Talk:Cossacks/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Ruthenian vs. Russian

This is from my talk with Kuban kazak:

Ruthenian means historic term for a dweller of the Kievan Rus. Russian means dweller of the Russian empire and has been wrongly accredited to Great Ruthenians in the start of the 20th century. Cossacks are Russian, Ruthenian but neither Great Ruthenian (Russian) nor Little Ruthenian (Ukrainian). Also no need to put censos figures for the Kuban. In 2002 Cossacks appear as a destinct subgroup of Russians on it (along with Great Ruthenians and Pomorians). So the Ukrainian population that you quote is not even Cossack descent. --Kuban Cossack 15:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Russians (Russian: Русские - Russkiye) are an East Slavic ethnic group, primarily living in Russia and neighboring countries. Russian is not a dweller of the Russian Empire. Even if it is, the Russian Empire at the moment does not include Ukraine and Pereyaslavl as it part. So to disambiguate I offer to put "Cossacks in the Russian Empire" or just "cossacks" or "Ruthenian Cossacks". Regarding censuses, I think we need to mention these figures because it is said that Kuban Cossacks "do not identify themselves as Ukrainians". So I think it is proper to add "due to Russification policy of Imperial Russia and USSR (in mid XIX century Ukrainians accounted to 44% of the Kuban area population, according to 1926 census only to 30,5%, whereas in 1989 only to 2.5%)." or at least "However it must be noticed here that in mid XIX century Ukrainians accounted to 44% of the Kuban area population, according to 1926 census only to 30,5%, whereas in 1989 only to 2.5%)."--KKonstantin 20:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Cossacks in Russian Empire were all Russians because the Dnieper Cossacks, our ancestors, Zaporozhians never called themselves Ukrainians nor Great Russians. The mid (actually 1897) census that you quote did not distinguish nationalities but rather languages. And our Kuban dialect, balachka can be seen related to Ukrainian. 1926 census decided to split 50:50 simply because they did not know how to distinguish since it obvious that the dialect was related to Ukrainian, however none (and I repeat NONE) chose to identify themselves as Ukrainians. From the 1930s all Cossack descendents were listed under Russians. (The Ukrainian population would normally come from the minority of non-Cossack migrants and from the 1930s you can see clearely on censuses that the percentage of Ukrainians in the Kuban is not greater than other areas of Russia from Karelia to Yakutia) Finally after 1994 the Cossacks were seen as separate Russian subgooup. As for Russification...how can someone make us Cossacks more Russian? --Kuban Cossack

16:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

1. I did not try to persuade you that Kuban Cossacks are Ukrainians.

I only asked that you agree to put ‘Ruthenian’ instead of ‘Russian’ in subtopic ‘Russian Cossacks’.

You say “Cossacks are Russian, Ruthenian but neither Great Ruthenian (Russian) nor Little Ruthenian (Ukrainian)”. O.K., but if ‘Russian’ and ‘Ruthenian’ are interchangeable for you (you use Ruthenian several times above in the same manner as I mean), then why you do not agree to put “Ruthenian Cossacks” or just “Cossacks” at least in the first three paragraphs of the sub-article “Russian Cossacks” where it is said about those times when Russian Empire did not exist or did not include Zaporozhian Host and Don Host and therefore you cannot call these Cossacks Russian on the basis of being “dweller of the Russian empire” as you say? They were not dwellers of the Russian empire at that time.

Regarding the name of sub-article “Russian Cossacks”. If you wish to emphasize that this part is saying mostly about Russian Empire, then why you do not agree to name this sub-article “Cossacks in the Russian Empire” instead of “Russian Cossacks”?

Only you and I understand the difference between Great Ruthenians (Russains) and Little Ruthenians (Ukrainians), and only you and I know that term ‘Russian’ “has been wrongly accredited to Great Ruthenians in the start of the 20th century” as you say above and I agree absolutely. But when someone from Poland or USA reads the article ‘Russian Cossacks’, he certainly thinks of “Great Russian” Cossacks which is not fair because as you say Great Russians have nothing to do with Cossacks.

So I ask you to agree to amend the article as I offer.

You contradict yourself, its fact that for most Americans and Polish see the dwellers of Russia as Russians. In that case the topic on Russian Cossacks is translated as Rossiyskiye Kazaki not Russkiye Kazaki.

2. As for Kuban Cossacks being not Ukrainians (this offtop certainly, but we talk about it if you wish).

It is no wonder that Kuban Cossacks did not identify themselves as Ukrainian since the Ukrainians living in the modern-day Ukraine identified themselves as Ukrainians only starting from 1830s (see article “Name of Ukraine” on Wikipedia). And the Western part of Ukraine identified themselves as Ukrainians only in 1920s. Before that Ukrainians called themselves Rus’ki. And even now in the most western part of Ukraine people call themselves Rus’ki and Rusyn.

Therefore calling themselves Rus’ki for a Ukrainian is normal thing. Rus’ki and Ukrainian are interchangeable, especially in the remote (from the center) parts of Ukrainian ethnos where people did not know that Mykola Kostomarov offerred (and the rest agreed) to call themselves Ukrainians to differentiate from Great Russians.

Kuban is the most remote part of Ukrainian ethnos which was separated from the rest of Ukraine for a longest time (first due to geographical reasons and then due to non-inclusion in the Ukrainian SSR).

You can find a lot of examples when some Empire supports that part of a suppressed nation does not identify itself with the rest of it. For instance Valencians do not identify themselves to be Catalonians however the rest of the world does view them as part of Catalonian nation (there is no difference between Valancian and Catalan language).

Also it does not matter whether some of Ukrainian population is or is not of Cossack descent. This is a racial question, not ethnographic. Each nation is formed by assimilation of some previous population. Remnants of Scythians, Sarmatians, Goths etc. were assimilated by the Slavic tribes leading to formation of Ukrainians (see article “Ukrainians” on the Wikipedia). So if you go to the West of Ukraine, you will see that people are shorter there compared to people in the Center of Ukraine, where they are taller because in the West they almost purely Slavic, while in the east they had a lot of blood blending with different nations. It does not make some of them non-Ukrainians.

By the way term Ukraine (Ukrajina) is “an old word for the Cossack motherland” as you can read from article “Ukrainian language” on Wikipedia.KKonstantin 15:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

We are Cossacks, but we are still Russikiye. To us Ukrainets = citizen of Ukraine. Ethnically the East Slavic ethnos consist of Ruthenians: Great, Small, White and Carpathian Rusins, Pomorians (live in the North mostely Arkhangelsk and Karelia) and Cossacks.

