Talk:Cossacks/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

This should be an introduction! History belongs in History of the Cossacks.

This article is hard to follow, unclear, and repetitive. It needs to start by clearly stating some of the different meanings of the word "Cossack," and refer us to other pages for more detailed information. Almost all the history in this article is duplicated in History of the Cossacks, which is also much better written. It would seem best to have a short informative page here linking to the other pages about Cossacks, and make sure all the history that needs to be covered is in the separate article, with maybe a summary here.

About the Cossacks' role regarding the Jews: were the Cossacks any better or worse than others in the Russian empire? Why not cover this in History of the Jews in Russia and the Soviet Union? Ewjw 09:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

the specific term Ruthenia

It is impossible to apply the term Ruthenia recklessly.

Ruthenia is a specific English term which was applied only to the western Russian princedoms of the ancient Rus', since the Tatar-Mongolian invasion (later western Ukraine). It is impossible to apply this term in relation to east Ukraine, northern and northeast Russian princedoms, to the Moscow state.

The Name of the Ancient Russia is Rus'. (Adjective is Russian). Rus' is medieval state. All Russians named own country "Rus" until 17 centuries. Muscovy was named by Russians as Rus' too. Russia (Rossija) is the name of Russian State from the 18th century only. Modern Russia is the successor of medieval Rus', as well as Ukraine. (The modern England is the successor of medieval Anglo-Saxon kingdom too :) Modern Russian language and Russian culture is successors of the language and culture of medieval Russia. The Tsar dynasty of Russia began in medieval Rus (Rurik of Novgorod). The medieval epos of Rus (bylinas of the Kiev cycle) was kept only in northern territories of Russia. The most part of territory of medieval Rus is territory of modern Russia. Novgorod, Vladimir, Ryazan, Suzdal, Tver were the big cities of medieval Rus' and cities of modern Russia also.

Ben-Velvel 22:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree but AFAIK Ruthenia (latin name for Rus') has different meanings (it is mentioned in article about Ruthenia) - in wideness all lands inhabited by Eastern Slavs. On other hand term Russian is strongly connected with country with rods in Moscow state. That's why IMO adjective derrived from latin name "Ruthenian" is much better than derrived from orginal "Rus'" adjective "Russian" Radomil talk 23:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

"Ruthenian" is a romanization of Rusyn/Русин (also German: Ruthenen), which is essentially a synonym for Russkiy/Русский. Rusyn was used in the East, and so Ruthenian is politely used to refer to an East Slav in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, a Ukrainian in the Austrian Empire, or a modern-day Rusyn of Transcarpathia. Russkiy was used by Russians, so it is politely used to refer to a Russian—it was also cognate of the Russian Empire terms Bielorusskiy 'White Russian' for Belarusian, and Malorusskiy 'Little Russian' for Ukrainian. Both Rusyn and Russkiy come directly from the noun Rus’. Of course there exist different ideas about the oneness of the East Slavs, so some people may apply these terms differently. —Michael Z. 2005-12-6 02:24 Z

Well as for Polish-Lithuanian Commonwelth, in Polish we use term Rusin (adj. rusiński) in historical context as Eastern Slav, Today rather are used specific terms like Ukrainiec (adj. ukraiński), Białorusin (adj. białoruski), Łemko (adj. łemkowski) and so on. For inhabitants of Russia we use term Rosjanin (adj. rosyjski), and for general East Slav is rather used Słowianie Wschodni (adj. wschodniosłowiański) or a little bit old-fashion Rusin. Radomil talk 11:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

For us Cossacks the following nomenclature exists:

• Russians (Russkie)

-Eastern Slavs consisting of

• • Great Russians (Velikorusy, Velikorossiyani)
  • Small Russians (Malorosy, Malorossiayani)
  • White Russians (Belorusy, Belorossiayani)
  • Pomorians (Pomory)
  • Transcarpathian Ruthenians (Zakarpatskie Rusiny)
  • Cossacks (Kazaki)
• Russians (Rossiyani)

-citizens of the Russian Federation

• Ukrainians (Ukraintsy)

