Jump to content

Talk:Cossacks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeCossacks was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 7, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed

New levels of banality and time wastage as well as selective justice

[edit]

As previously stated, whilst a "consensus" or "majority opinion" was not needed for KIENGIR to change "predominantly located in modern-day Southern Russia, southeast Ukraine and the Eurasian Steppe" to "predominantly located in Southern Russia in the steppes of Russia,[1] as well as in Eastern and Southern Ukraine within the borders of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth" than a corroborated fact doesnt need to be. Anyone who is aware of the answer on how to retain this factual edit please enlighten me, I have now initiated a discussion on the talk page, do bribes now need to be paid to gain a consensus? A gang mentality is it hand whereby the interests of one party is favoured over the other at the detriment of the truth.

Professor of History at Harvard University, Serhii Plokhy-"There were Dnieper Cossacks, Don Cossacks, Volga and Yaik Cossacks and, finally, Siberian Cossacks. The first to organize themselves were the Dnieper or Ukrainian Cossacks"

Henry Krasinski, Polish Academic writing in 1848 to Victoria I of Great Britain-"the country lying south of Kiow, and traversed by the Dnieper up to the Black Sea, was the principal birthplace of the Cossacks"

William P Creeson, Cossacks (published 1919)-"The country known as the Ukraine, where the characteristic Cossack civilization arose and developed"

Britannica-" In the 15th century a new martial society—the Cossacks (from the Turkic kazak, meaning “adventurer” or “free man”)—was beginning to evolve in Ukraine’s southern steppe frontier. The term was applied initially to venturesome men"

Brian J Boek (holds a doctorate in Russian History from Harvard University) "When Ukrainian Cossacks led by Bohdan Khmelnytsky staged an uprising to protest Polish restrictions on Zaporozhian Cossack military actions and polices perceived as prejudice against the Orthodox faith, a mass rebellion broke out in Ukraine"

If a corroborated factual edit is now subordinate to one that doesnt make grammatical sense, has one citation, and NEVER gained a consensus then there is a serious problem with this page. If anyone is aware of a way to appease those that have a problem please inform me, as facts will prevail, if another reference is needed please ask.DanielLerish (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)DanielLerish[reply]

Had you attempted discussion here on the talk page first, your version would have been retained in the protection. El_C 15:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DanielLerish,
please read WP:BRD and maybe you will understand what means reverting status quo ante and consensus is regulated by the rules of WP (not necessarily majority opinion), as well mind El_C's words. Your Hungarian sentence in the edit log A magyarok törődnek egymással, kérlek hagyd el :) is unintelligible on the whole (seems it was automatically generated by a translator program, however the both part of the sentence is synctactically correct, but semantically unclear).(KIENGIR (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]
New levels of banality and time wastage -- This is not at all the beginning of a conversation that is conducive to cooperation.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EL_C as I have now attempted a 'discussion' on the talk page I hope this misunderstanding can now be rectified and the edit can be retained once the protection policy is lowered. As I stated before facts should not be discarded and subordinated due to 'club rules', however, I apologise if I did not follow the correct sequence in editing the page though I was simply following the example of those that edited after me. If there is any further references, citations, information, suggestions you wish to make I am willing to accept them within reason, as I will continue to stand by the edit particularly after engaging in the talk page. RegardsDanielLerish (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)DanielLerish[reply]

KIENGIR 'bold, revert, discuss, cycle' is an optional policy and not mandated by Wikipedia who encourage users to make edits when factual and corroborated with substantial evidence and citations of which my edit was. If you subscribe to this poicy so fervently why did you not initiate a discussion with me when I reverted your edit that had been made without consensus? As for my Hungarian sentence I am not here to engage in dialectics over the Hungarian language, as you can tell it is not my first language and as I can tell from "in Southern Russia in the steppes of Russia" English isn't your first language. I am here to correct this page and balance the interests of two parties and prevent cultural appropriation. If you need any further information, references, citations to substantiate my edit please ask. Regards DanielLerish (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)DanielLerish[reply]

Nicoljaus With all due respect its not really that conducive to success for you to scroll all the way to the bottom of this page just to criticise the title of this new section. If you have any more appropriate suggestions for a title throw them my way.RegardsDanielLerish (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)DanielLerish[reply]