As for Cossacks, nationality we are Russkiye. Ok, we are not Ukraintsy (I know its painful to svidomy ears, but that is truth). Ethnically we are a big Kasha - In my blood there is Circassian, Greek, Serb, Bulgarian probably Turkish and who knows what else from all the war brides that my great grandfathers brought back during the Imperial times. Have a read of this article. It clearely shows that on the Kuban there is no higher abundancy of people with Ukrainian surnames than elsewhere in Russia. (In our whole stanitsa there is not a single -enko or -chuk). What it does not say that practically everybody will have Kuban Cossack lineage amongst the Rural population, and that right now about 25 000 of them are in active Cossack service, none of whom call themselves Ukrainians. As for our political stand. Well, Galicia (Spanish Galicia that is) will swear eternal loyalty to Moscow before we do to Kiev.:) Finally not being 100% slavic means NOTHING to me, Pushkin was a Russian poet for that fact.

The only last thing that remains of our Zaporozhian heritage is our balachka dialect. However there are Ukrainians in Ukraine that speak Russian (or Surzhik) as their native language, so why can't there be a mirror situation? Conclusion - Kuban was NEVER part of the Ukrainian ethnos altogether. As for the origin of the word then actually you will find that it dates much much older back to ancient Kievan Rus chronicles, calling the southern borderland. Cossacks would only come a few centuries later.

As for western Ukrainians - my wife is from Rivne, and what she lacks in height she makes up with gossiping (t.e. baltlivaya...uzhas, no ya vse ravno ee lyublyu). :) --Kuban Cossack

18:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. If ethnic Ukrainian lives in Russia (like areas of compact dwelling of Ukranians in Rostov or Volgograd oblast) he’s still Ukrainian, be he a Russian citizen. Same applies to ethnic Russians living in Ukraine, just like in any other country.

And, to the other point, about Cossack nationality. On the banner of Don Cossack Republic (1917-1921) there are three stripes. Blue stripe symbolizes Cossacks, gold stripe symbolizes Kalmyks, and red stripe symbolizes Russians. Interestingly, now these colours are used on the flag of Rostov Oblast, with white vertical stripe on the left, which I’ve heard symbolizes unity under the helm of Russian federal authority.

As for Ukrainians in Kuban, according to Russian Wikipedia, that’s where Catherine resettled some of the Zaporozhians after quelling Khmelnitsky rebellion.

theUg 02:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have looked into the article you give. First, it is again mostly racial, not ethno study: blood etc. I do not think that you consider yourselves a close relative of Mariytsy, etc., at least before you read this article. Be honest. (Also when you say about “big Kasha - In my blood there is Circassian, Greek, Serb, Bulgarian” it is also racial, not ethno). According to this article there is a big difference between western Ukrainians and eastern ones (much bigger than between estern Ukrainians and Russians). But both western and eastern consider themselves Ukrainians because ethno and racial are different things!

But what matters in ethno is language. (when you say about Russain language in Ukraine it is a different thing: all former colonies use the language of the former Empire for some time after the collapse of the Empire).

Second, this study says that there is almost no difference between eastern Ukrainian and Russains. So Kuban Cossack can be just eastern Ukrainians. And they are according to my opinion.

As for the surnames. This does not matter anything as surnames in the western and in the eastern Ukraine are different, but this does not make us different nation. Surnames depend on the country people live: western Ukrainians were living in Austria-Hungary for a long time, eastern - in Poland and Russia, Kuban Cossacks always in Russia and close to Caucasus. That’s why there are differences.

Last, this study was done by Russian scientists. Unfortunately in Russia there is always politically right interpretation (even if the study itself is good) of each thing (it is called “propaganda” – for normal non-Russian people it is disgusting to watch biased Russian TV news).

You consider yourselves Russian for political reasons as when growing up, you have never heard another opinion on Russian TV, radio etc. So you were MADE Russian. Have you ever seen anyone on Russian TV giving interview on "balachka"? Why not? Because it is politically not good.

Read these articles from “Ukrainians” references of Wikipedia

http://www.zerkalo-nedeli.com/ie/show/555/50610 http://www.zerkalo-nedeli.com/nn/show/328/29376 http://www.zerkalo-nedeli.com/nn/show/543/49862

where you can see that Ukrainians were called Rusyn etc. in the beginning. Kuban Cossacks name for itself was easily transformed by Soviet and Russian propaganda from Rusyn / Rus’ki to Russkiy.

Anyway we went to far from the topic I guess. Regarding “Russian Cossacks”. What about the first three paragraphs of the “Russian Cossacks” where it is said not about the dwellers of the Russian Empire. “Russian” should be deleted there. Do you agree?KKonstantin 00:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

But both western and eastern consider themselves Ukrainians because ethno and racial are different things!Yes, and based on some sources, it can be well said that Novorossiyans and Donbasians were MADE into Ukrainians in the 1920s Ukrainisation period. :)
all former colonies use the language of the former Empire for some time after the collapse of the Empire Russian Empire never had colonies in the western view of the word, also recentely Lugansk and Kharkov miska rada just raised Russian to official level...:)
So Kuban Cossack can be just eastern Ukrainians.;This does not matter anything as surnames in the western and in the eastern Ukraine are different However you will agree that most people in Eastern Ukraine are oddly enough -enko and -vicha and -chuk. Whilst in Kuban the dominant names are -ov and -in (and no -enkov twists mind you!)
Have you ever seen anyone on Russian TV giving interview on "balachka"? Yes, on Local Krasnodar TV is pretty much anchored in balachka, all nationwide channels use Muscovite dialect for consistency, however their reporters in Krasnodar Krai - always in local dialect. Have you seen BBC airing in Scottish accent?
Kuban Cossacks name for itself was easily transformed by Soviet and Russian propaganda from Rusyn / Rus’ki to Russkiy.;So you were MADE Russian.. Now that is just amusing and dowright silly. Well I am as much Russian as Pushkin was, even if I am not 100% ethnic Russian (which I will not deny) as the old saying goes one could only be more Russian if he is Obrussevshiy. Make it like that, but that is a theory. Finally I do not decide for eastern and southern Ukrainians to be "victims" of Ukrainisation, so please leave us Cossacks alone, if that makes you grieve I am sorry. Regardless of the case in Russia you can see so many examples like us that it is really amusing to assume who is who. I believe Gumelyov that it is irrelevant of your background, but who you are in reallity that makes the difference. Imagine this case Belarusian father, Tatar mother, born in Moscow lived his whole life there, never cared about his nationality, his children when asked who they are will answer what quarter this or quarter that...no they will say...RUSSIAN, Russkiye. That is what is important. I am proud to be Russian, and that we are still loyal to the Pereyaslav agreement made by our ancestors 352 years ago, and I thank Matushka for allowing us to settle on this beutiful land 200 years ago, and to keep it forever as part of our massive country. Now that bolno for a svidomy to hear. --Kuban Cossack 01:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

O.K. No more attempts to pursuade each other regarding Kuban Cossacks.