-citizens of Ukraine

Now this is how in 1918 and afterwards Bolsheviks screwed up this nomenclature Velikorossy became Russkie. Malorosy became Ukraintsy; Transcarpathian Ruthenians too became Ukraintsy. Cossacks were officialy not even counted as destinct people. In Ukrainian the term Veliko- was dropped from the name for Great Russians. Also the only place where Cossacks were mentioned was in Ukrainian history, and my Zaporozhian ancestors too became Ukraintsy (although manuscripts from 18th century show they never used that term for themselves). --Kuban kazak 18:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Plz see talk:History of the Cossacks#Merge proposal. mikka (t) 01:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

America

I think this article could use some mention of Cossacks in America. I'll try to see what I can do about it, but I'll likely need help. If anyone is willing to help me write a segment on this, please leave a message in my Talk Page. Gorovich 17:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Alliance is a POV

As KK asked, I'll elaborate on my NPOV tag. To say that Cossacks were allied with Muscovy implies a degree of equality, which they were not awarded to by Muscovy (nor by PLC, by that matter). From the mid-17th century Cossacks became subjects of the Muscovite Russia. Why do you insist on reverting me?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of eqaulity in an alliance, I happen to remember some calling the treaty of Petliura with Pilsudski an "alliance". The former had only two divisions under his command and was exiled from the country he claimed to be a legitimate ruler, while in fact he came to power through a coupe defeating Skoropadsky (who also came to power through a coup), while Pisludski had a real state and a strong army and a huge popular support behind him. I suggest we avoid double standards.

Besides here it is easy to check facts. The text of Treaty of Pereyaslav is well known. The issue there was protection promissed by the Russian Tzar two his new Orthodox subjects, recognition of the Cossack nobilty, their traditions and the guarantees of the autonomy (the latter promise was later broken). The way to sort this out is obvious: in the paragraph about the treaty, stick to facts and say what treaty was about. Further down in history say how Ukraine autonomy was gradually abolished. I made sure the the article now just says so. --Irpen 05:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I think the current version is sufficiently NPOVed now. You may want to update the History of Cossacks subarticle, too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 06:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not an "update". Someone just needs to merge the history parts if the articles aren't going to be merged. This article, although far from perfect, has by far a better review of Cossack history than a designated History of Cossacks article. Someone has to merge those two History texts into one for the History of C article, then write a brief summary of it and paste it to the Cossack article. This is a huge work and some editor or a team has to make a dedicated project to do it. We've done it for Kiev and History of Kiev articles. Doing the same for a totally messy History of Ukraine and the History-section of the Ukraine articles is on top of my agenda. For this one, we better get some editors to it, preferably with better then mine knowledge of the issue. How about the Cossack himself or anyone else? I will try to help and promise to do my best with cleanup and in checking for vandalous or otherwise disruptive edits. --Irpen

when to tag something as "citation needed" or "dubious"

I would also call the editors not to disrupt the colleagues with throwing tags ("fact" or "dubious" at least for now) for the easily checkable and commonly known info. I mean, we should rigorously reference everything when we are anywhere close to FAC but for now, please don't do it. It's easy to tie down the hands of anyone by permanently demanding refs. Recently, I had to spend a better time of the day for satisfying some calls for the references to support a very well known info at Kievan Rus'.[1] If I didn't have to do it, I would have been able to do some more important work in merging the histories of UA. Please, don't get me wrong! I totally agree that referencing is important but there must be some common sense when to demand it. Tagging of common knowledge info in the rather raw articles is over the top.

This article is not yet at stage of stylising and we should improve the content with good-faith info. I do not deny that truly dubious info can be tagged, but please bother to do a 5 minute research at google books, home library, or at least Britannica and Columbia before claiming that something is "dubious". --Irpen 07:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to strongly disagree about not tagging 'common knowledge'. Besides the question what is common knowledge (and remember that 99% of people using Wiki probably know almost nothing about Cossacks, PLC, Kievan Rus' and such things) our eventual goal is to have every single fact referenced. Yes, proper referencing is a significant time drain, but I view the recent developments at Kievan Rus' or Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as very beneficial. Standards change, and although it took me much longer to finish work on my latest FA (Katyn Massacre) then on the previous ones, mostly due to time I had to spend referencing the article, I think it is much better than any of my others FA. Referencing, IMHO, is as important as content creation. It is a good rule of thumb to give a reference (inline) for any info you add to Wiki. This is today's standard - we are moving from quantity to quality. Please help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world, not only the largest.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

All I am saying is that there must be some common sense. Tagging can be a perfect tool to have an edit conflict opponent's hands tied down for as long as one one wants.[2] Any number of "fact" tags can be thrown into any article at any time.[3],[4] Common courtesy should be to run a simple google test and for this article to check at least Pereyaslav's own EB or Columbia article (at least) before tagging the info of autonomy guarantees. If you have to spend more than 5-10 minutes to confirm something, go ahead and tag it.

