting any major changes. Something that immediately sticks out here, as it did when I was first editing the above-mentioned articles, is a clear and present blending of information between them that results in repetition across articles and a lack of distinction. For example: in the "history" section, there is a lot of information about the activities of the Black Army, with only tenuous connections to the specific history of the Makhnovist territory. The history section is in the most need of restructuring, where other sections are fine in structure and could simply do with more information. (The "Governing bodies and attitude to government" subsection could even be moved wholesale to the "Politics" section) Another issue is the citations. As I noted in another talk page, the copious use of primary sources from Nestor Makhno, Peter Arshinov and Volin isn't acceptable, and these need to be replaced with reliable secondary sources. There are also a few tertiary sources in this article that may be worth replacing. Finally, some of the information in the infobox is rather misleading, as it implies that the Makhnovists were in control of this whole territory from November 1918 to August 1921, when the actual situation is that the territory often changed hands between sides and varied greatly in its size and scope depending on the Makhnovists' position in the war. Anyway, these were just some of my thoughts on the matter, if anyone wants to add theirs to the discussion on how to restructure this article, then this would be the place to do it. Regards. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I have just expanded the Politics section and in hindsight, this will probably need splitting, as it has grown to a rather unwieldy size. I'm currently thinking about splitting out three separate articles for Free soviets, Regional Congress of Peasants, Workers and Insurgents and Revolutionary Military Soviet, respectively. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I have now removed a large chunk of the text in the process of restructuring the "History" section. This was done because it was largely discussing the military side, focusing on the Revolutionary Insurgent Army of Ukraine, included lengthy quotes from Nestor Makhno that may be better included elsewhere, and was largely sourced from a number of less-than-useful citations (including primary and tertiary sources). I will be coming back to this and re-integrating as much as I can, either into this article or elsewhere, so the previous version of the text is here:

