Talk:Nykyfor Hryhoriv

message: 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)
thread_title: Sources

message: 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)
thread_title: Didn't Makhno retreat into Grigoriev's area?

message: 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:
=== Structure and Lead section ===
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.
=== Avoid weasel terms ===
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?
=== Words that label ===
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:
# attribute the term to reliable sources,
# replace the label with information,  or
# use a more neutral term.
=== Sources ===
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)
thread_title:  This article needs additional citations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: If he used the Ukrainian pronunciation, the hard G seems an inappropriate transcription. 108.48.94.155 (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did he use the Russian or Ukrainian pronunciation of his name? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Nikifor Grigoriev. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110823113848/http://ntz.org.ua/?p=895/ to http://ntz.org.ua/?p=895/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150814012731/http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CU%5CN%5CUnionfortheLiberationofUkraineSVU.htm to http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :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: move to Nykyfor Hryhoriv. -  UtherSRG (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Nikifor Grigoriev →  – Move requested by @UnknownVolin, who stated their reasoning below. Grnrchst (talk) 08:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

text: Grigoriev's 1919 "Universal" can be downloaded from the YIVO Institute of Jewish Research. The Ukrainian spelling he uses is actually Григор'ів, meaning the most historically accurate transliteration would be Hryhor'iv. This variant is used by Palij and the simplified variant Hryhoriv is used by the Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine. I understand this may violate WP:NOR, but given the wide range of variants in use I thought it best to definitively check for accuracy. Therefore, I change my original preference and propose we use the simplified transliteration Hryhoriv.      UnknownVolin (talk) 11:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 11 September 2022