Hi EL C, have been following this quietly from the sidelines for a while, have to concur and agree with DanielLerish in this case. The user has made an edit to the page and backed it up with numerous citations. The currently accepted version now protected, as well as the references used to back up KIENGIRs edits are highly alarming, not quite sure how a German tourist company that spreads Russian disinformation/propaganda inviting tourists to the "6th anniversary of the coup in Kiev" and how "the Ukrainian president is unconstitutionally deposed and a transitional government is set up at America's grace" is being used over the Harvard published books being given by the other user. Not only is linking company websites against Wikipedia policy (advertising) but this is a huge red flag. Ironically, the second reference validates DanielLerish's edit-""and the Zaporozhian, Ukrainian and Slobodsk hosts were established in the Ukraine". Hopefully this will get resolved but the current version is definitely not appropriate, at least from my POV. Noah221 (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Noah221 strike sock-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest the expression "north of the Black Sea", as, for example, in this article. It is more neutral: "The Cossacks first appeared in the Pontic Steppe north of the Black Sea along the Dnieper and Don rivers in the fifteenth century". Attempts to prove that Cossacks are direct descendants of the Khazars, and only Ukrainian Cossacks are genuine primordial Cossacks, and so on, are all fringe theories.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Noah221, greatly appreciate your support, completely agree the current version now protected was created on the 30th of January, without consensus and with multiple errors, and amazingly as you have correctly pointed out uses a German language travel company's website that promotes conspiracy theories. Anyway, thankyou again for your backing.

Thank you Nicoljaus for the suggestion, however, the same author of which you have quoted states- "[The Cossacks] demonstrated to those masses that an alternative and viable social order did indeed exist. This was to prove far more threatening to Poland-Lithuania or Muscovy and the Russian Empire than the cossack swords and muskets on their own could ever be." The quote effectively stating that the cossacks were an entity independent of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Russian Empire and distancing them from those two polities. I would suggest "East Slavic-speaking people who became known as members of democratic, self-governing, semi-military communities, emerging in Ukraine during the 15th century and later establishing themselves in Southern Russia along the Don, Volga and Eurasian steppe." I am certainly not trying to imply or make an edit stipulating that Cossacks are direct descendants of Khazars, similarly I am not implying that Ukrainian Cossacks are the only genuine primordial Cossacks, I am also not implying that Ukrainian cossacks are the only genuine cossacks, and I am also not implying that the first cossacks to arise were Ukrainian, I am, however, implying that the first Cossacks we know of were Tatars living in Southern Ukraine who spread the practice to local slavic Ukrainian people hence the identity and lifestyle originating in Ukraine. Hopefully this impasse can be broken, I really believe the truth should never ben sacrificed because of nationalist pressures. If cossacks originate somewhere it doesnt matter who it may embitter, it is the truth and as Wikipedia editors we must ensure it is spread in the most sensitive way and stand by it. I hope I can have your support in this. Regards~~DanielLerish — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielLerish (talk • contribs) 13:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The quote effectively stating -- No, it doesn't.
emerging in Ukraine during the 15th century and later establishing themselves in Southern Russia along the Don, Volga and Eurasian steppe." -- With all due respect, I am forced to reject this offer. Most sources (except Ukrainian) do not claim that the Cossacks appeared in Ukraine and only then spread to the Don and further east. In 1444 Cossacks already fought against Tatars near Ryazan in Russia. I strongly doubt that they had came from Ukraine, not Don. As I see, Britannica says that Cossacks are "people dwelling in the northern hinterlands of the Black and Caspian seas." I think this is a good wording, without unnecessary modern political-motivated debate.--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not completely clear what is a subject of the dispute: the word, the social group, or a subethnic group? Obviously, the word "Qosaq/Kazakh/Kazak/Cossak" is older than both Great Russian or Ukrainian nations, and it is of Turkish origin. The social group of Zaporozhye Cossacks did not represent some sub-ethnos, and it hardly had anything in common with, e.g. brodniks (an autochtone population of the Don and Terek valleys, who are considered ancestors of Don Kazaks/Cossacks). In my opinion, the core issue is in the modern Ukrainian nationalism, who claimed ownership of the word "Kozak", partially because their national anthem says so. By definition, Cossack were a very unhomogeneous Slavic-Turkish groups of population that had no (and couldn't have no) uniform social structure. The fact that some group of Cossacks formed some bigger proto-state entity (Sich') does not mean no Cossacks/Kazaks existed before that. To claim that would be tantamount to the claim that all East Slavs originate from Kievan Rus, whereas the opposite took place in reality: some of East Slavs formed Kievan Rus', which is younger that Slavs themselves. Therefore, it would be correct to totally disconnect the discussion of origin of the term "Cossack/Kazak" from any currently existing state entities, and to discuss a geography instead. Yes, Cossacks originated from the valleys of great rivers that flow to Black Sea, and currently this territory is divided among Russia and Ukraine (or Ukraine and Russia, whatever; alternatively, we can just not mention the names of these two rival states at all). If sources are needed, I can provide them, but it may require some time to find the best sources. To summarise, I support Nicoljaus proposal--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielLerish:,
contrary to your statements, 1. I initiated a discussion with you after your revert 2. My edit has not been made against consensus, it was yours. 2. My edit did not have any connection to the fact if English is my first language or not - reasons has been already explained - as well this argumentation does not annihilate my argumentation that the Hungarian sentence you formed in unintelligible, so until it is not clarified I cannot do anything with it. On the other hand, I support Nicoljaus and Paul.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]
In an attempt to emulate the principle of good faith I have refrained from engaging in the talk page and allowing the passion of the argument to subside. Effectively means paraphrased or in others words, premordial means prehistoric, here are two articles in which the quote supplied are associated with the Ukrainian national movement and Russo-Polish-Ukrainian relations