Extended content

The emergence of the Makhnovshchina Black Army combat group, headed by Fedir Shchus (center) By this time, Makhno was leading a rebel movement of 6,000 people against the German Empire in the Yekaterinoslav province, while the German troops themselves were demoralized and did not want to fight, leading them to withdraw swiftly. On 27 November, Makhno had occupied Huliaipole, declared it in a state of siege, and formed the "Huliaipole Revolutionary Headquarters". The rebels by this time represented considerable strength, controlling most of the territory of the Yekaterinoslav province. According to Makhno, "The agricultural majority of these villages was composed of peasants, one would understand at the same time both peasants and workers. They were founded first of all on equality and solidarity of its members. Everyone, men and women, worked together with a perfect conscience that they should work on fields or that they should be used in housework... The work program was established in meetings in which everyone participated. Then they knew exactly what they had to do". (Makhno, Russian Revolution in Ukraine, 1936). At this point, the emphasis on military campaigns that Makhno had adopted in the previous year shifted to political concerns. The first Congress of the Confederation of Anarchists Groups, under the name of "Nabat" (the alarm bell toll), issued five main principles: rejection of all political parties, rejection of all forms of dictatorships, negation of any concept of a central state, rejection of a so-called "transitional period" necessitating a temporary dictatorship of the proletariat, and self-management of all workers through free local workers' councils (soviets). After recruiting large numbers of Ukrainian peasants, as well as numbers of Jews, anarchists, naletchki, and recruits arriving from other countries, Makhno formed the Revolutionary Insurgent Army of Ukraine, otherwise known as the "Anarchist Black Army". At its formation, the Black Army consisted of about 15,000 armed troops, including infantry and cavalry (both regular and irregular) brigades; artillery detachments were incorporated into each regiment. The RIAU battled against the White Army, Ukrainian nationalists, and various independent paramilitary formations that conducted anti-semitic pogroms. Society was reorganized according to anarchist values, which led Makhnovists to formalize the policy of free communities as the highest form of social justice. Education followed the principles of Francesc Ferrer, and the economy was based on free exchange between rural and urban communities, from crops and cattle to manufactured products, according to the theories of Peter Kropotkin. The Makhnovists said they supported "free worker-peasant soviets" and opposed the central government. Makhno called the Bolsheviks "dictators" and opposed the "Cheka... and similar compulsory authoritative and disciplinary institutions". He called for "freedom of speech, press, assembly, unions and the like". The Makhnovists called various congresses of soviets, in which all political parties and groups – including Bolsheviks – were permitted to participate, to the extent that members of these parties were elected delegates from worker, peasant or militia councils. By contrast, in Bolshevik territory after June 1918, no non-Bolsheviks were permitted to participate in any national soviets and most local ones, the decisions of which were also all subject to Bolshevik party veto. A declaration stated that Makhnovist revolutionaries were forbidden to participate in the Cheka, and all party-run militias and party police forces (including Cheka-like secret police organizations) were to be outlawed in Makhnovist territory. Heather-Noël Schwartz comments that "Makhno would not countenance organizations that sought to impose political authority, and he accordingly dissolved the Bolshevik revolutionary committees". The Bolsheviks, however, accused him of having two secret police forces operating under him. Meanwhile, the Petliurites, who formed their army from many conscripted rebel groups and seized power in a number of Ukrainian cities, considered the Makhnovist movement an integral part of the all-Ukrainian national revolution and hoped to draw it into the sphere of their influence and leadership. However, when he received a proposal from the Directorate of Ukraine about joint actions against the Red Army, Makhno answered: "Petlyurovschina is a gamble that distracts the attention of the masses from the revolution." According to Makhno and his comrades-in-arms, Petliurism was a movement of the Ukrainian national bourgeoisie, with which the people's revolutionary movement was completely out of step. On 26 December, Makhno's detachments, together with the armed detachments of the Yekaterinoslav Provincial Committee of the Bolshevik Party, forced the Petliurists out of Yekaterinoslav. However, taking advantage of the carelessness of the rebel command, the Petliurites returned, and after two or three days expelled the Makhnovists from the city. The Makhnovists retreated to the Synelnykove district. From that moment on the northwestern border of the territory controlled by Makhno, a front arose between the Makhnovists and Petliurists. However, due to the fact that Petliura's troops, consisting mostly of conscripted rebel peasants, began to quickly decompose on contact with the Makhnovists, the front was soon liquidated. After the Yekaterinoslav operation the Makhnovists settled in Huliaipole, where Makhno planned to begin practical implementation of the anarchist ideal – the creation of a free, stateless communist society in the Huliaipole district. However, the position of the rebels was not yet secure; the Petliurites continued to exert pressure on Makhno trying to lure him to their side, General Denikin was approaching from the south, and the Ukrainian Soviet Army was approaching Makhnovist territory from the north. Therefore, Makhno tried to bide time, strengthen his own force at the expense of potential allies and find a more profitable line of behavior. On 12 January, the White Army launched an attack on the Makhnovist district from Donbass. They took it on 20 January, and attacked Huliaipole on 21–22 January. In this situation, Makhno finally decided to make an alliance with the Reds, declaring the Petliurites and Denikinists as the most dangerous opponents. The agreement with the Red Army was considered by Makhno as exclusively military, not affecting the social structure of the Makhnovist district. As part of the Ukrainian Front, Makhno's brigade participated in battles with the White Guards in Donbass and in the Sea of Azov. As a result of the Black Army's advance, the territory controlled by them increased to 72 volosts of the Yekaterinoslav province with a population of more than two million people. Makhno was just as rebellious towards the Red command as he was to the White, constantly emphasizing independence. The Makhnovists set up detachments on the railroad and intercepted wagons with flour, bread, other food products, coal, and straw. Moreover, they themselves refused to sell bread from the surplus stock available in Berdyansk and Melitopol counties, instead demanding industrial goods in direct exchange for it. Anarchism and the ideas of social reorganization Peter Kropotkin, the anarcho-communist theorist who laid the groundwork for the organization of Makhnovia Makhno, who called himself "an anarcho-communist of the Bakunin-Kropotkin school", addressing like-minded people in an early July 1918 letter, urged them: "Together we will destroy the slave system in order to bring ourselves and our comrades onto the path of the new system. We organize it on the basis of a free society, the content of which will allow the entire population, not exploiting the labor of others, to build their entire social and social life in their own communities, completely freely and independently of the state and its officials, even the Reds... Long live our peasants' and workers' union! Long live our auxiliary forces – an selfless intelligentsia of labor! Long live the Ukrainian social revolution! Yours, Nestor Ivanovich. A number of guerrilla unit commanders who arose in the Huliaipole district, in the summer of 1918, were also supporters of anarchism. At the beginning of 1919, the influence of anarchism on the rebel army of Makhno continued to grow due to the constant influx of ideological supporters of anarchy. These people enjoyed special privileges with Makhno, held leading positions in the rebel movement, contributed to the development of the Bat'ko's views and behavior, and exalted him as a "people's leader", "a great anarchist", and "second Bakunin". Anarchist ideas predetermined the development of Makhnovism, which inevitably led it to conflict with Soviet power. In February – March 1919, Makhno invited the anarchist Pyotr Arshinov, with whom he served prison time in the same cell of the Butyrka prison, to join the Ukrainian rebellion and organize an anarchist newspaper for the rebels and workers and peasants. Arshinov arrived in April in Huliaipole, was elected chairman of the cultural and educational department of the Military Revolutionary Council, and editor of the newspaper "The Way to Freedom"; since the spring of 1919 he became one of the main ideologists of the Makhnovist movement. Conflict with the Soviet command File:Dybenko & Makhno.jpg Red Army commander Pavel Dybenko and Nestor Makhno, 1919 Bolshevik hostility to Makhno and his anarchist army increased after Red Army defections. While the Soviet authorities chose not to pay attention to the frankly anti-Bolshevik nature of the resolutions of the February regional congress of Soviets, when