Jump to content

Talk:Fanya Baron

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

Stub

[edit]

I created the stub. There's not much material available on Fanya (she was a minor revolutionary) and the material on the internet is mostly from Goldman and Berkman's writings. If anyone out there knows more about Fanya Baron, please share it! An An 10:39, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Question

[edit]

Fanya Baron was executed for what offences? Francesco.

Interesting question. For being an anarchist. For escaping gaol. For trying to help her husband to escape prison. I mostly for being an anarchist.

U consider anarchism being a crime? They were murdered because of thinking differently.

AnAn 09:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Order of events in Goldman's autobiography

[edit]

In Emma Goldman's autobiography Living my Life, chapter 52 the order of events is described differently than in this article. Specifically, Goldman met Fanya in the Butirky prison sometime after Kropotkin's death and before the Kronstadt rebellion. Fanya was moved to the Ryazan prison on April 25, 1921. She was among 10 anarchists who planned a hunger strike there. Just before the opening of the Red Trade Union Congress of 1921, 13 anarchists in the Taganka Prison began a hunger strike. It is not clear if Fanya was one of them. The European delegates to the Congress obtained assurances on 13 July 1921 that the anarchists in Taganka would be allowed to leave the country, and the hunger strike was halted. After the Congress had ended, Sasha Berkman met Fanya in Moscow; she had escaped from prison and was living with the brother of her husband Aron Baron, who was in prison. Fanya and her brother-in-law were plotting Aron's escape, but she was discovered and arrested. Months later, 10 of the 13 Taganka hunger-strikers were released from prison. At that point, Fanya was in the inner Cheka prison, where she was executed on 30 September 1921. AxelBoldt (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fanya Baron. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion 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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Fanya Baron/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bart Terpstra (talk · contribs) 02:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

I am familiar with anarchism and was delighted to view the image was seemingly uploaded by a family member of the subject. This is my first GA, so i hope you will bear with me. I will ask a mentor to check my work. It does not seem to qualify for a quick fail.
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): check lead again once you've done research. check layout
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section): never seen a more well laid out section.
    b. (citations to reliable sources): literally chock-full of prestigious books and no glaring unreliable source. will return here to remove doubt once I've verified everything.
    c. (OR): Only thing i can imagine is "false citation" where source doesn't say the simple fact.
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism): seems unlikely and passes automated check.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects): do a few more searches to make sure
    b. (focused): it's all directly related to the subject.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

  • Reply:
  • 1b. What more can reasonably be added?
  • 3a. I've already done the searches. I don't exaggerate when I say every source available to me is already in this article, either in the bibliography, further reading or external links. I even added a number of primary sources to flesh out the information, which I usually try to avoid doing. What more can be done other than incorporating more inline citations from the further reading and external links? I'm happy to do that but I don't think any more information can be gleaned from them.
  • 4. I can have a look through the further reading (where this source is included) if that's necessary for achieving broadness and neutrality.
  • 6b. Their facial features align with other photographs that exist of them. This image is also listed in a number of other off-wiki encyclopedia entries on Aron and Fanya Baron. Regardless, I've removed the image, as this article is short enough that it probably shouldn't be in there as a left-aligned image. (Per MOS:IMAGELOC)
Let me know if there's anything more I can do. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I've gone through all of the further reading and added inline citations for pretty much all of it (except the French language source, as the website died). I also segmented the bibliography in order to make it clear which sources are primary, secondary and tertiary. I've tried doing further research in Russian language sources but so far I haven't managed to find any extra information. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very sorry for giving you the wrong impression, these were meant as notes to myself.
I have found nothing objectionable so far! Bart Terpstra (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Full verification questions

[edit]

Article says "heath 2009", but it was uploaded by a third party in 2009? How can I be confident heath wrote it? J-grid is a blog(?), which i think is fine as as a redundant source, but not authoritative by itself. is there a reason it is authoritative? Is a liberal arts degree sufficient (I don't know)? Bart Terpstra (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't uploaded by a third party, that's Heath's account, every one of his works on libcom is submitted through that account. If you're not certain of the reliability of Meyer 2007, it's not being cited here for anything unconfirmed by other sources, so I can easily remove citations to it if necessary. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fully believe you, but how could I verify it's heath's account? This does not seem to matter for good article review, I'm just genuinely curious. Bart Terpstra (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments below the announcement of his new book seem to confirm it.[1] -- Grnrchst (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like an acceptable GAN review to me. (responding to ping) (t · c) buidhe 19:32, 25 July 2023 (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.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Grnrchst (talk). Self-nominated at 12:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Fanya Baron; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Article has achieved Good Article status. No issues of copyvio or plagiarism. All sources appear reliable. Hooks are interesting and sourced. QPQ is done. Primary hook looks good, but the alts are fine as well. Good to go. Thriley (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fanya_Baron&oldid=1211057827"