Talk:Makhnovshchina: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by 80.212.4.12 - "→2014 Resurrection: corrected" |
Konchevnik81 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
I removed this section since it relied on conjecture and had no established connection to the Free Territory. [[User:ldvhl|ldvhl]] ([[User talk:ldvhl|talk]]) 18:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC) |
I removed this section since it relied on conjecture and had no established connection to the Free Territory. [[User:ldvhl|ldvhl]] ([[User talk:ldvhl|talk]]) 18:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC) |
||
: Your claim is obviously false, as it is literally the same territory. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/80.212.4.12|80.212.4.12]] ([[User talk:80.212.4.12|talk]]) 00:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
: Your claim is obviously false, as it is literally the same territory. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/80.212.4.12|80.212.4.12]] ([[User talk:80.212.4.12|talk]]) 00:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:: First of all, the rebels have drawn parallels to the [[Donetsk–Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic]] (as mentioned [https://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/maxim-edwards/symbolism-of-donetsk-people%E2%80%99s-republic-flag-novorossiya | 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.[[User:Konchevnik81|Konchevnik81]] ([[User talk:Konchevnik81|talk]]) 20:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:43, 13 January 2015
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
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))
- 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)
"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)
- Start-Class Soviet Union articles
- Low-importance Soviet Union articles
- WikiProject Soviet Union articles
- Start-Class former country articles
- WikiProject Former countries articles
- Start-Class Ukraine articles
- Unknown-importance Ukraine articles
- WikiProject Ukraine articles
- Start-Class Russia articles
- Mid-importance Russia articles
- Mid-importance Start-Class Russia articles
- Start-Class Russia (history) articles
- History of Russia task force articles
- Start-Class Russia (human geography) articles
- Human geography of Russia task force articles
- WikiProject Russia articles
- Start-Class Philosophy articles
- Unknown-importance Philosophy articles