the front stabilized in April, the authorities headed for the liquidation of Makhnovia's special status. In the Soviet press, the Makhnovist movement began to qualify as kulak, its slogans as counter-revolutionary, and its actions as harmful to the revolution. Arshinov in his memoirs accused the Soviet authorities of organizing a blockade of the district, during which all "revolutionary workers" were detained. Supply of the Black Army with shells and ammunition, according to him, decreased by five or six times. The Bolshevik press was not only silent on the subject of Moscow's continued refusal to send arms to the Black Army, but also failed to credit the Ukrainian anarchists' continued willingness to ship food supplies to the hungry urban residents of Bolshevik-held cities. After 19 April the executive committee of the MRC of the Huliaipole region convened the third district congress, which proclaimed the anarchist platform and declared categorically non-recognition of the dictatorship of any party, the division commander Pavel Dybenko announced: "Any congresses convened on behalf of the military revolutionary headquarters, which was dismissed in accordance with my order, are considered clearly counter-revolutionary, and the organizers of these will be subjected to the most repressive measures, up to and including their outlawing". The commander of the Soviet Red Army's Ukrainian Front Vladimir Antonov-Ovseyenko, who personally arrived in Huliaipole on 29 April, attempted to settle the conflict. During the negotiations, Makhno made concessions – he condemned the harshest provisions of the congresses' resolution and promised to impede the election of the command staff. At the same time, Makhno put forward a fundamentally new idea of the long-term coexistence of various political movements within the same power system: "Before a decisive victory over the whites, a revolutionary front must be established, and he (Makhno) seeks to prevent strife between various elements of this revolutionary front." This idea, however, was not accepted by the Soviet leadership, and Lev Kamenev, the representative of the republic's defense council, again demanded the liquidation of the political organs of the movement and, above all, the MRC. A new reason for mutual distrust arose in connection with the rebellion of Ataman Grigoriev in Right-Bank Ukraine. On 12 May Kamenev sent a telegram to Makhno, kept in a clearly incredulous tone: "The traitor Grigoriev betrayed the front. Not executing a combat order, he holstered his weapon. The decisive moment has come – either you will go with the workers and peasants throughout Russia, or open the front to the enemies. Oscillations have no place. Immediately inform me of the location of your troops and issue an appeal against Grigoryev. I will consider non-receipt of an answer as a declaration of war. I believe in honor of the revolutionaries – yours, Arshinov, Veretelnikov and others." The "Bat'ko" gave a rather ambiguous answer: "The honor and dignity of the revolutionary force us to remain faithful to the revolution and the people, and Grigoryev's feuds with the Bolsheviks over regional power cannot force us to leave the front." After the scouts sent by Makhno to the area of Gregoriev's rebellion were intercepted by the authorities, the Makhnovists' final determination of their attitude towards Grigoryev dragged on until the end of May. In his appeal, "Who is Grigoryev?" Makhno questioned the rebels: "Brothers! Don't you hear in his words a grim call to the Jewish pogrom?! Don't you feel the desire of Ataman Grigoriev to break the living fraternal connection between the revolution of Ukraine and revolutionary Russia?" At the same time, Makhno blamed the events on the actions of the Bolshevik authorities:" We must say that the reasons that created the entire Grigoriev movement are not in Grigoriev himself... Anything that showed resistance, protest, and even independence were stifled by special committees... This created the climate of bitterness, protest, and a hostile mood towards the existing order. Grigoriev took advantage of this in his adventure... We demand that the Communist Party be held accountable for the Grigoriev movement ". Panteleimon Belochub a soldier best known as one of the commanders of the Black Army Grigoriev openly disagreed with Makhno during negotiations at Sentovo on 27 July 1919. Grigoriev had been in contact with Denikin's emissaries, and was planning to join the White coalition. According to Peter Arshinov, Makhno and staff decided to execute Grigoriev. Chubenko, a member of Makhno's staff, accused Grigoriev of collaborating with Denikin and of inciting the pogroms. The accounts of Gregoriev's execution differ, and ascribe the final shot either to Chubenko, Karetnik, Kouzmenko or Makhno. The Bolshevik government in Petrograd increasingly saw the Makhnovists as a threat to their power, both as an example and as a site of anarchist influence. The Bolsheviks began their formal efforts to disempower Makhno on 4 June 1919 with Trotsky's Order No. 1824, which forbade electing a congress and attempted to discredit Makhno by stating: "The Makhno brigade has constantly retreated before the White Guards, owing to the incapacity, criminal tendencies, and the treachery of its leaders." The Bolsheviks restarted a propaganda campaign declaring Makhnovia to be a region of warlords, and eventually broke with it by launching surprise attacks on Makhnovist militias despite the pre-existing alliance between the factions. The Bolshevik press alleged that leaders in the Makhnovist movement, rather than being democratically-elected, were appointed by Makhno's military clique or even Makhno himself. They also alleged that Makhno himself had refused to provide food for Soviet railwaymen and telegraph operators, that the "special section" of the Makhnovist constitution provided for secret executions and torture, that Makhno's forces had raided Red Army convoys for supplies, stolen an armored car from Bryansk when asked to repair it, and that the Nabat group was responsible for deadly acts of terrorism in Russian cities. Vladimir Lenin soon sent Lev Kamenev to Ukraine where he conducted a cordial interview with Makhno. After Kamenev's departure, Makhno claimed to have intercepted two Bolshevik messages, the first an order to the Red Army to attack the Makhnovists, the second ordering Makhno's assassination. Soon after the Fourth Congress, Trotsky sent an order to arrest every Nabat congress member. Pursued by White Army forces, Makhno and the Black Army responded by withdrawing further into the interior of Ukraine. In 1919, the Black Army suddenly turned eastwards in a full-scale offensive, surprising General Denikin's White forces and causing them to fall back. Within two weeks, Makhno and the Black Army had recaptured all of southern Ukraine. Black Army commanders Simon Karetnik (3rd from the left), Nestor Makhno (center) and Fedor Shchus (1st right), 1919 When Makhno's troops were struck by a typhus epidemic, Trotsky resumed hostilities; the Cheka sent two agents to assassinate Makhno in 1920, but they were captured and, after confessing, were executed. All through February 1920 Makhnovia was inundated with 20,000 Red troops. Viktor Belash noted that even in the worst time for the revolutionary army, namely at the beginning of 1920, "In the majority of cases rank-and-file Red Army soldiers were set free, in all four directions". This happened at the beginning of February 1920, when the insurgents disarmed the 10,000-strong Estonian Division in Huliaipole. The problem was further compounded by the alienation of the Estonians by Denikin's inflexible Russian chauvinism and their refusal to fight with Nikolai Yudenich. There was a new truce between Makhnovist forces and the Red Army in October 1920 in the face of a new advance by Wrangel's White Army. While Makhno and the anarchists were willing to assist in ejecting Wrangel and White Army troops from southern Ukraine and Crimea, they distrusted the Bolshevist government in Moscow and its motives. However, after the Bolshevik government agreed to a pardon of all anarchist prisoners throughout Russia, a formal treaty of alliance was signed. By late 1920, Makhno had halted General Wrangel's White Army advance into Ukraine from the southwest, capturing 4,000 prisoners and stores of munitions, and preventing the White Army from gaining control of the all-important Ukrainian grain harvest. To the end, Makhno and the anarchists maintained their main political structures, refusing demands to join the Red Army, to hold Bolshevik-supervised elections, or accept Bolshevik-appointed political commissars. The Red Army temporarily accepted these conditions, but within a few days ceased to provide the Makhnovists with basic supplies, such as cereals and coal. When General Wrangel's White Army forces were decisively defeated in November 1920, the Bolsheviks immediately turned on Makhno and the anarchists once again. On 26 November 1920, less than two weeks after assisting Red Army forces in defeating Wrangel, Makhno's headquarters staff and many of his subordinate commanders were arrested at a Red Army planning conference to which they had been invited by Moscow, and executed. Makhno escaped, but was soon forced into retreat as the full weight of the Red Army and the Cheka's "special punitive brigades" were brought to bear against not only the Makhnovists, but all anarchists, even their admirers and sympathizers. In August 1921, after making raids all across Ukraine and constant battles with Red Army forces many times larger and better equipped an exhausted Makhno was finally driven by Mikhail Frunze's Red forces into exile with 77 of his men.

