![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article contains a translation of Matwij Hryhorjew from pl.wikipedia. |
Could you please provide any sources used in this article? There is only one link to a questionable source, and it is dead. Biophys 00:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Nobody denies the fact what Nikifor Grigoriev was anti-Semite and Nestor Makhno was not. However, I am yet to see what any evidence saying what anti-Semitism of Grigoriev was a real reason why he was killed. Please provide a reference to support your claim. Fisenko 03:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I revised the text following Skirda's account. I append an alternate version below: Jacob Haller 04:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
His Ukrainian name should appear, since he is referred to this way by important English-language sources. Examples include both Subtelny's and Magocsi's big histories of Ukraine. — Michael Z. 2007-07-26 03:41 Z
Although the Bolsheviks recovered the cities, several sources (e.g. Savchenko) have Grigoriev's troops continue to raid the rail lines around Aleksandriya and Znamenka. On the other hand, Makhno's troops lost Gulyai Pole to Shkuro's in June and were retreating west. 72.83.176.33 ( talk) 17:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
A previous suggestion/tag by myself that the article needs improvement in the area of citations and verifiability, was removed by one of the active editors of this page — thus not allowing others to comment/discuss this suggestion. I understand that some people end up having "ownership" of a page due to their investment of time and energy in editing the page. However, ownership is irrrelevant in the context of wikipedia - everyone should have an opportunity to suggest improvements, as wikipedia should be a collaborative effort that is "owned" by everyone.
Specifically, here are my suggestions for improving the article:
As outlined in Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles the article needs a brief (and identifiable) lead section introducing the topic, plus the use of Headings. The use of headings helps define the important topics and points in the article as well as helping to create a thematic structure.
As outlined in Wikipedia:Lead_section I quote: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Currently, as there is no structure, and no headings, it is not clear whether the first paragraph is a lead section, and if it is, then where this lead section finishes.
The article contains 'weasel-like' terms like "was known" and "noted for numerous switching of sides". As outlined in Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words: "Weasel words give the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide if the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed.
I don't doubt that Grigoriev switched sides — it is obvious from the following text, so there is no need for the weasel "noted" - just say that "...who often switched sides." Similarly, the term "was known" should either be not used (if it is self-evident — which it is not from the current article), or properly cited if it is presenting a fact — "known" by whom?
The use of the terms "extreme" or "militant" when referring to anti-semitism without explaining why reflect unqualified opinion, or a statement that is not quantifiable (given that there are no direct citations). At its worst the use of a word like "extreme" is a pejorative term which is "inherently non-neutral, and so they should never be used as labels in the unqualified narrative voice of the article".
The wikipedia guide Words that label suggests that are at least three ways to deal with non-neutrality:
As the article currently stands, there are no direct inline citations for most of the text (except for the last section on his death). Therefore, a reader who is reading the article for the first time can only assume that these statements are based on the Russian-language references listed at the end — but this is not proper citation as outlined in Wikipedia:Cite_your_sources. For example, it would be much more informative (and interesting) to include a heading and information specifically on Grigoriev's anti-semitism, with cited information on numbers (or estimates) of jews killed during the pogroms etc.
I quote from Wikipedia:Cite_your_sources: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors translate any direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original, non-English text in a footnote or in the article."
OK, I understand that finding an English-language source may be difficult for this subject, but because there are no inline citations, it is not clear where a lot of the information in the article is from. In other words, just listing some 'references' at the end does not in any way help the English-speaking reader have any confidence in the verifiablility of the information. It would be better to use inline citations, or footnotes with translated quotations from your sources.
To conclude, I emphasize that I am not challenging directly any of the article's statements, but that the style of the current article does not fit wikipedia's standards for a good article. -- Pkravchenko ( talk) 04:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
If he used the Ukrainian pronunciation, the hard G seems an inappropriate transcription. 108.48.94.155 ( talk) 00:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Nikifor Grigoriev. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Nikifor Grigoriev. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: move to Nykyfor Hryhoriv. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Nikifor Grigoriev → Nykyfor Hryhoriv – Move requested by @ UnknownVolin, who stated their reasoning below. Grnrchst ( talk) 08:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky ( talk) 08:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The spelling of Grigoriev's name in this article (and others) is inconsistent. I suggest we clean this up by agreeing on a proper transliteration.
Nikifor Grigoriev is a Russian transliteration of Никифор Григорьев. This is the spelling commonly found in English texts about him. The technically correct Russian transliteration (using the Library of Congress system) would be Nikifor Grigor'ev, but I've never seen this version used.
