Talk:Nestor Makhno

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nestor Makhno article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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] 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."

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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

[edit] Mzajac misrepresentation

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

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

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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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