If you have any ideas for where to include these sections, feel free. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Free Territory (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Related discussions on Makhnovist symbols/iconography and citogenesis

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anarchism#A note on historical accuracy and misinformation czar 16:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

"Free Territory"

I'm of the opinion that the phrase should either be removed in its entirety from the article for its anachronism or only added with descriptive adages like "also erroneously known as" UlyssesYYZ (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I was initially hesistant to do this, but having gone through a number of English and Russian language sources, I can find absolutely no basis for the Makhnovist territory ever being called a "Free Territory". My instinct is to assume that it comes from a mistranslation of a different term, but until we can find evidence of that, I think it's best to remove any reference to "Free Territory" from the article.

If anyone disagrees, feel free to comment here. Grnrchst (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The term "Free Territory," "Free Region," "Free Cossacks," or "Free Ukrainians" was used to describe general region where the Mahknovists were operating in, but disregarding this point. Any article that has a historical name attached to it is used. As an example the term "Byzantine Empire" was never used during it's existence it's name was only created after the Renascence in an attempt to disambiguate the early Latin Roman Empire and the later Greek Orthodox Roman Empire. Another example being the Wiemar Republic never being officially used during it's existence, another example being the "Gallic Empire". The point stands, the term "Free Territory of Ukraine" is used in multiple different sources on the entity and therefore is correct in labeling it, as this principle applies to all articles, after all if this is a popular term in historiography and popular knowledge the term is correct in being added. Many Thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Grnrchst It is in fact not a policy that "the source needs to published before 2006," it is the creation of a non-existent guideline, this has made clear on other attempted to moves as an example the move request towards Shia Islam. There is a case to be made on the time period of an source having an effect having an effect, however attempting to state that a source that refers to an entity is invalid due to the time period it is written without sources to back this claim constitutes original research at is the selective preference of sources, in this case those that refer as "Free Territory" as somehow invalid despite these sources being reliable. Des Vallee (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I only mentioned that it needs to be from a source published before 2006 because that is when the term "Free Territory" was first created on Wikipedia. The sources themselves aren't invalid, they just fell victim to circular reporting, which happens a lot on Wikipedia. See: Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents. Grnrchst (talk) 09:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The source you provided above (Palij 1976) never uses the terms "Free Territory" or "Free Region". In this source, the term "Free Ukraine" was used exclusively by the Ukrainian People's Republic and the "Free Cossacks" were a unit of the Ukrainian State.

The term "Free Territory" has not been found in any sources prior to its invention by an English Wikipedia user in 2006. The only sources that have used the term have been written after 2006 and are clearly pulling from Wikipedia. Given that this is a term fabricated by Wikipedia, it has no business being in the lead of the article. I would maybe accept it being in the "Etymology and orthography" section but it needs to be made clear that it originated on Wikipedia, not in any reliable sources. Grnrchst (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

As for your comparisons to the Byzantine Empire and Weimar Republic, these are false equivalences. Those are commonly used names across many sources on the subject, whereas the term "Free Territory" isn't even close to commonly used. Whether it be primary sources (Arshinov; Makhno; Volin) or secondary sources (Avrich 1971; Darch 2020; Footman 1961; Magocsi 1996; Marshall 1993; Malet 1982; Palij 1976; Peters 1970; Shubin 2010; Subtelny 1988; Sysyn 1977), none of them make even a passing reference to a "Free Territory". The verifiable sources you cited for the term were a bachelor's thesis and a book review (in which the reviewed book also never mentions a "Free Territory"), both of which were published over a decade after the original version of this Wikipedia article coined the term. This is hardly sufficient for placing it prominently in the article's lead, no matter how you may feel about the term. Grnrchst (talk) 12:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Grnrchst Do have any sources stating that the term "Free Territory" originates from Wikipedia? Because if not this constitutes WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Likewise the term "Free Cossacks" was used to describe the various Cossacks aligned with Mahkno during the Russian Civil War. The Anarchism of Nestor Makhno, 1918–1921 describes this . Likewise the title is commonly used, and as you described yourself is a reliable source, a honors thesis review is reliable, likewise Revolutionary Anti-authoritarian Movements and Anarchist Studies does mention the free territory "These traditions of independence suggest deeply embedded cultures in this region’s inhabitants, as the Don Cossack territory was in close proximity to the Ukrainian Free Territory." This can be found on the 3rd page of the article, the full text is

Today, Cossacks possess a form of ethnic identity within Russia, rather than any sort of political autonomy. These traditions of independence suggest deeply embedded cultures in this regions’ inhabitants, as the Don Cossack territory was in close proximity to the Ukrainian Free Territory governed by the Makhnovist anarchists of the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine from 1917 to 1921.

Thusly the name is used, likewise the use of the term free to describe the roughly defined geo-political cassocks most of which had no clearly defined ethnicity 1. I could potentially see the term only being added only in the etymology section, however as it stands it still must be stated per the name given. Des Vallee (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

If literally any sources that predate this article's creation on 1 May 2006 refer to it as a "Free Territory", then it has some academic basis. But as of yet, not a single source has been found, nor do any of the sources cited in this article refer to a "Free Territory". Hardly commonly used enough to put in the lead is it?

I have to assume you misread Palij 1976, because nowhere does he refer to "Free Cossacks" as Cossacks that were aligned with Makhno, he only ever refers to them as a Ukrainian nationalist formation. Nor does he ever mention any Cossacks that were aligned to Makhno, although he does mention that the 18th century Zaporozhian Cossacks and their "free lands" influenced the future Makhnovist movement. Perhaps this is what you were talking about?

And I know that the book review uses the term "Ukrainian Free Territory", but I have also read the book it is reviewing (Grubacic & O'Hearn (2016) Living at the Edges of Capitalism), and that book only uses the term "free territory" to refer to the Don Cossacks, not the Makhnovshchina - which it doesn't even mention once. That the two are related was only inferred, in the review, by Dana Williams.

As to Daniel Collins' bachelors thesis, he doesn't cite where he sourced the term "Free Territory" from at all, despite claiming that is what the Makhnovist region is "known as". In his section about "The Free Territory", he cites Peter Arshinov's History of the Makhnovist Movement, Paul Avrich's The Anarchists in the Russian Revolution, Michael Palij's The Anarchism of Nestor Makhno, 1918–1921 and Vladimir Brovkin's Behind the Front Lines of the Civil War - none of which ever use the term "Free Territory".