https://www.thedailybeast.com/caught-between-empires-ukraine-cant-rely-on-the-west-for-its-independence https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/nine-lessons-of-russian-propaganda. The quote 'implies' that the Cossacks politcal and social entity were a threat to both Russian Empire/Muscovy and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth through both the ideology they were based on as well as a physical threat. I have supplied 5 different sources none of which are 'Ukrainian' stating the origins of the Cossacks to have been in contemporary Ukraine disproving your statement thatMost sources (except Ukrainian) do not claim that the Cossacks appeared in Ukraine. In my list of references I have an American, Polish-English, American, Britannica and American. On the other hand you have given me a source from one person who specialises in the history of Don Cossacks. As for I am forced to reject this offer, not quite sure what that means, who is forcing you not to? Curiously you chose not to mention the wording after the Britannica quote you gave-"Originally (in the 15th century) the term referred to semi-independent Tatar groups, which formed in the Dnieper region". As well as this I will once again supply another quote from BRITANNICA-"In the 15th century a new martial society—the Cossacks (from the Turkic kazak, meaning “adventurer” or “free man”)—was beginning to evolve in Ukraine’s southern steppe frontier". Agree with you that north of the Caspian sea could be a could provisional compromise, would also greatly appreciate if you could supply me with a source in which Cossacks are said to be fighting in Ryazan in the 15th century. RegardsDanielLerish (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)DanielLerish[reply]

