Talk:Revolutionary Insurgent Army of Ukraine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 6 February 2022[edit]

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine → Revolutionary Insurgent Army of Ukraine – The existing name of the article seems to have come about from inconsistencies in certain translations of the Ukrainian: Революційна повстанська армія України; and the Russian: Революцио́нная повста́нческая а́рмия Украи́ны. Requesting this move is something that I've been thinking about for a while, and I decided to push forward with it after an extensive amount of research using the below-mentioned sources.

In primary sources:

  • Arshinov, Peter (1974). History of the Makhnovist Movement. – the term "Insurrectionary Army" is used more (74 cases), but has substantial references to it as "Insurgent Army" (30 cases), using the two terms fairly interchangeably.
  • Volin (1954). The Unknown Revolution, 1917–1921. – the term "Insurrectionary Army" is used most of the time (103 cases), but with occasional references to it as "Insurgent Army" (5 cases).

In secondary sources:

  • Avrich, Paul (1971). The Russian Anarchists. – the term "Insurgent Army" is used exclusively (12 cases), with no references to it as "Insurrectionary Army".
  • Darch, Colin (2020). Nestor Makhno and Rural Anarchism in Ukraine, 1917–21. – the term "Insurgent Army" is used almost exclusively (27 cases), with only one reference to it as "Insurrectionary Army".
  • Footman, David (1961). Civil War in Russia. – the term "Insurgent Army" is used exclusively (14 cases), with no references to it as "Insurrectionary Army".
  • Malet, Michael (1982). Nestor Makhno in the Russian Civil War. – the two terms are used interchangeably, using the term "Insurgent Army" slightly more (18 cases) and "Insurrectionary Army" slightly less (10 cases), but seeming to prioritize "Insurrectionary Army" in its Glossary and Index.
  • Nomad, Max (1939). Apostles of Revolution. – the term "Insurgent Army" is used exclusively (3 cases), with no references to it as "Insurrectionary Army".
  • Palij, Michael (1976). The Anarchism of Nestor Makhno, 1918–1921. – oddly enough this source uses neither, instead opting for the term "Partisan Army" (41 cases).
  • Peters, Victor (1970). Nestor Makhno: The Life of an Anarchist. – the term "Insurgent Army" is used almost exclusively (12 cases), with only one reference to it as "Insurrectionary Army".
  • Skirda, Alexandre (2004). Nestor Makhno: Anarchy's Cossack. – the term "Insurgent Army" is used exclusively (81 cases), with no references to it as "Insurrectionary Army".

Furthermore, the Makhnovists are often referred to as "insurgents", in all of the above-mentioned sources and in others too, but almost never as "insurrectionists" or "insurrectionaries". Additionally, although I'm not sure how much weight this has, when you put either the Russian or Ukrainian terms into machine translators, such as Google Translate and the DeepL Translator, the term "Revolutionary Insurgent Army of Ukraine" comes out in both cases. The specific word in question (Ukrainian: повстанська / Russian: повста́нческая)) can be translated as "rebel" or "insurgent", which may have been loosely converted into "Insurrectionary" by the English language translations of Volin (1954) and Arshinov (1974).