So where does this term come from? Where is it commonly used? Because I don't think a small section in a bachelor's thesis and a passing mention in a book review outweigh dozens of history books written over the course of decades. Grnrchst (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Grnrchst The use of sources based off date is a policy that does not exist. Moreover your initial statement states the term "Free Territory" was not used, when it is. Moreover Revolutionary Anti-authoritarian Movements and Anarchist Studies does mention the Free Territory in an anarchist context and Makhnovist context "as the Don Cossack territory was in close proximity to the Ukrainian Free Territory governed by the Makhnovist anarchists of the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine." This is a direct mention of Makhnovshchina not the "Don Cossacks." This also was block quoted above with direct mentions to both Mahkno, and his army so it is puzzling that you somehow extrapolate this as not a reference to Mahkno. Moreover all the source is used to prove in the context the region the Insurectionary Army of Ukraine is referred to as the "Free Territory," as this point fundemtally stands. Likewise Revolutionary anti-authoritarian movements and anarchist studies is not a review of a book, it is a historical analysis of the anarchist movement from the perspective of two books and numerous other sources. Although the distinction may seem trivial, the difference is it an entirely new work, not a summarisation of a book. It is good we can agree that if the term "Free Territory" is used in numerous sources to describe the Makhnovist movement in Ukraine then it should be used which should be the fundamental point.

This articles are enough to establish a consensus for the term "Free Territory" being included in the article, as it is clear it is commonly known as.

While the overall amount of sources for the Makhnovist movement remains sparse prior to 1990, there are some references to a "Free Region":

Sources from 2004 reference "free communes"

Sources likewise describe the regions the Insurectionary Army of Ukraine controlled as "Free Ukraine" prior to 20061, and the "free anarchists" as described in legal Doctrine: Theoretical Foundation

Ukrainian sources also commonly use the term "Згадуючи анархічні утворення в Україні, неможливо уникнути згадки про «Вільну територію» зі столицею у Гуляйполі, лідером якої був Нестор Махно." trans: "When mentioning anarchist formations in Ukraine, it is impossible to avoid mentioning the 'Free Territory' with the capital in Gulyaipol (Huliaipole), whose leader was Nestor Makhno." Нестор Махно, : Perlit production ltd, 1994. ISBN 5-7707-3882-0

There are many Russian Sources which describe the entity as "anarchist Ukraine" however this term appears to be unrelated.

Refers to the "Free Territory during the Ukranian Revoultion in 1917-1921" [4] Timonov, Ivan. "Anarchism: theory, practice, modernity."

Page 37:

I have currently added "described as "Anarchist Ukraine" in the etymology section. Given it's use. I could not currently find any reference to the exact term "Free Territory" in any sources prior to 2008, however there are many sources describing the "Free Region of Cossacks." Yet there are extremely common sources on the use of the term post 2008. The term "Free Plains" is also commonly used to describe the region that the Makhnovists were active in, but this is used to describe the general region prior and after, also used that being of the Wild Plains of Ukraine and the Cossack movement more generally.

Likewise not just in English we can find many different references to the term Free Territory in reference Mahknovist area of control, in different languages.

English:

Historically, different forms of large-scale anarchist organizations and autonomist projects took form in a number of places; popular examples include the Paris Commune in 1871, the Free Territory during the Ukrainian Revolution in 1917–1921, the Spanish autonomous communities of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, or the Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities in Mexico since 1994.

Russian:

Nestar Makhno: Anarchy on Tachanska

Polish:

The phenomenon of revolutionary activity of Nestor Makhna and its contemporary reception.

Ukrainian:

"Anarchism on the territory of Ukraine: theory and experience of implementing the main ideas"

References to "Territory of Anarchist Ukraine" in reference to Free Territory: direct: "були найактивнішими на території України." 2006. Many Thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

If you re-read my statements, you'll see I'm saying it's not used in any of the cited sources, not that it was never used at all. You seem to think I'm denying that Williams' review doesn't mention a "Free Territory"? I'm not sure where you got that from, I was merely saying that the book it was reviewing only mentioned that in the context of the Don Cossacks. And yes, it is a book review. It says as much at the very beginning of the article, which not only lists it as "BOOK REVIEW" but begins with: "The three works under review here [...]"

I'm not opposed to including the term in the "Etymology and orthography" section, but saying it is commonly used is just false, given that none of the cited sources ever use that terminology. It may be another term used in modern historiography, sure, but not by any means a common name - that we have had to do this much digging to find a couple passing mentions proves as much. This is just not enough for it to be included in the lead of the article.

Thank you for bringing up the Volkovynskyĭ (1994) book. I'll admit I have not come across this work, nor do I have access to it for verification purposes, so I'll just have to take your word for this. And the other sources you provided are helpful. (Although I note that the Zdorenko source uses the plural "free territories" i.e. Вільні території/Вільних територій and the Svuromenko source never uses the term "free territory")

As for your comment on policy about sources "based on date", this was entirely as a means for verifying whether the term resulted from circular reporting, I wasn't just disregarding post-2006 sources. I think the jury is still out on this one, seeing as the Ukrainian term "Вільну територію" you pulled from Volovynskyi is not the Ukrainian spelling that has been used on Wikipedia ("Вільна територія"). But I have no means of asking the article's original creator where they sourced the term from, as they created it without citing any sources and were promptly banned for sock-puppetry.

Anyway, feel free to add it to the "Etymology and orthography" section. But I remain unconvinced that it is anything approaching a common name. Grnrchst (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Grnrchst Thank you, and I am glad we could reach a consensus. Des Vallee (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Grnrchst Update I believe I have actually made a mistake the above quote is from this source dated 2020. Nestor Makhno does not contain this exact text I believe mentions the term "Free Territory," I am currently reviewing the text, I believe I intended my quotes wrong. Still does not take away from the other sources using the term. Des Vallee (talk) 23:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

After a review, I can confirm the text "Вільну територію" is not actually mentioned in НЕСТОР МАХНО. Certain mentions of "free Cossack's," are mentioned.

«Махно знав про те, що козаки проголосили незалежність і обрали влітку 1917 року Військовий уряд на чолі з командиром Донського війська генералом Каледіним.»

"Makhno knew that the Cossacks proclaimed independence and elected in the summer of 1917 a military government headed by commander Donskoy troops by General Caledin."

So does Makhno's area of control but the term "Вільну територію" does not appear in the text. Des Vallee (talk) 00:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah that's disappointing, for a moment I thought we'd finally found an original source for the term. If you do find any pre-2006 sources for the term "Free Territory", do let me know, I'd be happy to find out. As of yet, it still seems like it's a case of citogenesis.