Their is no dispute over the word, the social group or the sub-ethnic group. No one is trying to say that the Zaporozhian Cossacks are a sub-ethnos however they could obviously understand each other and had a mutual language, according to records from the Pereyeslav Agreement of 1654 could not understand emissaries of the Tsar Alexei and needed translators and their identity has undoubtedly contributing to the formation of Ukrainian nationhood of which this article is clearly trying to avoid. It would be unncessary for any Ukrainian nationalist to claim "the word Kozak" as their own considering it is a Ukrainian word as as you very kindly pointed out the Russian and Tatar word for Cossacks are 'Kazak'. The numerous sources of which I provide some which predate 1900 retort the claim that "Cossacks originated from the valleys of great rivers that flow to Black Sea, and currently this territory is divided among Russia and Ukraine" but rather solely along the Dnieper region. As previously stated a geographical origin could be a great temporary solution and I back your diplomatic suggestion, yet ironically the geographical area in which Cossacks were referred to as living by both the gentry of Muscovy and Poland-Lithuanian was 'na Ukraini', the lines between Ukraine as a political entity and geographic area were blurred in the 16th and early 17th century.DanielLerish (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)DanielLerish[reply]
My edit was made without gaining a consensus, as was yours, instead of returning my edit to the status quo ante you made a new edit, you changed "predominantly located in modern-day Southern Russia, southeast Ukraine and the Eurasian Steppe" to "predominantly located in Southern Russia in the steppes of Russia,[1] as well as in Eastern and Southern Ukraine within the borders of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth" without consensus, its pretty simple to grasp. Not really able to understand the rest, apologies. DanielLerish (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)DanielLerish[reply]
It is not clear whom you refer, however in my behalf I did not make any new edit, I just reverted to status quo ante.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Am reverting the version of Cossacks to that the promoted by Nicoljaus and Paul and that holds the current consensus until further compromise is reached. This version purely mentions the nearest predominant geographic boundaries and bodies of water, very broad, but great temporary compromise. Hope this is ok for all. DanielLerish (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)DanielLerish[reply]
Regarding Kazak vs Cossack. Both Russian and Ukrainian languages use Cyrillic, so Kazak and Cossack are just two different transliterations of the same word. "Kazak" is closer to real phonetic in most Russian dialects (except in Central Volga region, where they pronounce that word "Kozak"). The difference between pronunciation of the first vowel in that word are smaller than the difference between pronunciation of vowels in New York English and RP.
Second, I would like to see a confirmation from a reliable secondary source that Dnieper Kozaks really experienced problems with understanding old Russian. I strongly suspect that was not the case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh apologies all, I was refering to you KIENGIR, this is the last time I am writing this, you did not revert back to the status quo ante, the status quo ante as can still clearly be seen by going back to the version of the 29th of Janaury is not that of 17:28 of the 30th of January, once again instead of reverting the page back to "predominantly located in modern-day Southern Russia, southeast Ukraine and the Eurasian Steppe" you added "predominantly located in Southern Russia in the steppes of Russia,[1] as well as in Eastern and Southern Ukraine within the borders of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth". This was done without consensus, yet because of personal grievances held by some editors you edit was allowed but the one I inserted was not.
Kazak and Cossack are not two different translitertions of the same word but two different transliterations that share the same meaning. Kazak is the Russian transliteration of the Russian word 'казак' and Cossack is an english version of the Ukrainian transliatorion 'Kozak' steeming from the Ukrainain word 'Козак'. Not quite sure what 'old Russian' you are referencing, not in the field of academy I have been referring to is there an 'old Russian language' other than the anachronistic and incorrect description that has been phased that previously described

https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/eieol/oruol Old East Slavic. Below are some very brief references indicating the need for interpreters and translators between the Zaporozhian Cossacks.

  • "The protocols of the Pereiaslav “agreement” preserved in the Ambassadors’ Chancellery at Moscow are limited to envoy Buturlin’s report to Moscow, the Muscovite translation of Khmel´nyts´kyi’s proposed terms — the 23 “Articles of Petition” delivered to Moscow on 12 March — and the responding “March Articles” issued by the tsar later in the month and delivered to Khmel´nyts´kyi by Bohdanovich-Zarudnyi and Pavlo Teteria.56 The original of Khmel´nyts´kyi’s Articles of Petition has not been preserved, nor is there a final and binding copy of a treaty, leading many historians to argue that the original text of the Articles of Petition was suppressed and even the tsar’s original March Articles removed and these articles doctored in 1659" https://journals.openedition.org/monderusse/9725
  • "According to the decision taken by the Council of officers at Pereyeslav, the Hetman in February, 1654, sent an embassy to Moscow and entrusted it with this urgent task. The embassy was accompanied by Yakiv Ivanovych, an army interpreter, Sulvestr, the abbot of the Spassky monastery" (Treaty of Pereyaslav, 1654) pub 1954
  • “Ukrainian documents of the seventeenth century had to be translated into the Muscovite language and negotiation with Ukrainian envoys were conducted with the aid of interpreters" (The Second Soviet Republic) pub Rugters University Press in 1964
  • Ukrainian linguistic elements in the Russian language, 1680-1760: with special reference to the writings of Dimitri Rostovsky, Theofan Prokopovich, Stefan Yavorsky, Aleksandr Sumarokov and Mikhail Lomonosov published by the University of London. Also covers the need for translators and interpreters during the 17th century and onwards.
  • https://academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Treaty_of_Pereyaslav (such basic sources as these write that translators and interpreters were necessary and used)
  • https://euvsdisinfo.eu/report/ukraine-is-part-of-russia-both-territorially-and-demographically/