Given that this is a matter of translation and whether one or the other is the common name is debatable, I thought I'd open up discussion on moving the article title here. I personally lean towards moving this, given that "Insurgent Army" is vastly given preference in most secondary sources, but I'm more than willing to here arguments to the contrary. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • support per nom. The current title appears to be an ineffective attempt at a natural dab—blindlynx 18:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but I'm surprised that the common name wouldn't be some version of "Makhnovists" or "Makhno Army" based on how I've seen it invoked in sources (i.e., not its official name but the name used most often in sources). czar 14:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Czar:, from what I've seen in the sources, "Makhnovists" could refer to members of the movement that weren't in the army. For example, residents of Huliaipole were also referred to as "Makhnovists" at various points. As such, I'm not sure there would be a good enough DAB between that and Makhnovschina (which itself roughly translates to "Makhnovist regime"). As for "Makhno army", I've not really seen that used in many places. In Darch (2020) it's used in 2 cases, in Peters (1970) it's used in 6 cases, in Palij (1976) it's used in 11 cases, and it's not used at all in any of the others. In every such source, they use "Insurgent Army" as the common name for the armed force, while "Makhnovists", "insurgents" and "anarchists" are used interchangeably for individuals. But the term "Insurgent Army" itself wouldn't be readily DABed, given it is also used by a number of other armed forces, including 3 others from Ukraine. Hence why I stuck with the official name of "Revolutionary Insurgent Army of Ukraine", to account for both common name policy and disambiguation. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that—sounds reasonable! czar 15:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Related discussions on Makhnovist symbols/iconography and citogenesis[edit]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anarchism#A note on historical accuracy and misinformation czar 16:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: I just had the most awful thought, and it turned out to be true. The term "Black Army" is made up too... I can't find the term "Black Army" in any of my sources. Not in the primary sources, not in the secondary sources. The term "Black Army" was added to the article in 2006 by the user "Mister X".[1] This account was found to be a sockpuppet of Bloomfield, the same person that came up with the term "Free Territory". The DAMAGE this guy has done to Makhnovist historiography, holy hell. I am now become Death, the Destroyer of Citogenesis. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a citogenesis, but rather a confusion in Russian non-expert sources of the term "черная армия" with "Чёрная гвардия", Black Guards of Anarchists during RUssian Civil War, which were occasionally called "черная армия".[2]. Nestor Makhno did indeed initially established a detachment of "Чёрная гвардия", but on the first quick glance I cannot find reliable sources of the contemporary usage of then term "черная армия" w.r.t. Makhno (definitely none in Google Books), although I do remember this term from my school years. - Altenmann >talk 17:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Altenmann: I figured it may have had something to do with confusion with the Black Guards, which are referenced in the primary and secondary sources. But I can't find anything about a "Black Army" in any reliable sources from before 2006. Arshinov, Volin and Makhno don't appear to mention the term in their memoirs. Darch, Malet, Palij, Peters, Skirda and Shubin don't mention a "Black Army". Given this term was introduced by the same user that introduced other fabricated terminology to the encyclopedia, I'm finding it difficult not to assume it's citogenesis. At the very least it's a neologism not used by most reliable sources. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are almost right, but I am just nitpicking: the term citogenesis refers to the influence of wikipedia on unscrupulous researchers and pundits. However here is a usage example which I dont think was pinched from Wikipedia. And as I wrote, in Russian sources this usage is widespread. - Altenmann >talk 17:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
here is a 1972 source. - Altenmann >talk 17:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1992 source - Altenmann >talk 18:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding these! Do you think this is enough that I should restore the term to the lead? I'm just hesitant because the sourcing for this term is so spotty. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not restore, but rephrase per Cambridge (indicating occasional usage) citing the earlier sources. - Altenmann >talk 18:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC) And probably not in the lede (to avoid further "citogenesis" :-). but in the place which speaks about Black Guards. - Altenmann >talk 18:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Something that's interesting to me about these sources that use "Black Army" is that they seem to all be Marxist in orientation. The 1972 source is a book about Leon Trotsky; the 1992 source is New Politics; and the 1994 source is a collection of writings by Victor Serge. I'm now wondering if this is a case of Marxist terminology vs other historiographies. I'm definitely going to be looking into this further. Thanks so much for bringing these sources to my attention! I'm very pleased to see it's not as I feared. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've found some more pre-2006 hits: a 1998 article by Simon Pirani for the International Socialist Forum;[3] a 1998 article by Geoffrey Swain for Revolutionary Russia;[4] a 2000 article by Peter Sedgwick for the Journal of Socialist Theory;[5] and a 2000 republication of a Victor Serge article by Critique.[6] This seems to be adding more evidence to my hypothesis that the term originates from Marxist terminology. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Altenmann: Further inspection of the sources seems to point to it being a term used primarily by Victor Serge. I have now created a "Terminology" section in order to go over the different names assigned to the army, and have added in the term "Black Army" as attributed to Serge. Let me know if you think anything needs changing. Thanks again for the help. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From a cursory look, I had a similar conclusion. HathiTrust texts circa 1919/1920 use "Black Army" in relation to armies of African men but not in relation to Makhno. Very possible to dig deeper but the earliest mention I found so far is a 1938 article from Victor Serge (p. 172 of The Serge–Trotsky Papers (1994, mentioned below), extracted from "Once More: Kronstadt" in The New International, July 1938, pp. 211–212). I'd be curious whether the term is an artifact of translation (e.g., a variant of "armée noire"). czar 14:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1994 source - Altenmann >talk 18:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure Cambridge didn't pinch that from Wikipedia? Because it's supposed to be about the third volume of Nestor Makhno's book on the Ukrainian Revolution, but that book itself never references a "Black Army" ("черная армия"). It uses the terms "revolutionary army" ("революционной армии"), "Makhnovist army" ("махновской армии") or "insurgent army" ("армии повстанцев"). --Grnrchst (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see my refs? Nobody is claiming Makhno called it thusly. It was called so by others, as Cambridge source implies. - Altenmann >talk 18:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't, thanks for adding them. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

what would a uniform of a black army soldier look like?[edit]

Alot of the time is see pictures of Black army soldiers in non battle scenarios, where they arent wearing the military uniform, and i do find a picture from a battle, alot of the time the images are unclear, meaning I cant spot what they look like, if anyone could provide a clear image, illustration or database please can you link it General Bongmeister (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@General Bongmeister: The RIAU didn't really have its own specific uniform. This was partly due to chronic equipment shortages that plagued the anarchists throughout the war. (Darch 2020, p. 50) When Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko arrived in Huliaipole in early 1919, he commented that they were "dressed in a motley assortment of uniforms and clothing and brandishing all sorts of arms". (Skirda 2004, pp. 96-97) But the lack of uniform also had an ideological component, as uniforms and badges of rank were seen as anti-anarchist. (Darch 2020, p. 69)
Later in the war, after capturing Red or White detachments in raids, they took thousands of uniforms as booty. (Darch 2020, pp. 84-85; Skirda 2004, p. 181) This often led to confusion during battles, as both the Red and Black Insurgent armies wore the same uniform. (Skirda 2004, pp. 248-249, 254-255) They also used uniforms of other armies as disguises. During the early stages of the war, they often wore the uniforms of the Ukrainian People's Army as a way to surprise attack UPA forces. (Darch 2020, pp. 31-32; Skirda 2004, pp. 58-59) Towards the end, they disguised themselves as Red soldiers in order to escape to Romania. (Darch 2020, p. 129; Skirda 2004, p. 260) -- Grnrchst (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Revolutionary_Insurgent_Army_of_Ukraine&oldid=1210768806"