Thanks for digging into this. :) Grnrchst (talk) 07:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any more sources for the term "Anarchist Ukraine" other than the van der Walt (2013) citation? I dug up the Timonov source and found no specific mention of an "Anarchist Ukraine", so I removed it. (Its reliability is also unclear, as it appears to be a high school student's paper, it even cites Wikipedia as a source) Again I find myself wondering how widely used the term is, and whether or not it originated on Wikipedia, given it's in none of my own sources and was a name used in the original version of this article.[5] Any information you can find is helpful. Grnrchst (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The source uses the "Anarchists of Ukraine," Анархісти на Україні and

"Ленін, думка про те, що, мовляв, анархісти не розуміють "сучасного", реально не мають із ним зв'язку і т. п., докорінно помилкова. Анархісти-комуністи на Україні — півдні Росії дали надзвичайно багато доказів щодо того, що вони цілком пов'язані з сучасністю. "

"Lenin stated that, the anarchists don't understand the "modern" and have no real connection with it, is a fundamentally false statement. The Anarchist communists of Ukraine — southern Russia has given an extraordinary amount of evidence that they are entirely understanding of modernity."

As well as mentions of Makhno's Anarchist movement in Ukraine. For a direct mention of Формування анархістської програми суспільних перетворень після перевороту 25 жовтня 1917 р. 1992, using the term "анархістів України" lit "Anarchist Ukraine," the в signifies "in" or "within" however in the context it is referring to the entirety of Makhnovychina so in English it would translate to "Anarchist Ukraine." I have not found a source with the term "Free Territory" before 2008, although I have however found "Anarchist Territory," "Autonomous Territory," and "Free Region/Zone of Anarchy" 1 "вільної батьківщини анархії" which is similar to "Free Territory," given the prevalence of the term post 2008, it should still be included in the etymology section. The fundamental issue with the term is the Ukrainian language has numerous terms which is similar to "Free" and "Territory" and often having different spellings, even after extensive digging I am still finding new terms, many sources also just use the term "The Territory," such as Організації селян на Півдні України в 1921-1928. 2004 Керівними органами влади на території, підвлашіій Н. Махну були районні зїзди місцевих рад та відділів повстанського війська trans: "The governing authorities of the territory controlled by N. Makhno controlled the district entrances local councils and departments of the insurgent army." It is clear that a term similar to "Free Territory" is used in various sources, throughout historiography, although there are various similar terms. Many thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Aye, I noticed the use of "Anarchists of Ukraine", but this is clearly referring to the anarchists themselves more so than the territory.

Could you tell me what book the "Формування анархістської програми суспільних перетворень" chapter comes from? I'm not getting results by searching the chapter name.

And aye, as you can see in the Etymology section, there's been a lot of similar terms for the Makhnovist territory ("liberated zone", "liberated region", "liberated area", "autonomous area", etc.). But up until recently, none have used the specific name "Free Territory". This is why I assumed that the original name for the article was a mistranslation of one of these terms, but that's obviously just speculation on my part. Unfortunately we can't ask the (now banned) creator of the article where they sourced the term. :(

Thanks again for helping look into this. Your insight into Ukrainian language sources has been wonderful. (Almost all of my sources are in either English or Russian) Grnrchst (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The initial source refers to the overall Makhnovist/anarchist movement in the region, and indeed it uses the plural reference to the term. The resource is entitled "Український історичний збірник" 2000, by М Боровик. trans "Ukrainian Historical Compendium." And yes I will keep looking at sources and attempt to find some use of the these terms in various sources. Des Vallee (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@Des Vallee: I just saw you've added another case of "free anarchist territory" to the etymology and orthography section. But when I checked the provided source, it described it as a "вільної батьківщини анархії". Now, I know "батьківщини" to mean "fatherland", so here it would be translated fully to say "free fatherland of anarchy" or (the gender neutral variant) "free homeland of anarchy". And yet, for some reason, this is not what was added. Instead you provided two of your own translations which twist the meaning quite substantially.

I'm starting to get incredibly frustrated with you about this, as I've been spending the best part of a year attempting to actually build this into an encyclopedic article with information on the subject, while you've spent a lot of time just trying to add a variant of the term "free territory" to the article, either citing sources that never mention the term or citing Ukrainian language sources which use terms that are verifiably not the ones you're describing.

Can you please stop, or at the very least bring something to the table that doesn't waste my time. -- Grnrchst (talk) 07:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Grnrchst It translates to "Territory" or "Region," describing "Motherland" in this section refers to land, as in a nation. It is a direct synonym of the term. If you don't want to waste time, your the only one doing so by doing so. Des Vallee (talk) 10:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

See the difference between literal translation and general translation. The translation of "Free anarchist homeland" to "Free anarchist territory" is the same translation, both go describe the exact same thing and have no difference in meanings. Both describe a region or land that is both "free" and "anarchist." Des Vallee (talk) 10:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of how you might translate it, I still think it's adding incredibly undue weight, given how much you've had to dig through Ukrainian language sources to find a single passing mention to a term that resembles what you want to add - while none of the English language sources cited throughout the article mention anything even close.

Clearly it's pointless arguing this with you, as it's an issue you've spent months pushing. So I may have to refer this to a third opinion for meditation. -- Grnrchst (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• This has been discussed at great length here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anarchism/Archive 6#A note on historical accuracy and misinformation. One of the editors in agreement himself has written one of the main books we cite on Makhno. There is no prominent evidence that the territory ever went by the name "Free Territory". The thread discusses some variants (similar to the ones discussed above) but arrived at "Makhnovshchina" being the most fitting, referring to both the people and the occupied land, and little evidence that they treated the land as a named state. All evidence points to "Free Territory" being an anachronism invented and propagated by Wikipedia rather than a name supported by reliable sources. Given the damage Wikipedia has already made to the historical record here, the burden of evidence would have to be quite strong to prove that scholars have all missed the territory's proper name in their decades of publications. czar 14:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Anthem?

In the infobox, the field for the Makhnovshchina's anthem has changed a few times over the past year.