Now intend to update article to that the current consensus proposed by the group. DanielLerish (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)DanielLerish[reply]

@DanielLerish:,
No way, you don't understand what means status quo ante. I made two reverts, one revert to the revision of ClCStudent 18:15, 29 January 2020, and another one, the other time I reverted you with the revert button, so both cases I had zero involvement on the content, but I reverted to an earlier revision (= both are status quo ante). Moreover reverting a bold additon could never harm consensus, since it is restoring the content to the previous status quo ante (= as well a consensus), so please analyze the editing rules before you recurrently draw false conclusions and state falsities of the happenings. Thank You. (on the other hand, I fail to see your current additon would reverting the version of Cossacks to that the promoted by Nicoljaus and Paul and that holds the current consensus until further compromise is reached, El_C already indicated what is the last stable version, and your recent addition I did not find i.e. with identical i.e. Nicoljaus's any former revision, as I also did not see a new consensus would have been formed in the talk, Nicoljaus's last engagament in the talk was in 6 February...)(KIENGIR (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Hello, KIENGIR. It seems to me that the recent edit [1] is quite good where it changes the Lead. But I'm not sure whether it is worth further expanding the section about Zaporozhian Cossacks in this way, it seems to me that it is disproportionately large. P.S. With you tried to ping me, you were doing it in the wrong way!--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for your feedback! What did you mean pinging in the wrong way? (as far as I know, this way not necessarily the ping will go trough by experience...?) If I do like this @Nicoljaus: is good?(KIENGIR (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, it worked now! Ping must be in the same edit as the signature, otherwise it will not work.--Nicoljaus (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The hypocrisy on this page is pretty astounding, I too have just been watching from the sidelines but there is definitely a clique here. Nicoljaus is “no way, you don’t understand what means status quo ante" a conducive way of building a dialogue or will you not pull that one up because he is following your agenda.
It does not matter what version of the past you reverted back to, it needed a consensus which you did not gain, I could make an edit without a consensus, you could then revert it and then a person could edit the one I did back as going back to the 'statue quo ante'.
User EL C actually did not "indicate what is the last stable version", as any protection template will tell you, upgrading the protection policy of a page is not an endorsement of the then current version.
Also KEINGIR you need to familiarise yourself with WP:RV, one of the links being to WP:STATUSQUO

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_ante_bellum The meaning being "the state existing before the war" hence in our case the state of the page before the edit war occurred. As for the current edition I recommend you scroll back over the comments, the edit made by DanielLerish was approved by Siebert and Nikoljaus. Please also familiarise yourself with the following policies of Wikipedia:

  1. Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits.
  2. The Wikipedia edit warring policy forbids repetitive reverting.
  3. It is not appropriate to use reversion to control the content of an article through status quo stonewalling.

PavloTreiter 16:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)PavloTreiter (talk)[reply]

Wow, thankyou for your concurrence PavloTreiter. As for "occupy Moscow in 1618? In dreams, may be" what a coincidence you went straight for that part. However, I do regret not citing this claim further. The information was a reference to the Polish-Muscovite war. "Some of Godunov's other enemies, including approximately 2,000 southern Cossacks, joined Dimitry's forces on his way to Moscow. Dmitriy's forces fought two engagements with reluctant Russian soldiers; his army won the first at Novhorod-Siverskyi, soon capturing Chernigov, Putivl, Sevsk, and Kursk, but badly lost the second Battle of Dobrynichi and nearly disintegrated. Dmitry's cause was only saved by the news of the death of Tsar Boris Godunov." (Quote regarding Cossacks fighting on the side of Polish representative)

"His forces initially included 7,000 Polish soldiers, 10,000 Cossacks and 10,000 other soldiers, including former members of the failed rokosz of Zebrzydowski, but his force grew gradually in power, and soon exceeded 100,000 men. He raised another illustrious captive, Feodor Romanov, to the rank of Patriarch, enthroning him as Patriarch Filaret, and won the allegiance of the cities of Yaroslavl, Kostroma, Vologda, Kashin and several others. " (Second Polish invasion and the participation of Cossacks)

"Polish units consisted primarily of cavalry, primarily the Polish hussars, with about 400 Cossack infantry on the left wing.[2] Another 200 infantry and two cannons would arrive later, and did not participate in the first part of the battle" (Cossack paticipation in the Battle of Klushino on the side of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, that precipitated the occupation of Moscow by the Commonwealth).