(Just last remark. The article you quoted says that Zaporozhians may have never been to Kuban. Do you agree? If not (you say "our ancestors Zaporozhians"), why do you agree with one part of this 'study' and not agree with the other? That's the way propaganda works: take what you like and do not see what you do not like)

No the article says Ukrainians never been to Kuban, which is true, but not Zaporozhians, which questions just how Ukrainian our ancestors were. --Kuban Cossack

14:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not true: "фамилий потомков запорожских казаков, выселенных сюда Екатериной II"KKonstantin 14:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, and everybody in our stanitsa can trace some of their roots to Zaporozhians. Bottom line Zaporozhians were only part of the people that over a 200 year period came to the Kuban. We modern Cossacks have only iherited their spirit and will, blood is irrelevant. As a matter of fact the Kuban has one of the highest rates of orphanage adoptions in Russia. Those people can be genetically anything, but what matters is the traditions in which they are rased. --Kuban Cossack

17:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's go back to the topic “Russian Cossacks”. "What about the first three paragraphs of the “Russian Cossacks” where it is said not about the dwellers of the Russian Empire. “Russian” should be deleted there. Do you agree?" You did not answer.KKonstantin 14:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No, because the word Russian, as explained above, is an umbrella, and for 19th century Imperial Cossack hosts - were Russian. So I do not understand why we should delete the term. --Kuban Cossack

14:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

But in the three first paragraphs of "Russian Cossacks" it is said about year 1444 and then "In the sixteenth century". So there was no Russian Empire or it did not include the lands of Cossacks in 1444 or in the sixteenth century or earlier. Therefore the word "Russian" must be deleted from the first three paragraphs of "Russian Cossacks".KKonstantin 14:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

True, but does that really matter, after all the umbrella word Russian can be used to reffer to either ethnically Ruthenian or nationaly. To be fair I am not too concerned. Maybe just leave it as Cossacks? --Kuban Cossack

17:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

O.K., just 'Cossacks' is fine for me.KKonstantin 15:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, feel free to change it then. --Kuban Cossack

15:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

213.130.24.237 15:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Cossacks, religion and boyars...

My dear anon, please note that every article has a talk page if you continue to add controversial information (like Cossacks defending Catholicism - which I as a descendent of Zaporozhian Cossacks find most amusing) then not only will it be reverted but it will also be eventually taken to the admin and submitted as Vandalism. If you have specific issues please discuss. Otherwise this is considered as Trolling and will hypotherically lead to your IP being blocked. You might consider registering an account however. --Kuban Cossack 16:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

i was wondering what languages the cossacks speak. and what nationality they are i.e are they slavs?—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Alexander S. (talk • contribs)

Today, and for the past 200 years - All Cossacks spoke Russian, nationality they claimed the same, but ethnically we are what is known in Russian as Kasha, ie a mix of just about anything possible. --Kuban Cossack

10:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

My dear Kuban kazak,

Please stop reverting passages about religious views of Cossacks and boyar history in the lands of Rus.

If you belive that Cossacks always were Orxodothes and had never defened states of Poland, Lithuania or Austria and its peolpe in the 16-17 century, then you have to read more books on the history of these countries and the Cossack history that were isssued not only in Russia but also in the West. If you have no access to the libraries of Warsaw,Vienna or Rome you can get information about Cossacks and their relations with Catholics on the e-net. You has written that you are a Cossack descendent, so you have to know the history of your ancestors beter. Do not narrow down the problem solely to Russia and Orthodoxy. Perhaps, modern Russian Cossacks are overwhelmingly Orxodoxes and your statements are partially correct. Cossacks, however, are not a private property of Russia and Russian Orthodox Church, they are a vivid pages of the history of many Eastern European countries and religious groups. Therefore, please be tolerant to the histories of other contries and write about Cossacks without nationalistic prejudice.

I do not understand your doubts about Boyars. Please refer to recent researchs in the field or just look at the Ukrainian version of the boyar article in Wikipedia. I hope as a Cossack descendent you can read the language of your ancestors.

Sincerely, 133.41.4.46 26 June 2006 A.D.

First of all Like it or not Cossacks were formed by Ruthenian people, Ruthenian people were Orthodox. It is as simple as that. And the Zaporozhian Cossacks were only one of the few Cossack groups on par with the Don Ural and Terek Cossacks. As for modern Ukrainian kozel-ks then really please do not mix circus with professional military. And yes I know well of my ancestors and we are still loyal to the Pereyaslavl treaty, which was signed to defend Orthodoxy.--Kuban Cossack

15:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kuban Kazak,

I will repeat my statements once more.

1. The history of Cossacks does not start with the Pereyaslav Treaty. Before the treaty was signed many Cossacks of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth fought Muscovite Orthodoxes several times. The period they supported Catholic states lasted for two centuries. As a Cossack you should know it. Do you think you can throw away this period from the history because of your Russian nationalistic beliefs?

Sure read Gogol's Taras Bulba, it explains excatly on the positon of Orthodox and Catholic relations.

2. Yes, many Ruthenian people were Orthodox. But where did you get that there were no Catholics or Protestants among them? You should read more books on the history of the Christian Church in the Eastern Europe.

Not many, absoloute majority. With the small exception of those that fell to the unia. As for Cossacks again Taras Bulba, and the Khmelnitsky uprising is excatly the result that came out of the attempted Catholicisation of Ruthenia.

Another point is following. Why do you suppose that all Orthodoxes in the Eastern Europe belonged to Russian Orthodox Church. Actually, till the end of the 18th century the vast lands of Belorussia and Ukraine were under the rule of the Constantinopole Patriarchy. And probably you ancestors were "Greek" Orxodoxes but not "Russian".

Actually it was the Kievan Metropolia not the Greek Orthodox Church. I very doubt that Pyotr Mogilla would have conducted liturgy in Greek. Don't be ridiculous.

3. You stress that the Zaporozhian Cossacks were only one of the few Cossack groups on par with the Don, Ural and Terek Cossacks. That is absolutelly true. But the problem is that you cannot describe all these groups as "Russian" and "Orthodxes". I would like to remind you that there were also Polish and Tatar Cossacks...