Today, @LuGGerInk removed the mention of "Unhitch the horses, boys" and replaced it with "Anarchy Mother loves her sons".[6] This was itself a reversion of an edit by @Kyeotkyeotq, who added "Unhitch the horses, boys" in place of "La Makhnovschina" on 14 April.[7] And this song, which Kyeotkyeotq claims was a French song from the 1960s, was originally added by the IP editor @24.107.147.111 on 6 March.[8]

The reason I'm bringing up this slow-moving edit conflict is that none of these additions have cited a single source, least of all one that describes them as an anthem of the Makhnovshchina. During my own research, I have come across a couple scant mentions of specific songs being used by the Makhnovists.

In Malet 1982, p. 178:

The Makhnovists had some of their own songs, including 'The Song of the Makhnovists', and a version of the hit song 'Yabluchko' (Little Apple), of which there were also Red and White versions.

In Skirda 2004, p. 319:

Again we might mention the existence of a "Ballad of the Makhnovists" written by a Russian anarchist by the name of Ivan Kartashev and modeled on the lyrics and music of the celebrated old ballad of Stenka Razin.

— Gorelik, "The Ballad of the Makhnovists" in Volna (The Wave) no. 33, September 1922.

In Peters 1970, p. 110-111:

Makhnovite poetry and songs will not be discussed in this monograph, but the poem "Song of the Makhnovtse," by Ivan Kartachov, which appeared in Probuzhdenie (The Awakening), Nos. 56-57, 1935, is an example of the revolutionary note that was common to them.

Peters then goes on to provide a translation of the lyrics for this "Song of the Makhnovists":

Through the forests and over hills,
on tachankas along the river
in endless lines
move the peasants.

At the head rides grim Makhno,
the fighting inspirer.
His clarion call sweeps
the insurgents along:

“Arise, you who starve,
destroy the evil Kadets
who want to take the freedom
of the working masses.

“We stand for equality and brotherhood,
for freedom and the soviets.
We are the homeless and the hungry
we fight against the bourgeoisie.

“In the end we shall conquer:
Our strength is the people,
our cause is justice,
Forward, all workers!”

It would then appear that this "Song of the Makhnovists" is the closest thing the Makhnovshchina had to an anthem. Unfortunately, I have as of yet been unable to find a recording of this song, don't have access to either Volna or Probuzhdenie and can't find any more information on its writer Ivan Kartashev. If anybody can help with finding these, then let me know. But for now, I have made an edit to the infobox that reflects the sources. Should anyone wish to contest this, citations to reliable sources would be very helpful. -- Grnrchst (talk) 11:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Unless it's clear that this song was indeed an "anthem", it would be better to remove that field from the infobox and cover the song within context of their culture (in the article). czar 14:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@Czar: Honestly I've been wondering for a while how useful the infobox is. In its current form, it seems to imply that the Makhnovshchina was some unified polity, with permanent territory extending throughout southern and eastern Ukraine, from 1918 to 1921. In reality, for a large period of time (almost two years, in fact), the Makhnovshchina existed as a decentralised collection of roaming armed bands and peasant supporters that didn't control any territory. When it did control territory (mostly in 1919), it rarely extended further than modern-day Polohy Raion or Zaporizhzhia Oblast. Its largest extent of territorial control (represented on the map in pink), lasted barely a month and was under constant attack by the White movement, with territory constantly changing hands.

I don't want to be so bold as to remove the infobox without first forming a consensus, as it would almost assuredly be reverted as it's a potentially controversial change. But at the very least, it needs to be overhauled to properly convey what the Makhnovshchina actually was - and I'm not sure how to do that. :/ Grnrchst (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense, especially given that the article's main problems from the preceding few years have been about portraying the territory as a state. As long as what you and the infobox describe is reasonably covered within the lede, I don't think it would be highly controversial to remove the infobox. I'd add a comment (<!-- -->) where the infobox once explaining why there is no infobox (as inevitably someone will go to recreate it, not knowing the backstory) and I'd keep the map with a caption that describes the temporality of its land control, as it will remain a common question. If someone contests it (i.e., if it turns out to be controversial), we can have a talk page discussion for a formal consensus. czar 17:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Legacy

NPR on 11 June 2023 had a report on anarchists in Ukraine today, beginning with a bit on a bar honoring Makhno (https://www.npr.org/2023/06/11/1181547675/ukraines-anarchists-have-come-together-in-support-of-the-war). Is this worth mentioning? Kdammers (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

If they don't specifically mention "Makhnovshchina", it might be better placed in the anarchism in Ukraine article or in the legacy section on Nestor Makhno. Thanks for dropping this here though, I'll definitely give it a listen. -- Grnrchst (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Infobox today= field

I know there's been recent discussion, at least between Grnrchst and Czar, about the removal of the infobox in its entirety (see Anthem?, above), but at the moment it's still there, and while it is I wanted to focus specifically on the "Today part of" infobox field, which is currently set to |today=Ukraine, Russia.

I assume that's meant to indicate that the Makhnovshchina territory consisted of areas that are today part of Ukraine, and today part of Russia (or at least controlled by Russia since the invasion), but is anyone (else) concerned that it gives the impression that Ukraine, as a whole, is part of Russia? (Compare: Wales, United Kingdom or New York, New York.)

Assuming that's not the intent, and the |today= field is meant to represent two separate states that both hold land formerly part of the Makhnovshchina, would it be better to convey that using:

• A semicolon: |today=Ukraine; Russia
• An ampersand: |today=Ukraine & Russia
• An {{hlist}}: |today={{hlist|Ukraine|Russia}} =>
  • Ukraine
  • Russia
• A {{flatlist}}: (Same rendering as the previous, just different source formatting.)

or some other form that doesn't risk implicitly reading as "the Ukraine region of Russia"? FeRDNYC (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