The transliteration Nykyfor Hrihoriev, used in this article, appears to be a mix of Russian and Ukrainian transliteration rules. Russian И = English i; Ukrainian И = English y. The Ukrainian spelling of his name is Никифор Григор'єв. Using Library of Congress Ukrainian transliteration rules this would be Nykyfor Hryhor'iev. Simplified variants also exist such as Hryhoriv Hryhor'iv and Hryhoriev
I propose using a simplified variant, either Hryhoriev or Hryhoriv. These avoid the inclusion of soft signs (ь/')). My personal preference is for Hryhoriev. The current tendency in academia is to use Ukrainian spellings for ethnic Ukrainians. Hryhoriev was ethnically Ukrainian and involved in the Ukrainian national movement at various times. So I think it makes most sense to use a Ukrainian variant. UnknownVolin ( talk) 23:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article contains a translation of Matwij Hryhorjew from pl.wikipedia. |
Could you please provide any sources used in this article? There is only one link to a questionable source, and it is dead. Biophys 00:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Nobody denies the fact what Nikifor Grigoriev was anti-Semite and Nestor Makhno was not. However, I am yet to see what any evidence saying what anti-Semitism of Grigoriev was a real reason why he was killed. Please provide a reference to support your claim. Fisenko 03:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I revised the text following Skirda's account. I append an alternate version below: Jacob Haller 04:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
His Ukrainian name should appear, since he is referred to this way by important English-language sources. Examples include both Subtelny's and Magocsi's big histories of Ukraine. — Michael Z. 2007-07-26 03:41 Z
Although the Bolsheviks recovered the cities, several sources (e.g. Savchenko) have Grigoriev's troops continue to raid the rail lines around Aleksandriya and Znamenka. On the other hand, Makhno's troops lost Gulyai Pole to Shkuro's in June and were retreating west. 72.83.176.33 ( talk) 17:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
A previous suggestion/tag by myself that the article needs improvement in the area of citations and verifiability, was removed by one of the active editors of this page — thus not allowing others to comment/discuss this suggestion. I understand that some people end up having "ownership" of a page due to their investment of time and energy in editing the page. However, ownership is irrrelevant in the context of wikipedia - everyone should have an opportunity to suggest improvements, as wikipedia should be a collaborative effort that is "owned" by everyone.
Specifically, here are my suggestions for improving the article:
As outlined in Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles the article needs a brief (and identifiable) lead section introducing the topic, plus the use of Headings. The use of headings helps define the important topics and points in the article as well as helping to create a thematic structure.
As outlined in Wikipedia:Lead_section I quote: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Currently, as there is no structure, and no headings, it is not clear whether the first paragraph is a lead section, and if it is, then where this lead section finishes.
The article contains 'weasel-like' terms like "was known" and "noted for numerous switching of sides". As outlined in Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words: "Weasel words give the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide if the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed.
I don't doubt that Grigoriev switched sides — it is obvious from the following text, so there is no need for the weasel "noted" - just say that "...who often switched sides." Similarly, the term "was known" should either be not used (if it is self-evident — which it is not from the current article), or properly cited if it is presenting a fact — "known" by whom?
The use of the terms "extreme" or "militant" when referring to anti-semitism without explaining why reflect unqualified opinion, or a statement that is not quantifiable (given that there are no direct citations). At its worst the use of a word like "extreme" is a pejorative term which is "inherently non-neutral, and so they should never be used as labels in the unqualified narrative voice of the article".
The wikipedia guide Words that label suggests that are at least three ways to deal with non-neutrality:
As the article currently stands, there are no direct inline citations for most of the text (except for the last section on his death). Therefore, a reader who is reading the article for the first time can only assume that these statements are based on the Russian-language references listed at the end — but this is not proper citation as outlined in Wikipedia:Cite_your_sources. For example, it would be much more informative (and interesting) to include a heading and information specifically on Grigoriev's anti-semitism, with cited information on numbers (or estimates) of jews killed during the pogroms etc.
I quote from Wikipedia:Cite_your_sources: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors translate any direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original, non-English text in a footnote or in the article."
OK, I understand that finding an English-language source may be difficult for this subject, but because there are no inline citations, it is not clear where a lot of the information in the article is from. In other words, just listing some 'references' at the end does not in any way help the English-speaking reader have any confidence in the verifiablility of the information. It would be better to use inline citations, or footnotes with translated quotations from your sources.
To conclude, I emphasize that I am not challenging directly any of the article's statements, but that the style of the current article does not fit wikipedia's standards for a good article. -- Pkravchenko ( talk) 04:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
If he used the Ukrainian pronunciation, the hard G seems an inappropriate transcription. 108.48.94.155 ( talk) 00:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Nikifor Grigoriev. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Nikifor Grigoriev. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: move to Nykyfor Hryhoriv. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Nikifor Grigoriev → Nykyfor Hryhoriv – Move requested by @ UnknownVolin, who stated their reasoning below. Grnrchst ( talk) 08:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky ( talk) 08:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The spelling of Grigoriev's name in this article (and others) is inconsistent. I suggest we clean this up by agreeing on a proper transliteration.
Nikifor Grigoriev is a Russian transliteration of Никифор Григорьев. This is the spelling commonly found in English texts about him. The technically correct Russian transliteration (using the Library of Congress system) would be Nikifor Grigor'ev, but I've never seen this version used.
The transliteration Nykyfor Hrihoriev, used in this article, appears to be a mix of Russian and Ukrainian transliteration rules. Russian И = English i; Ukrainian И = English y. The Ukrainian spelling of his name is Никифор Григор'єв. Using Library of Congress Ukrainian transliteration rules this would be Nykyfor Hryhor'iev. Simplified variants also exist such as Hryhoriv Hryhor'iv and Hryhoriev
I propose using a simplified variant, either Hryhoriev or Hryhoriv. These avoid the inclusion of soft signs (ь/')). My personal preference is for Hryhoriev. The current tendency in academia is to use Ukrainian spellings for ethnic Ukrainians. Hryhoriev was ethnically Ukrainian and involved in the Ukrainian national movement at various times. So I think it makes most sense to use a Ukrainian variant. UnknownVolin ( talk) 23:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)