Sure, but read the article Nağaybäk, I think Orthodoxy still remains dominant

4. The last is your English. Please, use no slang and Russian-English mixed words. For example: " As for modern Ukrainian kozel-ks then really please do not mix circus with professional military"... 理解しかねます

In the ending, I would ask you to put back my corrections concerning the religion of Cossacks. If you would insist on your nationalistic interpritations I would be foreced to contact Wikipedia staff. Please do not violate the official policy on the English Wikipedia (NPOV, respect to other contribution etc.)

Read WP:POINT there is no nationalism going on here except what I can interpret as a mild form of Russophobia, and no I will not add this POV-pushing material until you make neccessary corrections. --Kuban Cossack

17:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Corrections: Cossacks and religion

"Although there was a small minority of Muslim Cossacks in Russia, the majority of Cossacks are of the Christian faith. The relationship between Cossacks and the Church runs very deep, and has had strong influences on both the history of the Cossacks and that of the Church. Traditionally, Cossacks are considered to be the protectors of the Church and Christians both Catholics (wars on Muslim Turks,Tatars and Orthodox Muscovy to defend the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 16-17th centuries) and Orxhodoxes (wars against Poland, Turks and Tatars in aliance with Muscovy since the middle of the 17th century).

Nowadays, in Russia and Ukraine the Cossacks are usually depicted only as the defenders of the Orthodox church. Such a depiction was constracted intentionally by nationalistic historians of the Russian Empire. This "Orthodox myth" still lives in the works of modern Russian and Ukrainian historians who try to show Cossacks as "national heroes" of one correct faith that is Orthodox. However this myth completely ignores facts from the early history of the Cossack movement and focuses only on the images of "Russian" Cossacks of the 19th century."

Sincerely, 133.41.4.46 26 June 2006 A.D.

Dear Kuban Kazak,

Your demand to make "neccessary corrections" in the matterial given above. Please tell me what kind of corrections do you mean? To write down that all Cossacks are Russian and Orthodox? Or deny the historical fact of cooperation of Catholics and Cossacks agains Orthodox Muscovy?

It looks that you just hide under tha label of "Russophobia" in order to promote nationalistic ideas, which reveal in aversion to non-Russian or non-Orthodox way of thinking. Your attempts to monopolize the Cossack history as the history of "Russian" military organizations and presentation of Cossack movement as uniquely "Ruthenian" or "Orthodox" phenomena prove that either you have big gaps in history or you intentionaly follow the stamps of Russain right-wing historiography. In fact, you matterials about religion of Cossacks are POV-pushing because they describe the vission of only one side - Russian Orthodox.

Thus, I repeat my request to add the material.

Sincerely, 133.41.4.46 27 June 2006 A.D.

1 Watch the insults
2 Watch the Original Research
3 Finally in the article itself as in many historical literature (eg. Taras Bulba), apart from the bizzare svidomy bs, also do read Khmelnytsky Uprising and Registered Cossacks. Believing your opinion - all Russian has to go. Russian Orthodox Cossacks were nothing but a small historical detail. Zaporozhian Cossacks were actually Catholics... I am not going to add that bs into the artilce. Request or not, but I will ask other people to come here and share their viewpoint. --Kuban Cossack 19:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Side view to the discussion above

Genltemen, may I ask you both to format the discussion above, with dates, sigs, indents, etc. I assume that anon is user:KKonstantin. If so, please don't forget to always sign in, as it makes it easier to discuss things with you. Kuban, would you please format the discussion asap?

Now, the contention point: Cossacks vs the Orthodox Church. There is no denial that the registered Cossacks fought for the PLC as it was their duty in return to personal freedoms and regular payments. However, they fought for the state as regular military units, just as other units as well. However, the notion that Cossacks were ever protectors of Catholicism is rather novel, smells like OR and does not follow directly from the fact that they fought for the Polish king. OTOH, the notion that Cossacks were the protectors of the Orthodox Church is widespread and one can find that assertion, eg. in many historic books and in Britannica too. So, while one car rightly say about the service of the Registered Cossacks to the Catholic dominated Polish State (and not just against Turks but also against the Russia-leaning Cossack factions), in no way this implies that Cossacks were defenders of the Catholicism.

Anonymous, please log in before editing/discussing this further. KK, please format the discussion. It is unreadable. --Irpen 03:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

OK now I'm loggin in

Hi All contributors. I was contributing to this article for a quite a while as this is the integral part of my family history. My earlier anonymous contributions are references to Gen. Bogaevsky book, Cossack in advancement of Russian Empire to East and war of 1812 (guerilla warfare, raids), Cossack families and reference to Kaznakov's report to Tzar Alexander III, settlements founded by Russian Cossacks, etc.

Regards

Prairie Cossack

Suddgested Corrections:

"(particularly the Terek Cossacks, who were heavily influenced by the culture of North Caucasian tribes)" change to "for example, the Terek Cossacks, who were heavily influenced by the culture of North Caucasian tribes", since the same evidences of blending of cultures and habits can be found almost in every area where Cossacks interacted with natives (see my reference to Kaznakov's report).

"The Cossacks were not highly regarded by the Russian Army, who saw them as lacking the discipline and training of regular troops." Has to be removed, as this statement lacks of proof, and way too generalistic.

Currently working on

Siberian Cossacks article.

Taras Bulba?!

I'm curious as to why he isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. Wasn't he a hero of the Ukrainian Cossacks?

yeah! I was really surprised,wiki is pure in information about Ukrainian cossacks!!

Outrageous Claim

"According to Michael Kort, "During 1919 and 1920, out of a population of approximately 3 million, the Bolshevik regime killed or deported an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 Cossacks"

This is total bullshit. The number of deported Cossacks did not exceed 45,000. This book reveals deportations in the history of Soviet Russia:

http://www.memo.ru/history/deport/add1.htm

English translation:

http://www.online-translator.com/url/tran_url.asp?lang=en&direction=re&template=General&transliterate=&autotranslate=on&url=http://www.memo.ru/history/deport/add1.htm#_VPID_44

Nowhere will you find a figure there which exceeds 45,000 Cossacks.