---

• Agreed that it can give a misleading impression and needs a better separator. My suggestion is first to remove "Russia" as it's occupied territory and not internationally recognized as "part of" Russia. If that for some reason is controversial, I'd suggest {{hlist}} for today, but nixing the infobox altogether for tomorrow, per the previous section. czar 02:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  For the moment, I've changed it to |today={{hlist|Ukraine|Russia}} as that seems the least controversial change and solves the immediate problem. But if the only overlap between historical Makhnovshchina and present-day Russia is in occupied Ukraine, then I concur with Czar and would support the removal of Russia from the field entirely. FeRDNYC (talk) 06:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  @FeRDNYC: If you look at the map, you'll see that there's actually a small part of the territory that goes beyond Ukraine's modern-day de jure borders and into Russia's. This is because when the Makhnovist autumn 1919 offensive happened, they managed to push as far as the gates of Taganrog, which is in modern-day Russia and was the headquarters of the Armed Forces of South Russia at the time. Of course, this is a very small part of Russia, so in any case I'm not opposed to changes for clarification. -- Grnrchst (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Grnrchst: Ah, OK, thanks for that info. If that's the case, then including Russia is Technically Correct ("the best kind of correct!"), so IMHO it should stay. (Or someone will just add it back in anyway.) FeRDNYC (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  No bother. If it does need further clarification, maybe it'll be worth adding a comment along the lines of <!-- Western portion of modern-day Rostov Oblast --> or <!-- Matveyevo-Kurgansky District and Neklinovsky District --> in order to specify the parts of "Russia" that they controlled. (Of course, at the time, where Ukraine ended and Russia began wasn't very clear. The Ukrainian State claimed this area, although it never actually controlled it.) Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Czar; @FeRDNYC: I've gone ahead and removed the infobox, as the implication of the Makhnovshchina being a state with a permanent territory is just too much with the current version. I'm happy to consider reinstating an infobox, maybe a different one, but it needs to reflect that the Makhnovshchina was a mass movement, not a country.

I created a sidebar with all the relevant information I can think of in it as a replacement for the lead. This should provide a better go-to for people that want to do more research than an infobox. If you have any issues with that, the respective talk page is open.

Let me know if you have any further thoughts for improving this article. Ciao -- Grnrchst (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Grnrchst: No issues with the sidebar content, personally (though I've only glanced), nor with the editorial approach. But procedurally, I felt I should point out some sensible advice found at WP:BIDI (which should really be made more unilateral/prominent, IMHO, since it can be applied to all manner of discussions regarding templates that primarily exist to provide article content...)

If a disagreement should arise, please centralize discussion at the article talk page, not that of the template (which may be watchlisted mostly only by template coders).

Which would render this the relevant talk page, for anything but template-coding technical discussions. 🧐 FeRDNYC (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@FeRDNYC: Huh, thanks for informing me of that. That is indeed very helpful to know about, as this could apply across a lot of the articles I oversee that have prominent sidebars. In that case aye, bring up any content issues here I guess. -- Grnrchst (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Usually WP uses {{navbox}}es for those kind of related wikilinks. Sidebars can be distracting at that prominence/size. czar 06:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Czar: (Been a while, life and all that. Sorry for what feels like thread necromancy, after so many weeks.) Using a navbox would run afoul of WP:BIDI, coincidentally — navboxes are only meant to be used when the navbox itself appears on all of the articles it links to. They're intended as a tool for navigating between related articles, not merely to related articles. (Also, this article specifically already contains FOUR navboxes! Which is likely 2-3 more than it should have; adding a fifth would not improve the situation.)

That being said, I took another look at the sidebar... it really does seem kind of excessively detailed. It's being inserted as a replacement for the {{Infobox former country}} transclusion, but almost none of the links in the sidebar were present in the infobox. So it suddenly starts to feel like severe focus creep, to be presenting all of these other links. Isn't that what the article body is for?

(I might even argue that the article body itself feels a bit WP:OVERLINKed to begin with. Which definitely makes the need for such an extensive sidebar even more questionable.)

I'm also not a big fan of MOS:SUBMARINE links like (from the article lead section):

Although a brief period of peace was negotiated by the two factions in order to combat the remnants of the White movement...

but I suppose that's a separate conversation. FeRDNYC (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@FeRDNYC: No worries about resurrecting the thread! I just removed two of the navboxes, as this article wasn't linked to in either of them, so that takes care of that issue. I also appreciate that I may have included excessive detail when putting together the sidebar, it comes with the territory of having put so much research into this area :') Is there anything in there that you think could obviously be cut, in order to bring it down to a more reasonable size?

As for the submarine link, I just attempted to rework that line you mentioned in the lead, so hopefully it's less submarine-y. Let me know if you think there's any other improvements to be made. :) -- Grnrchst (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Grnrchst:

hopefully it's less submarine-y Honestly, it's not really any better at all. It might be worse.

[[Starobilsk agreement|brief period of peace]] and [[Starobilsk agreement|peace agreement]]have the same problem: They don't identify the destination of the link.

MOS:SUBMARINE (and its companion, WP:EASTEREGG) explain that links don't have to match the exact title of the destination page, but sufficient information should be visible to concretely identify the destination without having to click or hover the link. This particularly affects printed copies of the article, where that type of discovery doesn't work.

Think about what the reader may believe the text refers to. For example, when seeing the link [[Archery at the 2008 Summer Olympics|Archery]], which displays as Archery, the reader will probably expect this link to go to a general article on archery, rather than Archery at the 2008 Summer Olympics specifically.

The guidelines also provide examples of acceptable and bad practice. This is OK:

• [[truck|lorry]]

since it's just a synonym.

These are not OK (the bold item being exactly analogous to the link in question):

• [[Parton (particle physics)|particle physics]]
• ...the Republic of Texas was [[Texas annexation|annexed]]...
• After an [[1944 Bombay explosion|earlier disaster]]...

For the latter two, they suggest as alternatives:

• ...the [[Texas annexation|Republic of Texas was annexed]]...
• After an earlier disaster, the [[1944 Bombay explosion]], ...

The only article that should be linked to via generic text like "peace treaty" or "peace agreement" is peace treaty, as that's exactly where a reader would expect that link to take them.

I mean, you wouldn't do this, right?

• In 1990, the [[George H. W. Bush|President of the United States]] signed [[Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990|a law]] prohibiting discrimination based on disability.

(If you would do that, please don't.)

Is there anything in there that you think could obviously be cut [from the sidebar], in order to bring it down to a more reasonable size?

Well, for starters, the entire People section.

No, seriously. Whole thing. Just dump it.

A sea of names, devoid of any context beyond their military/civilian status, is of no use to anyone. It doesn't give any information about who those people are, how they're relevant to the Makhnovshchina, or why the reader would be interested in reading more about them. Presumably, the names are linked when mentioned in the article body, where they will be presented in sufficient context. (Or at least, any context.) FeRDNYC (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)