Same thing recently happened[5],[6], in Kievan Rus' article and it continues to this very moments.[7] Using tagging as a tool in edit disputes is wrong. Tagging is fine, though, when there is a real doubt in the factual accuracy of smth that cannot be checked by a 5 minutes worth of googling or a simple look up in Britannica or the Oxford dictionary. When we get to FA's and FAC's the standards get stricter but even then, some common sense is helpful as well an in anything in life.

I don't totally oppose tagging. I am just saying that there is somewhere a line that separates good faith request to confirm information one doubts and pestering for the references of a very well-known info. Tagging the autonomy guarantees at Pereyaslav should have been done after a simple check performed by the one who doubts this otherwise very well known information. --Irpen 22:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If it is an article I know little about I am much more likely to tag it, hoping that it's authors will provide the ref, than to go over the relevant literature and spent time learning what the author presumably knows. I never use the tags to 'pester', but I believe that every fact should be referenced. Of course tagging every fact in the article would definetly be 'uglyfing', but when I stumble upon something interesting - something that makes me say 'wow, really?' - I want to both double check it and make it easier for others to know it has been double checked.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, being aware of your knowledge in the European history from your contributions and especially in your interest in the Cossack topics it was hard for me to think that you were not aware that the essence of the treaty of Pereyaslav was the protection, autonomy and recognition of privileges in exchange for loyalty and military service. In any case Britannica has a dedicated article on the treaty.

Similarly, writing elsewhere that the Pilsudski with Petliura treaty was an "alliance" but tagging the same word "alliance" for Khmelnytsky with Tsar treaty as "dubious" seemed to me a double standard.

Finally, filling in one shot a single paragraph in the Kievan Rus' article with 7(!) "fact" tags[8] on things that anyone who went to schools in Ukraine and/or Russia knows really ticked me off. I don't consider my time I spent to satisfy these request as wasted but I could spend it more productively, that's all.

Apparently, these things are not so commonly known in Poland if even such a knowledgeable editor as yourself was "wowed" by that. But still, I expect that 5-10 minutes at google and checking at least with the Britannica or something similar is not too much to expect from the colleagues before they choose to uglify the article with all sorts of tags. There are many things in many articles that wow me all the time. However, I was not tagging them all unless I find it doubtful and can't find a confirmation myself. Of course when we are about to FA the article or if it was alreade FAed, that's a different story. Please give it a thought. --Irpen 23:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

As for Pereyaslav, I didn't had a reference at hand with that exact wording, and I though it POVed. Now that you have provided Britannica reference, I have revised my own perception of this and accept your argumentation at that point. As for 7 tags in that paragrah, I can't help it that it had so many interesting facts - I tagged all of them which deserved a specific citation (assuming we could not fina single source for more than one). As you point out, things that may be common knowledge in Russia or Ukraine are not that well known in Poland, and let's now even guess what people further West (or East, or South) may know (from my personal experience few people at the US University even heard of PLC...). I really don't understand what ticked you off so much: the paragraph was making rather suprising (to a relative layman like me) claims. Now that it has been referenced, we are all better off.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I stick to the {{fact}} tag for two reasons. Firstly, I believe that such a vague statement (no other dynasty was a well-connected as Rurikids needs reference and seems dubious. I could think of dozens of other dynasties as intermaried as theirs. Guelfos, Staufen, Carolingians, Capetians, de Valois... Secondly, I doubt placing the tag is pestering as Irpen kindly described my actions. Contrary to what I. assumes, I'd really want to see that piece of info properly referenced rather than removed. Halibutt 07:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Is denial the best medicine?