What was the total number of Cossacks (Don and Kuban) during 1917-1941?--Alex Kov 16:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

There are millions of people in the Don and Kuban regions who are of "Cossack" ancestry. There is no evidence that this sensational agitprop of "decossackization" ever happened in the scale suggested above. 40,000 Terek Cossacks were resettled to their ancestral homeland in Ukraine so that oppressed minorities Chechens, Ingush, and red Cossacks would form territorial units. The Cossacks unleashed aggression upon the soviet workers councils in the winter of 1917-18 and appropriately faced reprisals for their treasonous behavior. The Cossacks collaborated with the notorious mass murderer proto-Nazi Denikin. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that 250 to 450 thousand Cossacks were killed. In the civil war total, 1 million died from battle on both sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Peters (talk • contribs)

A Possible Workaround for the Ethnicity Issue

I would suggest reclassfying the Cossacks as a social class rather than trying to sort out what modern ethnic term is best fitted for the Cossacks (as KK pointed out - the meaning of the words "Russian", "Ukrainian" and Cossak" has changed drastically in the past century). I think the Samurai are a sound historical parallel, or at the very least a good comparison to use to explain the situation to Western readers who most likely can't follow the arguments on this page. 24.62.63.6 01:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)(Crocodilicus)

Russian spelling?

How is cossack spelled in Russian? Козак? Is this not the same word for those from Kazakhstan? --NEMT 14:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It is spelled as Казак and it has NO relationship to Kazakhs and Kazakhstanis. --Kuban Cossack

13:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Being a Turkic nation Kazakhs used word "Казак" to identify themselves much earlier than cossacks emerged as a social entity. There is no actual relationship between these two groups, except the fact that cossacks at some point of history "borrowed" Turkic word which was in use already. In order to distiguish two groups Russian and later Soveit authorities went as far as to distort the name of Turkic nation by adding soft "h" and changing qazaq/kazak to Kazakh, when spelling of word Cossack in Russian remained the same.

"Most-ness" of Cossacks

Please keep neutral manner of writing articles. The words "most prominent and famous were the Russian Cossacks" are unappropriated. For various periods and places in history the revalence of some social group is different. The same is with Cossacks. For example, in the 15-17 centuries "the West" first learned about Cossacks of nowadays Ukraine by their frequent wars with the Muslims, participation in the Thirty years war in France, and Chmelnicki uprising. Esspecially they became famous due to the book of French engeneer Beaplane. On the contrary, those military groups that are called nowadays Russain Cossacks became known in the late 18 c. and later thanks to the Napoleonic wars. My point is that writtings like "most prominent" or "most famous" are incorrect because there is no creterion of "mostness" in evaluating history but only in political propoganda. Thus please, use a neutral wording.--Alex Kov 19:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

However think about the prominance of the Don Cossacks in the Time of Troubles, or colonisation of Siberia. The impact they had on Russian history is rather prominant.--Kuban Cossack

12:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, the influence of Zaporozhian Cossacks on Ukrainian self-identity is critical.

It's not Wikipedia's place to pick a group of Cossacks as most important. The wording "most prominent and famous" sounds a bit like the result of a popularity contest, and doesn't really say anything of substance anyway. It's hardly a verifiable fact. —Michael Z. 2006-10-21 15:28 Z

National identity

Recent edit summary: there were no Russian or Ukrainian Cossacks before the emergence of national states.

I don't know about the historical national identity of the Don Cossacks, but I believe most Zaporozhian nobles were Orthodox Ruthenians or Polonized Catholic Ruthenians. They weren't called Ukrainians at the time, but Ukraïna was their poetic homeland, and this is the same nation that was called Ruski by the Poles and Malorossy by the Russians. Keeping in mind that the modern idea of national self-identity didn't exist anywhere at the time, calling them Ukrainian Cossacks today is appropriate. —Michael Z. 2006-10-22 17:06 Z

Disagree on one point, Muscouvy did not call Malorossy Zaporozhian Cossacks, but they called Malorussy non-Cossacks Ukrainians. I.e. dwellers of the Sloboda, Volyn Podolia...etc. Ethnically they still considered them to Ruthenians, just like the Don Cossacks. With Don, it was always the same Orthodox Ruthenians. So ethinically there are more similarities between the modern Kuban and Don Cossacks then there are between Don Cossacks and Velikorussians. The same can be said wrt to Malorussians (ethnic Ukrainians) and Kuban. In such a case I do agree with Michael about calling Zaporozhian Cossacks Ukrainian, and the same can be said about Ryzan and Don Cossacks being Russian. In this case I propose to keep the article the way it always was before the recent attacks, as there is no POV since Russian Cossack impact on history (and I am not saying European Asian or whatever, i am just generalising) is greater since the mid 13th century until present day. Whilst Ukrainian Cossack impact on history ends with the dissolution of the Zaporozhian Host. --Kuban Cossack

17:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Peasants...

Cossacks were not our usual peasants, of course, but I wonder if Category:Cossack uprisings should be a subcat of Category:Peasant revolts?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 03:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Most cossack uprisings were also peasant revolts, true. But was this true in all cases? --Irpen 05:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, szlachta did considered them 'peasants' :/ My goal here is not to force a definition, but to make browsing relevant categories easier.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

300 to 500 thousand Cossacks killed

According to Michael Kort, "During 1919 and 1920, out of a population of approximately 3 million, the Bolshevik regime killed or deported an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 Cossacks"

There is no basis to this. First, Kort is incorrect about the population of the Cossacks. In 1917, there were 4.5 million Cossacks of which a whopping 300 thousand served in the the Tsar's imperialist war. Next, Kort's claim that 300 to 500 Cossacks were killed or deported has no basis. Pavel Polyan's study on Soviet deportations shows that only 45 thousand Cossacks were deported in 1920. Since a large portion of the Cossacks brutally opposed the soviet workers' councils, they would of course endure casualties but there is no evidence that they endured 250 to 450 thousand losses since the White armies and Poles combined endured only some 200 thousand casualties. I'm afraid this will have to be removed since its lacks any factual basis in favour of Pavel Polyan's archival study. [1]

Furthermore, the Cossacks were oppressive, brutal, imperialist lackies. In the Don, Cossacks were only 42% of the population yet owned 65% of the land. In contrast, the oppressed Kalmyks owned only 4% of the land.[2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.110.129.77 (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

Pictures

I know we already have a bunch of good pictures on this article but I just started digitizing some of my old family Cossack photos and was curious if anyone thought they would be of any use to this article or any other Cossack article. You can see all of them here if you'd like. Some of them are poor quality and need some retouching which I could do if the pic is wanted for an article. I'll be uploading more periodically onto Commons so just ask if there is a specific picture you want to use, I have dozens more so ask I'll see what I can come up with.~ Joe Jklin (T C) 22:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Your pictures are great even if we end up not using them all. First, there are other articles. Second, there is always room in Commons. Just an advice, please remember to give dates of the pictures you upload. --Irpen 02:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've uploaded them all to Commons (more will be coming). I don't know all the dates exactly, but have tried to at least give a decade. ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 19:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