"In 1618 Petro Sahaidachny's campaign against Tsardom of Russia resulted in sacking numerous forts such as Putivl, Kursk, Yelets, and others. Together with Chodkiewicz he laid siege to Moscow in September 1618. Due to unclear reasons, both Hetmans failed to take the city. Negotiations began and a peace treaty was signed in 1618." (The Zaporizhian Cossacks were the last to end the Polish-Muscovite war, fighting on the side of Poland). These quotes are all from wikipedia, please reference if need be.

Please as per the Wikipedia guidelines, if you feel opposed to something in a pargraph there is no need to wipe the whole paragraph, just remove the pieces of "vandalism or other disruptive edits" as PavloTreiter very kindly pointed out.I intend on returning the paragraph with the problematic parts altered and corroborated further. DanielLerish (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)DanielLerish[reply]

DanielLerish, Instead of this large text, it would be a rather short apology for spreading fakes. None of the above quotes says anything about the "occupation of Moscow in 1618".--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not quite sure what "fakes" your referencing, however, I do apologise if I did not clarify clearly enough what was written. Whilst the provisional statement of origins remains and that dispute is calming, I wish to revoke my edit of a 'Ukrainian Cossacks' section. I think this article risks being highly one sided and adapted to one party's interests if whilst cossacks arguably contributed greater to the creation of a Ukrainian national identity there remains only a 'Russian Cossack' section, alarmingly also a 'Russian Cossacks' section that includes Cossacks that were neither linguistically or ethinically Russian. If Yaik cossacks which incorporated Mongolic, Finno-Uggric and Uralic peoples into their ranks and Terek Cossacks that incorporated Caucasian peoples into their ranks are placed under the current description, this page must be assuming the formula of state boundaries, whereby even if a Cossack Host was predmoninantely Tatar because it is located within Russia it falls under Russian Cossacks. I argue in the spirit of fairness that the same should apply for Ukraine and Zaporizhian Cossacks. Please find attached numerous citations, references and examples of esteemed academics, professors and historians referring to the Zaporizhian Cossacks as not only being confined within the boundaries of Ukraine but also ethnically, linguistically Ukrianian.
  • "When Ukrainian Cossacks led by Bohdan Khmelnytsky staged an uprising to protest Polish restrictions on Zaporozhian Cossack military actions and polices perceived as prejudice against the Orthodox faith, a mass rebellion broke out in Ukraine"-

Boeck, Brian J. (2009). Imperial Boundaries : Cossack Communities and Empire-Building in the Age of Peter the Great. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-51463-7. OCLC 876231947. 

  • "The Dnipro (Dnieper) borderland became a battleground between Ukrainian Cossack factions, Russia, Poland, and eventually the Ottoman Empire"

Boeck, Brian J. (2009). Imperial Boundaries : Cossack Communities and Empire-Building in the Age of Peter the Great. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-51463-7. OCLC 876231947. 

  • "If it were similar to the great seventeenth-cenutry wars between the Polish aristocracy and the Ukrainian Cossacks"

U., J. F.; Rudnitsky, S. (1920-11). "Ukraine: The Land and Its People". The Geographical Journal.

  • "The Ukrainian Cossack Host came into being south of Kyiv, along the middle and lower reaches of the Dnieper (Dnipro) River, in the course of the sixteenth century "There were Dnieper Cossacks, Don Cossacks, Volga and Yaik Cossacks and, finally, Siberian Cossacks. The first to organise themselves were the Dnieper or Ukrainian Cossacks"

Plokhy, Serhii, 1957- author. The Cossack myth : history and nationhood in the age of empires. ISBN 1-107-44903-0. OCLC 885909257. 

  • "ally with the Ukrainian Cossacks in their six year-old struggle against the Poles. Muscovy declared war against the Rzeczpospolita in October"

(Warfare in Eastern Europe, 1500-1800)

  • "Real innovation in the evolution of the military lay with the organization of the border garrison troops. Ukrainian Cossack landmilitia, the equivalent of the Habsburg Militargrenzer, became regular army regiments under Rumiantstev."