It is obvious from the removal of anything with a negative connotation in this article, that the original posters would like to romanticize the Cossacks. While this is common from a psychological point of view (who wants to admit when their own people are wrong?), it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry which is supposed to summarize the whole of a topic.

Like those who deny the Holocaust, Rwandan genocide, and other atrocities committed by one people upon another, the continued deletion of information regarding negative aspects of Cossack life borders on (if not sometimes oversteps) the boundaries of truth.

For example, you continue to delete information regarding the fact that the Russian Cossacks murdered hundreds of thousands of religious minorities (Jews, gypsies, etc...) between the 16th-19th centuries in the name of "guarding" the Orthodox church and "expanding" Russia’s borders.

Another example, you also continue to use the word "oppressors" to describe anyone who opposed the Cossacks. This makes no sense as many times those you describe as "oppressors" were actually just fighting to keep their land from being stolen by the Cossacks. The Cossacks were oppressed because other people wouldn't give them everything they wanted?

If you'd like to romanticize the Cossacks in your mind, that's your choice, but it does not belong in an encyclopedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demandthetruth (talk • contribs)

The language of the passage is to strong and unencyclopedic. The behavior of almost all armies in the pre-19th century period was criminal by the current standards. With the minimal rewriting the passage could be pasted to the almost any general article about any people. Cossacks were probably slightly worse then contemporaries but even this "fact" should be attributed and sourced. It is much better to talk about the individual massacres on the article about the correspondent events. abakharev 22:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's try a different tone

Since you so insist on utilising talk pages I would have expected you to do this first, but I think national pride (although I don't remember any Cossacks in Minneapolis) prevents one from following the WP:Assume good faith policy.

So anon 134.84.5.xx do explain this revert [9] Trolling with no good cause? Hmmm Well let's think about it. Does Ukraine have Cossack hosts? Yes in the far corner of Lugansk Oblast there is a Don Cossack regiment but they are loyal to the All-Mighty Don Cossack host, and wear Russian banners and slogans and are thus de facto Russian military. That leaves a few romantics which like to dress up and parade through Kiev. (We jokelly reffer to them as Kozel-ks). But what about those that will defend Ukrainian sovereignty, as you trying to persist? Does the Ukrainian army even recognise the Kozaks as a military group? As opposed to the 100,000 Russian Kazaks who fought in every single conflict since the late 1980s, who have several armoured and VDV parachute regiments, all consisting of Cossacks, what is there in Ukraine? In that case my revert had basis for it and was anything but trolling that you so frequentely show --Kuban Cossack 23:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

First, you (not me!) blanked Ukrainian Cossacks from the sentence without any summary. Second, I am not questioning what Russian Cossacks mean for Russia, but you blanked Ukrainian Cossacks out so the question is here about Ukrainian Cossacks. And what I know that after the collapse of the Soviet Union the Cossack movements in Ukraine are on the raise (and don't limit it to Don Cossacks). Zaporizzya is restoring Hortytsya island, and cossack traditions, and culture, and those who are cossacks in Zaporizzya, they stand to defend the sovereignty of Ukraine.

Building a museum and equiping men with arms are different things. I mean there are Bogatyr recreations in Russia as well. They too stand of Russian sovereignity. However are the Cossacks in Zaporozh'ye even enlisted by Ukrainian Ministry of Defence as military? Cultural impact is one thing, military is another. Comparing some horse-riding romantics to combatants that fough in Transdniester, Abkhazia and Chechnya (where I took part in) as defending sovereignty is of very different scale. --Kuban Cossack 00:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

as the country didn't suffer from internal military conflicts; Well it did, and UNSO did manage to make quite a name... however point is in Ukraine we left in late 18th century. In Russia Cossacks continued to exist throughout the Soviet times, hence why they are even registered separately on the census now. In Ukraine Cossacks were re-created not by their descendents but by passionate and romantic people, as a hobby. That's why I blanked the comment.--Kuban Cossack 01:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with passionate and romantic people? Restoring traditional culture is as important as restoring military. Look at Salo in Space :-) I think it is just as great. `'mikka (t) 02:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Mikka and anon, Kuban kazak in correct. In Ukraine, the Cossackdom is the part of historical and cultural heritage only. There is no real continuous Cossack tradition surviving in Ukraine to our times. In this respect, there are no Ukrainian Cossacks in a true sense. Some people with Cossack heritage (or without it) try to recreate the images of Ukrainian Cossacks, that survived through Soviet times only in Folk Music and Dance ensembles. But you can't call them Cossacks.