AndyZ peerreviewer

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.^[1]
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[2] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
~~Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.~~
~~There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,~~
- ~~allege~~ ~~{{#if:allege|**might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations~~
Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), organize (A) (British: organise), organise (B) (American: organize), recognize (A) (British: recognise), recognise (B) (American: recognize), colonise (B) (American: colonize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), grey (B) (American: gray), curb (A) (British: kerb).
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “~~All~~ pigs are pink, so we thought of ~~a number of~~ ways to turn them green.”
~~Avoid using contractions like: didn't.~~
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[3]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 21:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Format changes

I wanted to post here first to let people who watch this page know that I plan on making some format changes for organizational and readability reasons. I haven't removed any major portion of the text, maybe just a few redundancies here and there, and will be adding some text. This also will include a template that I created (feel free to fix that up too it needs work, especially the image). You can see that at Template:Cossacks. I still want to make a few minor changes before I put it up so for the sake of the history of the page I have been working on it in my sandbox. Anyone can edit my sandbox so make changes if you want. I don't think this will raise any issues I just wanted to make sure that nobody freaked out when they saw the changes. Thanks.~ Joe Jklin (T C) 06:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you remove that Russian Empire coat of arms image from the Template? It might be appropriate for Russian cossacks, but it is not appropriate in relation to Ukrainian cossacks. --Tigga en 08:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the coat of arms but to be honest it was just a temporary fix until I could find a better image. The template looks somewhat blank now so if you or anyone else has a good alternative let me know or add it yourself. Same thing goes for any articles which should be in the template.~ Joe Jklin (T C) 08:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a new image but still am not really satisfied with it. Feel free to revert or replace it with your own. ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 08:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Decossackization

Comment by banned user removed

I have no idea whether any of the above is true or not, but why are comments on the talk page being deleted?radek 05:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The comments on the talk page keep getting deleted because they are being posted by a sockpuppet of a banned user.--Iosef 18:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this article too long?

The long tag was on this previously, but the article is only 43 KB, which sounds fine as far as size goes, and it seems quite a bit has been split off into more specific subarticles already. A "real" encyclopedia would likely have an even longer entry, albeit it with articles like the History article integrated in.

Anyway, if this article could use more splitting, there's always the {{split}} tag. I'm inclined to agree with a comment on the {{long}} talk page which suggests that that template should only go on talk pages, if anywhere. SnowFire 23:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Collectivization

An anonymous user repeatedly removes the fragment about the human losses of cossacks during collectivization. While the exact numbers of human losses seem to be a subject of discussions the numbers in the articles are at least referenced. If you have better sources please provide them. If there are problems with the source please indicate them. Otherwise the fact is relevant and sourced and we simply cannot remove it Alex Bakharev 09:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

First Cossack (Kasakka) Attack to Finland

Can any Cossack expert say which Tatar Cossacks were those who crossed in winter 1577, 25 years after the fall of Kazan in 1552, by ice from Estonia the Gulf of Finland and robbed Helsinki (Helsingfors) area with a troops whose strenght were 2.000 Tatar Cossacks?

Cossacks outside PLC before Andrusovo

Did any significant Cossack group lived outside PLC before the Treaty of Andrusovo?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Don Cossacks, Ryazan Cossacks, we had Yermak already make his conquest of Siberia. Terek Cossacks, Ural Cossacks, Astrakhan Cossacks. The answer is YES! --Kuban Cossack 22:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ryazans need stub or redirect. Would you have any population estimates on early numbers for the others? The relevant sections seem very stubbish.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 15:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Name change to Cossacks

Shouldn't this be under Cossacks - plural for people is our usuall naming convention (Ukrainians, Russians, Poles, Tatars, etc.)?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 15:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I am going to move this article if there is no objection soon.~ Joe Jklin (T C) 03:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This was my exact thought, as well. What's odd is that the article has survived under this title since its creation in June 2002! (There's been a redirect from Cossacks since April 2003.) Hard to believe that nobody made the change before now. In any event, it has my blessing, so I think you should feel free to make the change. Cgingold 12:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Military Service

At the same time many attempts were made to increase the Cossack impact on Russian society and throughout the 1990s many regional authorities agreed to hand over some local administration and policing duties to the Cossacks. However in April 2005, Russian President Vladimir Putin introduced a bill "On the State Service of the Russian Cossacks" (O gosudarstvennoy sluzhbe rossiyskogo kazachestva) to the State Duma, which was passed in the first reading on May 18, 2005. For the first time in decades the Cossacks were recognised as not only a distinct ethnocultural entity but also as a potent military service. Although their full ambition to administer wholly the territory stretching from Transdniester all the way along the steppe to the Ural River might be distant, the bill made a significant step towards achieving it.

I've read the law and I did not really see any increased military role for Cossacks. Yes, the State and the Cossack Organisations participate in patriotic education of cossack children. Yes, cossack conscripts are sent to units of primarily cossack heritage. Yes, the law foresees that the Cossacks can be involved in various law enforcement duties. Yes, they have the right to wear various uniforms that are approved by the President of Russia.

However. There are also such things in Russia as voluntary youth patrols, military cadet organisations, patriotic organisations and others that often take on similar "duties". I do not speak of various private uniforms and all that.

As such, in what way does this law promote a Cossack State from the Dniestr to the Ural? Or this law a firs step to the return of the Imperial way of organising Cossack Hosts? Can anyone please explain? Russoswiss 02:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I put a ref to an article about Putin seeking help from Cossacks and how it is a perceived step. Here is a quick link Putin sends for Cossacks in fight against terrorism. Hope this helps~ Joe Jklin (T C) 00:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

GA review

Hi, I'm the GA reviewer of this article. If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask them. You can post questions either on this page, or if you want me to get it sooner, you could post them on my talk page. Daimanta 22:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I am having some major difficulties with this article. The article is very poorly sourced. Entire sections of the article are without any sources. This absolutely needs to be improved. You will have the legal WP:GAN time to improve this article. Daimanta 11:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this article has failed:

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.

a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.