(Warfare in Eastern Europe, 1500-1800)

  • "they required much larger continents of artillery and inozemskii stroi infantry and often direct support from regiments of Ukrainian cossacks."

(Warfare in Eastern Europe, 1500-1800)

  • "His associates managed to gather together a force of approximately twenty-five hundred men, about eleven hundred of whom were cavalry and infantry forces drawn from men in service to the magnates and approximately fourteen hundred of whom were so-called “cossacks”. About two-thirds of the latter group were, in fact, Ukrainians; only about five hundred of Dmitrii’s “cossacks” were true Ukrainian cossacks.

Russia's First Civil War: The Time of Troubles and the Founding of the Romanov Dynasty (Chester S. L. Dunning)

  • "Gudonov also managed to stir the hatred of many Ukrainian cossacks who had fled to Russia’s southern frontier in the aftermath of the failure of their rebellions in Poland-Lithuania during the 1590s."

Russia's First Civil War: The Time of Troubles and the Founding of the Romanov Dynasty (Chester S. L. Dunning)

  • "The November vote placed John Casimir, brohter of Wladyslav, on the throne. The new king assembled an army and in 1651 defeated Ukrainian forces at Berestechko."

Warrior Kings of Sweden: The Rise of an Empire in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Gary Dean Peterson)

  • "At the time of the expiration of the truce, the Polish king was grappling with Turkey in a war for Christendom. A Polish army had been crushed at the Battle of Cecora in Moldavia where the king’s brilliant general Zodlkiewski was killed. Now he had 45,000 Poles, Lithuanians and Ukrainian Cossacks defending a five square mile fortified camp at Chocim against a force of Turks twice that size."

Warrior Kings of Sweden: The Rise of an Empire in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Gary Dean Peterson)

  • “the Ukrainian Cossacks were looking for an opportunity to secure Ukrainian independence from Russia and Poland. It was a time for Karl XII to move”

Warrior Kings of Sweden: The Rise of an Empire in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Gary Dean Peterson) DanielLerish (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)DanielLerish[reply]

Remember to sign your comments on the talk page DanielLerish, as for your edit I don't see a problem with it. If there exists a 'Russian Cossack' section and in-light of the numerous references you have given it would be only fair. I support you going forward with that edit. Nikolaus please try avoid facetious edit summaries pertaining to "occupy Moscow in 1618"? In dreams, may be" and "Putivl and Kursk? Oh, those sweet dreams". Its repetitive and unnecessary. Please refer to WP:ES "An edit summary is a brief explanation of an edit to a Wikipedia page." and "Avoid incivility. Snide comments, personal remarks about editors, and other aggressive edit summaries are explicit edit-summary "don't's" of the Wikipedia Civility policy." PavloTreiter (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)PavloTreiter[reply]

Oh thanks PavloTreiter, fixed it now.DanielLerish (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)DanielLerish I agree with PavloTreiter, if anyone has a problem with these two parties being on equal footing on this page than they are most likely harbouring nationalist tendencies for one or the other party. This page needs to balanced and make concessions to both in order to prevent further disruptions to the page. I support DanielLerish in going forward with the proposed edit, there are a lot of references to substantiate and back up the edit hence it should be allowed.Noah221 (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)Noah221 strike sock-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PavloTreiter:,
I have to refuse your remarks, I know very well the policies you referred, and my argumentation was flawless, I have almost 10 years experience on that. Both cases I reverted a version before the concerned edits of the subject. It is also a fact the Nicoljaus did not made a feedback until DanielLerish's edit, thus your statement is false, and he as well corrected the revision after his edit, that seems you missed. For the other directives you highlighted, I know all of them, repetitive reverting has to be considered on a current frame regulated by other rules, but appropriate on BRD. Moerover, no stonewalling has been made, I made two legal reverts and initiated a talk as per policy, it had nothing to do with controlling the article's conten. El_C indicated what is status quo ante, that in this case it equals with the last stable version. So please, better you should gather more experience in this platform.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Fringe theories about Don Cossacks

[edit]

