Wikipedia:Russian wikipedians' notice board/RCOTW
 | This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
|
Every week, a lacking Russian topic is picked to be the Russian Collaboration of the Week. |
This is the page to deal with discussion and nominations for the Russian Collaboration of the Week. This week's collaboration is going to be Vostochny. Please help improve it to Featured article level!
Comments:
- Former Oligarch. Page needs lots of cleanup to get out of stub-ness. Eclipsed (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Comments:
- I'd like to nominate Left Opposition as the next COTW as much more can be said on the Trotsky led opposition to Stalin within the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the 1920s.
- KNewman 21:08, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
Comments:
- I found this horrible article called Union of the Russian People, which supposedly describes the Black Hundred movement (also known as chernosotentsy). Actually, Union of the Russian People was the name of one of its chapters in a few regions of Russia. We have to merge the two under the Black Hundred name and expand on its history and activity. KNewman 21:08, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
- While I agree with your judgement of the article, I think you are a bit confused as to who is chapter of who. First of all, one must clearly separate the Imperial and modern times. Mikkalai 02:14, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- What do you mean when you say "separate the Imperial and modern times", Mikkalai? And why am I confused? Please, explain. KNewman 03:36, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Dear colleague, it would amount to rewriting the article.
- What do you mean when you say "separate the Imperial and modern times", Mikkalai? And why am I confused? Please, explain. KNewman 03:36, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
- While I agree with your judgement of the article, I think you are a bit confused as to who is chapter of who. First of all, one must clearly separate the Imperial and modern times. Mikkalai 02:14, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- "separate" is simple. there is an obvious discoctinuity: USSR.
- Confused:
- in Imperial Russia it was UotRP, later dubbed "black hundred", later the black thingy was put upon some other monarchist societies (here I am not sure).
- in modern russia AFAIK at least some time ago "black hundred"s and UotRP popped up chaotically and independently of each other in many places. I have no idea on their status now: whether they are united or not.
- also, both soviet and zionist propagandas created a legendary omnipotential bunch of thugs from Black Hundreds. Of course, they were reactionaries and anti-Semites, but their "achievements" are greatly exaggerrated. Probably the menacing word "Black" played its role. In fact, at these times the word "black" in Russian did not have "infernal" associations. It was related with (a) peasantry (hint: soil, cf. Black Repartition) and {b) hard low-skilled labor (чернорабочий). In fact, "black hundred" was a historical term for craftsman guilds (черная сотня, черная слобода). Mikkalai 05:27, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I've just started working on the article and you'll see what I mean. Please, correct it if there's something wrong or missing. To my knowledge, the Black Hundred (BH) movement fell apart right after the October Revolution. As for "modern" BH movements, I don't believe there are any, unless one chooses to call e.g. Barkashov and his followers black-hundredists. The press does it all the time, this is why there's a confusion. KNewman 15:19, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)