Exactly the Amish people are also far from being defenders of American independence...when compared to the Jewish settlers in the West Bank. Think Terek Cossacks, and you have an almost identical comparison between the latter. --Kuban Cossack 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Anon, you are free to edit anonymously, but if you want to revert war, you have to register. Otherwise, you cut the option for others to talk to you and unfairly excempt yourself from 3RR since you use a dynamic IP. I don't think that's your intention anyway, but please understand that anonymous revert warriors create much more annoyance with other editors than the registered ones (of course it would be best if even registered editors wouldn't revert war as well, but that's a wishful thinking only). --Irpen 03:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Name "Cossack" in English

On the basis of phonology alone, I would think that it is clear that our English word Cossack is derived from either the Polish word "Kozak" or the Ukrainian word "Kozak" rather than the Russian word "Kazak". But since our friend Kuban Kazak has questioned this, I checked it out in Skeat's famous Etymological Dictionary of the English Language, first published, I belive, at the end of the nineteenth century. He states that it comes from "Russian" "kozak" or "kazak", ultimately from Turkic "quzzaq", a vagabond or predatory horseman. Since in the nineteenth century Ukrainians were still largely known in western Europe as a species of Russians, this explains his lumping of the two together.

I would not go that far as to say species but if you insist Ukrainians, like Russians are Eastern Slavic peoples. However we must remember that Cossacks be they ko- or ka- were anything but belonging to an ethnic group, although their spirit is a different issue. Finally many of our Cossack encyclopedias publis a different theory which would unquestionably decide which one was the orginal. Think about it medaeval times, Remnants of Ruthenian state to the north, Poland to the west, Islam from the south and east. Surrounded they are, living in the open steppes they choose a word which when spelled is read left to right as right to left to show their independence to everybody.--Kuban Cossack 15:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thereafter, I also checked the Oxford English Dictionary on line, which tries to cite first usages. Their oldest is 1558, Haklyut's Voyages, I, 388: "The Cassacke bears his felt, to force away the rain." Then 1687, Rycaut, History of the Turks, II, 231: "The Piracies and Depredations of the Cossacks in the Black Sea..." Thereafter, of course, use of the spelling Cossack becomes very widespread, but not universal, as late as 1822, Byron writing "The Kozacks, or if you please, Cossacques...".

Anterior to most of these, of course, is Beauplan, Description of Ukraine, first appearing in Frencn in 1651 and in English in 1704. I happen to have reprints of both of these in my personal library and Beauplan uses "Cosaques" in French "..ayant parlé de la vaillance des Cosaques..." and in English "Cossacks" "...that brave people, known at present by the name of Zaporousky Cossacks..."

Similarly, Pierre Chevalier writes in 1663 the "Histoire de la guerre des Cosaques contre la Pologne", translated into English and first published in 1672. Chevalier and Beauplan were widely read at the time because of the great interest generated throught Europe by the Cossack-Polish war (remember, Khmelnytsky was still alive when Beauplan was first published) and these two authors seem to have been primarily responsible for the establishment of the English spelling "Cossack". Beauplan in particular, was reprinted three times in English in the eighthteenth century. Hence English "Cossack" from Ukrainian "Kozak" and not Russian "Kazak." Best wishes...Mike Stoyik 14:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Clothing/Uniform

We have at least one prejudice about the cossacs's clothing, the fur cap, and looking at old images you can see other special parts of their uniform. Where is the uniform from? How old is it? What are the differences beetween the several groups? I'd like to read something about that here.--Hun2 16:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hope you can read Russian [10]. The word you are looking for is Cherkesska, which is a long robe with special holders of ammunition on the breast area. Even today it is worn, although in combat time we just wear normal army uniform. --Kuban Cossack 16:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can read Cyrillic, but unfortunately not understand any language written in it. Can you write something about the uniform, its history (they did not always wear the Cherkesska, did they?) and its origins?--Hun2de Correct me! 07:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Second the request. Cherkesska is notable, just as, let's say, żupan or kontusz.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)