Now the article claims that: "In modern view, Don Cossacks are descendants of both Slavic people and Khazars, which assimilated Goths, Alans, and possibly of Rugii, Roxolans, Alans and even Goths-Alans of the Black Sea Rus". This is an extraordinary level of fringe. The reference[1] is given to a very controversial dissertation, however, in this dissertation the origin of the Don Cossacks is not considered at all. Any objection to the complete removal of this text?--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Brodniks (steppedwellers), and Chervlenoyarians (residents of forts along the upper Don and Khoper rivers in the 12th century) are considered to be predecessors of Don Cossacks. " (G. I. El’chinova1, N. V. Kriventsova, S. S. Amelina, and R. A. Zinchenko. Medical Genetic Study of the Rostov Oblast Population: Changes in Reproductive Parameters with Time. Russian Journal of Genetics, Vol. 40, No. 11, 2004, pp. 1305–1307. Translated from Genetika, Vol. 40, No. 11, 2004, pp. 1576–1579.) This fact is supported by Viktor Shnirelman (The Fate of Empires and Eurasian Federalism: A Discussion between the Eurasianists and their Opponents in the 1920s, Inner Asia 3 (2001): 153–73), who mentions brodniks in passing.
"There are two main theories of the origin of Cossacks on the Don: autochthonous and migration. And despite the fact that the migration theory is supported by the majority of reputable historians, different variations of the autochthonous theory appeared throughout the existence of Don Cossacks even up to this time, having a great popularity among Cossacks themselves. These theories attempted to link the origin of Cossacks with the ethnic groups living in the Don steppes in different historical periods (with Alan-Jassy and Brodnici) or with the peoples of the Caucasus (Circassians), or with steppe Turkic speaking peoples. (....) Thus, the gene pool of Upper Don Cossacks (according to the data on Y chromosome STR markers) was formed mainly by the East Slavic component;among the steppe populations, only Nogais had a certain noticeable impact, and no influence of the peoples of the Caucasus was traced. These genetic results are in accordance with the migration theory of the origin of Cossacks, although they do not deny the possibility of a limited impact of the steppe populations represented by Nogais." (M. I. Chukhryaeva, I. O. Ivanov, S. A. Frolova, S. M. Koshel,O. M. Utevska, R. A. Skhalyakho, A. T. Agdzhoyan, b, Yu. V. Bogunova, E. V. Balanovska, and O. P. Balanovsky, The Haplomatch Program for Comparing Y Chromosome STRHaplotypes and Its Application to the Analysis of the Origin of Don Cossacks. ussian Journal of Genetics, 2016, Vol. 52, No. 5, pp. 521–529)
--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I changed Cossaqs to Cossacks in the heading to accord with the spelling in the section's text. Mcljlm (talk) 03:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Радомский, Ярослав Леонидович (2015-09-27). "Archived copy" Диссертация на тему "Этнический состав Причерноморской Руси" автореферат по специальности ВАК 07.00.02 – Отечественная история | disserCat — электронная библиотека диссертаций и авторефератов, современная наука РФ. Dissercat.com. Archived from the original on 2015-10-04. Retrieved 2015-10-02.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)

Repatriation after WWII

[edit]

It would seem that information about the forced repatriation from the West made in secret deals under the Yalta Agreement should be included 64.136.215.230 (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to whitewash antisemitism

[edit]

This article seems to systematically ignore or whitewash the history of antisemitism associated with the Cossacks. It seems odd that the article makes only two brief mentions of pogroms committed by Cossacks against Jewish communities, both of which are obscured and sandwiched between positive portrayals of Cossacks. 2A06:C701:9A25:2300:C049:540E:AC17:46CA (talk) 10:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. Not every article of every european nationality, past or present, can have a detailed depiction on the antisemitism in that time. 125.237.30.118 (talk) 11:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation of Cossack as a social/ historical entity

[edit]

Dear Wiki contributors, I clicked the article on Cossack out of curiosity as I was born and raised in Ukraine, visited sites where these “ warriors” used to live. The issue with this article… the VERY FIRST pictures which are supposed to portrait Cossacks are absolutely misguiding. Yes , there might be some “ descendants of Cossacks” in the US or some “ ancestors of Cossacks” among those marching through the Red Square. However, The first and second referred above are wearing Cossacks’ costumes, my dear fellows. Please do more research and remove these degrading images of “Cossacks” . Thank you 188.47.115.237 (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cossacks&oldid=1264980092"