No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:

Pass/Fail:

This article needs a lot of improvement if it wants to reach GA level. Regards, Daimanta 00:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Article Structure

I feel that the article is too poorly strctured in its headings, here is what I think should be done, first of all there should be a clear definition of what a Cossack is, as it can be ethnical, cultural, military and all three togethere, then it should show the early history of the Cossacks, both Ukrainian and Russian together. Then I feel the Ukrainian Cossack history, in its important points should be laid out first, in a similar manner, the parrallel hisotory of the Russian Cossacks should go, after the 18th century begins, effectively a new chapter of the Cossacks begins and this follows, then revolution WWII, modern... Next culture, organisation. Right now the article loosely follows this but the text does not. A major re-write is necessary? Any suggestions? --Kuban Cossack 15:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I am too busy to offer much or any assistance now, but your idea sounds quite good. Faustian 15:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, is just right now the article is but a lump of facts put together. Try reading it and you will understand what I mean. --Kuban Cossack 15:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the article is a mess. All things are mixed together and out of chronological order. For example, there are two entries on Russian Cossacks 2.2 and 3. Cannot they be joined together? As well, it would also help, if someone would stop juggling the Russian/Ukrainian text with wrong stress in the lead. --Hillock65 17:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

From the start the article had first Russian then Ukrainian, that's how it existed for god knows how long, why change it?

To answer your question the point 3 is about organisation whilst point 2 is history. The former needs a complete rewrite. --Kuban Cossack 17:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Also I hope noone minds me removing the passage about the Cossacks being runaway peasents. The initial groups were actually formed by indeginous Slavic migrants around rivers such as Don, Yaik and Dnepr, only in the 15th century did the peasents began to fuel their numbers. --Kuban Cossack 17:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Cossacks originated from what is Ukraine now, they are generally regarded as the progenitors of the Ukrainian nation, so Ukrainian is obviously a better choice. In regards to Russian Cossacks. I think it is a bad idea to mesh it all up. It would be much better to start the Russian Cossacks section that would chronologically fit after the destruction of the Sich. Ermak and other earlier Russian Cossacks could be metioned there as well.--Hillock65 17:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually the name Cossack comes from Circassian коссаг. And the Russian Cossacks do not begin in 1775. Don Cossacks existed since the Kievan Rus, as early recordsd show, Ivan the Terrible times was when they became a major player in Russian affairs. Terek Cossacks migrated in the 14th century as well. In fact Dnepr Cossacks were only a Cossack group. --Kuban Cossack 17:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

...existed since the Kievan Rus? This is new. A source of this amazing discovery would help. Otherwise, I suggest we clean the article from POV from both sides. The Encyclopedia Britannica might be a good place to look at how to arrange this article. --Hillock65 17:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

...More correctly the Don community was an осколок of the Kievan Rus that grew into the mighty Don Cossack Host. For example А еще известно, что Донские казаки в 1380 преподнесли князю Дмитрию Донскому накануне Куликовской битвы икону Божией Матери. So by that point the community was well known and significant. Zaporozhia had a few centuries to go...Also as for POV, then progenitors of Ukrainian nation is not? (I don't mean Zaporozhian Cossacks, I mean just Cossacks)--Kuban Cossack 17:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Somehow, that source sounds funny. So they presented him with an icon and stood by while the battle went on? That doesn't sound like Cossacks, I am sure they didn't even call themselves that. The word itself originates from the Tatar language, I find it mildly strange for them to be calling themselves Cossacks even before the first Cossack host was established on Khortysia. Anyway, there is a lot to do besides this. It is not important now. --Hillock65 18:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually they did call themselves Cossacks, after all the word comes from Circassia, not far from the Don,First six paragraphs. Fact is that Don Cossacks have existed since the fracturing of the Kievan Rus, yes long before Khortitsa. Don't ignore facts.--Kuban Cossack 09:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Kuban - you are reinventing history with your POV's based on myth and inuendo. Tell me another one. 19:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandurist (talk • contribs)

Per WP:NPA - Comment on the content not on contributor. --Kuban Cossack 09:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit, this is one of the wildest fringe theories about Cossacks I've heard so far. Please read this "research" carefully, they talk about Cossacks at the times of the Tatar-Mongol invasion. This is beyond rediculous and doesn't even merit a serious discussion. If it has appered in print, it doesn't mean it should be necessarily included in the article. Let's keep it scientific, which is a standard at Wikipedia. --Hillock65 13:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Rediculous or not, the earliest communities of Kos-saks did form out of fractures of Khazaria, Kievan Rus... True the lifestyle of the early Cossacks were not indeed steppe cavalry as we are familiar with (but then generally Cossack=cavalry is also a generalisation which is false). As for fringe theories, were you not the one who managed to convince everyone to keep a fringe theory 'bout Russians in Ukraine adopting Ukrainian identity, all you had was a single refrence, which unlike mine, was a mere hypothesis, whilst this is based on archeological and factual historical facts. --Kuban Cossack 13:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, then start a new article Kos-saks (fringe theory) and leave this one in peace. Whatever those people considered themselves, it has nothing to do with this article about Cossacks (mind you, not Kos-saks or Khazars). As far as other articles, raise your objections there — let's not start the blame game. If you introduce this nonsense to this article, I will have to get WP:Fringe theories involved. Let's concentrate on improving what we have, without inventing new stuff. --Hillock65 13:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to quote you: ... we only need to establish that the fact occurred. ... Please don't try to sidetrack the discussion if you don't have a counterargument, trust me these tricks won't work. Not with me.. I will look into it and draw more sources in due course. --Kuban Cossack 13:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to add something to the discussion, remember be civil, according to John Ure the first people that could be distinguished as Cossacks were the "Tartar gangs hired to fight against invading Tartar and Mongol gangs in the region south and east of the Kingdom of Kiev" -- Kieven Rus. And "by the middle of the fifteenth century the Turkish name "quzzags" had begun to emerge and later Casaques or Cossacks". By the beginning of the sixteenth century "two distinct type of Cossacks were identifiable:'service Cossacks' who acted as mercenaries and 'free Cossacks' who were a law unto themselves". I am not so sure that you can call this a "fringe theory" because I don't think it is non-mainstream. John Ure is a well respected author and historian and he contends that these people were the first Cossacks so I don't think it is fair to call it a fringe theory. It should be included that the first people recognized as Cossacks were from Kieven Rus and the like. ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 18:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, from what you have mentioned, it appears to be a completely different issue. We can talk about the use of word "Cossack" or to be more precise quzzags by other ethnic groups prior to the establishment of the first Cossack host behind the Dnieper rapids. That does not establish, however, a logical relation between the two. What we now understand as Cossacks can hardly be related to Tatars or other groups using the word, mere use of the word does not make them Cossacks in the conventional modern meaning of that word. This has to do with the origin of the name "Cossacks", not with the group of people itself. By the same token no one is talking about the Prussians as the German-speaking people of Prussia, who trace their origin in the Slavic tribes of the Baltics. Please consult the Encyclopedia Brittanica on what is a Cossack. Let's keep it academic and based on sound sources, not on hypothesis of some writers. --Hillock65 18:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Come to think of the Circassians, the word Казачьи Черкасы is something that you Hillock might be familiar with, after all how do you explain the name of Cherkassy and Novocherkassk? --Kuban Cossack 13:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but what does it have to do with this aticle or the topic of discussion? --Hillock65 15:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Because of the Circassian influence on the origin of the Cossacks. The fact that it came from Circassia through the Don and into the Lower Dnieper (and also eastwards towards the Yaik (modern Ural River). In fact I would like to draw your attention to this map here [3], note how Chernigov's principality controls a long stretch of land...along the Don river and Azov coast. Now do you understand how the Cossacks originated? (again we are talking about origins of the Cossacks, it would be a few centuries before they would become big players in Europe's geopolics Don in Russia, Dneiper in PLC) --Kuban Cossack 15:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Listen, you probably understood me wrong. I do not object and do not doubt that different groups of people influenced and contributed to the creation of the group of people we now call Cossacks. What I find strange, is calling groups of ethnically and culturally diverse people, who identified themselves alternatively either as quzzags or circassians or whatever else, as Cossacks. It is the same as calling Trypillians of Scythians as Ukrainians or Belarusians. Sure, they contributed in their own way to the creation of these two peoples but present it as if they evolved from Scythians into other nation is just as wrong as saying that Circassians evolved into Cossacks. Please note the difference between "contributed to" and "evolved into". --Hillock65 16:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You understood me wrong, the whole point is that some Circassians contributed to and evolved into early kossaks which would later themselves evolve into 14th century proto-Cossacks. Yes other ancient circassians went on to become the modern Cherkess, Adyge and Abkhzians (under influence of other groups or their mixtures). What I am trying to say was that the Cossack phenomena arose from fractures of different collapsing states and their mutual interaction. These were then fed by runway peasents and other groups which made whatever ethnicity these early Cossacks were - Slavic. It needs not a lot of text, but just a small paragraph would be enough. --Kuban Cossack 18:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, Circassian comes from an old Turkish term for cutthroat, so I imagine that Cossack usage was a bit like they used Quzaqq. AllenHansen (talk) 10:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

lead

Although it really does border on WP:LAME is there any particular reason why include Ukrainian prior to Russian? The word itslef is of Circassian origin. What is important is that I have suggested that if we write about the parrallel time periods with Ukrainian first, and then Russian, before re-unting them in 18th century, then we have Russian first, Ukrainain second in the lead? Would you like it vice versa, fine by me. --Kuban Cossack 14:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Was there any particular reason for you changing the status quo and starting the revert war? If you were concerned about this issue, you should have started the discussion instead of sneakily changing it.[4] You know better than that. Knowing your fabled aversion to anything Ukrainian, I do not insist on including any modern language pronunciation in the lead. Let's include the Tatar quazaq and leave it at that. The word originated from there, so let's remove politics from it. --Hillock65 15:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NCGN: quote:Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, R does come before U...:)--Kuban Cossack 20:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Besides the Russian name appeared before the Ukrainian one (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cossacks&diff=prev&oldid=138317157). So the status quo was changed to the Ukrainian-first version. Alæxis_¿question? 21:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

martial art

i would like to read about the martial art(s) developed by the Cossacks. I saw it performed in the Go Warrior TV show. Is this art different than systema? Tkjazzer (talk) 06:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It is stylized as a Cossack art, but was developed quite recently. There is very little about it here. There is more on the Ukrainian page of that article. --Hillock65 (talk) 12:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand the "ukranian page." Does that mean the Ukranian version of wikipedia? Thank you for your time. Should we link Combat Hopak in this article? Tkjazzer (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is Alexander Sidorov

A source attributed to this name was inserted in the article. I failed to find any information on this historian. There is however a Russian journalist Alexander Sidorov, purveyor of Russian slang. Can someone, please clarify? Thanks. --Hillock65 (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well with a surname that ranks in the top 10 common Russian surmanes and an equally common first name, I would think that narrowing down the amount of Sidorovs there are is quite an impossible task. Although the same site shows a number of his works [5]. How about adding refrence for the text you are reverting?--Kuban Cossack 17:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Then, perhaps you should call him by his present name Fima Zhiganets? I advise you to read again about WP:SOURCE and especially WP:V, please pay special attention to academic, published sources, not articles written by a journalist specializing in prison jargon. As to the other sources, given your tendency to support your POV statements with unknown and nonacademic sources, I have serious doubts about Shambarov source too. Would you care to provide more information? Thanks. --Hillock65 (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to be paranoid about sources, moreover it seems all of the text I insert you have to question, per WP:AX that is quite silly, moreover what is it exactly that you find POV in my additions? I think there is simple logic, the area was inhabited by different people prior to slavs moving there. Are you arguing now that the regions were unhabited and noone ever dwelled there, well there is certain archeological evidence that would dissapoint you there. Or just have a look at maps of 1st century all the way through to the 12th. In both cases you will find someone living there, and they were not Slavs. Now considering that it is geography and the enviroment that determines the lifestyle of the people there is nothing ORish or certainly POV here. --Kuban Cossack 17:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Please mind WP:NPA, consider this a warning. You are not new to WP and are quite aware that everything you insert into established articles have to be supported by published, academic sources. You instead, give reference to a prison jargon journalist, who happened to write an article on Don Cossacks. Once again, consult WP:V. As to the other source, I have no way of verifying it, so I tagged the section appropriately. Please do not insert fringe theories, or I will have to refer it to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. This article has been written by a number of editors using established academic sources. Now you are inserting fringe theories to suit your POV. Please do not wage revert wars. I know you feel energized after a lengthy break, but it was so peaceful in your absence. --Hillock65 (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Please mind WP:NPA yourself, and you failed to answer what exactly about my additions do you not like? What exactly do you consider fringe theory? Please point it out. --Kuban Cossack 18:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Where did you find an insult in my last post? Did I call you paranoid or was it you? As far as the fringe theories, please do not insert stuff about Kassogs or other ethnic groups. Their relation to Cossacks has to be established on the basis of respectable, published, academic sources, preferrably in English so they can be verified by other editors. According to all established literature, Cossacks do not represent a separate ethnic group and never have, they were comprised of many ethnicities who assumed this name later. --Hillock65 (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

http://cossackia.com/ its all there, published in 1968 in California... Happy? The word they use is Kassak, which Shambarov reffers as a version of the Circassian Kassog (also gives versions such as Kasag, Kazog etc.). There is no fringe theory in that, and yes it is true that the pre-mongolian groups were indeed a mixture. --Kuban Cossack 18:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Cossack stub

Would it make sense to have a Template:Cossack-stub? If so, it should be proposed at WP:STUBSORT.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives