Talk:Cossacks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Cossacks was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: October 7, 2007
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3


Contents

[edit] 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)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. 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)

[edit] Cossacks and Jews?

As a Jew (by birth rather than religion, of which I have none) I was astounded to see so little (only one fleeting reference) about the Cossack brutality toward Jews. I have a great deal of respect for the democratic aspects of Cossack society, but their role, under various regimes, in suppressing the democratic aspirations of other groups (including Jews) should have been described in more detail. I might add that, in the past, one of the most insulting things that a Jew could say about a person would be to call him a Cossack. Too Old 22:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In the context of the 15th-18th centuries, the Jews often served as middlemen between the oppressive landlords and the peasants, often working as tax collectors or some such jobs. This was not their choice, the laws forbade them from owning property and the Jews certainly did not create this system, they just survived in it. But when peasants and cossacks revolted, this frequently made the Jews a target of assault and they suffered significant casualties. You are correct that a heading belongs on this subject. Faustian 22:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I too was astonished to find only a single fleeting reference to this subject in both this article and History of the Cossacks. I haven't gone through the edit history, but I would not be surprised if there was material dealing with this subject that was removed at some point. In any event, the article is seriously defective without a section devoted to this issue. I hope it will be rectified sooner rather than later. Cgingold 12:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. The only thing I have ever heard before about Cossacks was about their brutality toward Jews. Cossack = pogrom in the Jewish family lexicon. I.e., "She has blue eyes because some Cossack made a pogrom on her great-grandmother." It was stunning to read that their popular image is a good one! To whom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.16.231 (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

So, you want to add a section on how Jews are prejudiced towards Cossacks? Fine, if you want to show that it is OK to prejudge the whole group of people based on the actions of the few, by all means add it. We can use it here or here or there.--Hillock65 (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
See Jewish Cossacks.Galassi (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That last comment is absurd - where did anyone suggest adding a section saying Jews are prejudiced towards Cossacks? I agree with the original comment in this heading - there should be at least some reference of substance to the Cossack role in Pogroms against the Jews. The contributor Fuastian, above, describes his perspective on how/why Jews were persecuted in the Pogroms - vis-a-vis his explanation of the role Jews played "...Jews often served as middlemen..." - this is the story line that anti-Jewish forces have tried to promulgate for centuries. I am not saying Faustian is conciously spewing disinformation, no - I am sure he believes the explanation to be true and wrote the above in good faith. In fact, the vast vast majority of Jews living in Russia, in the Cossack regions, including my grandfather's people, were peasant farmers not as middlemen, enforcers, tax-collectors, etc. There was a Jewish class of merchants and shopkeapers of course, and as now, a tiny minority of Jews who were active in the financial sectors - a TINY minority - the rest were simple dirt poor farmers and they were slaughtered for no reason other then that they were Jewish. To argue anything else is to validate and legitimize the ethnic cleansing, which is what a Pogrom is and which describes the motives of the perpetrators accurately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.79.22 (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ostap's edits

Ostap can I draw your attention to this dicussion here. Please read Irpen's comment at the end and then if you have any further wishing to re-start that topic please do so, but until then, I have nothing more to add. --Kuban Cossack 10:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The "discussion" was insulting ("Kozel-ks"), but I have lost interest anyway. Ostap 00:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cossacks in Azerbaijan

There are also Cossacks in Azerbaijan, this article could be used to build something upon this: http://today.az/news/politics/44265.html Baku87 (talk) 10:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cossacks in Ukraine

There are also Cossack organization in Ukraine : http://www.kozatstvo.kiev.ua/ ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.2.94.118 (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please an oranisation that claims itself as a Cossack is not the same as a true Cossack host. Does this organisation have any parallel civil administration and policing roles? Does this organisation have its own military units? Seriously don't pollute wikipedia with faeces like that. --Kuban Cossack 18:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Who decide what is true cossack and what is not???? It is you personnal point of view!!! Let Ukrainians have their own point of view... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.2.94.118 (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you did not understand what I said, there are Cossack organisations worldwide, some of whom have the most skeletal reference to real cossackdom. That website which has apart from a history section and why is Filaret's church legitimate (btw even Mazepa refused to break with the Russian Orthodoxy), has nothing about modern Ukrainian Cossackdom. Sure there are hundreds of organisations whose members never rode on horseback, never been in a real stanitsa, some probably did not even serve in the army, are claiming to be Cossacks for purely political reasons. Sure in Russia we also have these ryazhennye but one can easily tell them apart from real Cossacks, because they are individuals, whilst Cossacks are a combined ethno-cultural group of people. If you want to see what a true Cossack is travel out to the Don, Kuban or any other ethnic territory of the Cossacks and see how Cossack krugs operate, how a whole stanitsa decides on combined actions. How Cossacks have their own civil apparatus, including police. Furthermore the special units that are part of the Russian military are filled with Cossacks, and are effectively an integral part of Cossack life, they regularly take part in manuoevres, training, combat operations etc. I mean the Don Host have their own air force polks. Now that is true and real Cossackdom. What you have showed me from that website is a joke, please stop edit warring, or else I will ask for this article to be locked. --Kuban Cossack 19:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Moreover just what is modern Ukrainian Cossackdom? Where are the starshinas that will pass the traditions and culture as well as the shashkas to the young? --Kuban Cossack 20:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Why are you still referring to russian cossakc??? We are talking about ukrainian cossacks, their own tradition and so on.You talk abour Mazepa, I'll talk about Orlyk and his consitution which is the realk descent of ukrainian cossacks ... Did you just notice that President Youshchenko was given the hetman's bukava by Ukrainian cossacks??? It is not b/c russian cossacks do not recognize ukrainian oprganisation that they do not exist! Wikipedia is not russian cossack truth! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.249.80.121 (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Because so far only Russia has officially registered Cossack Hosts and ethnic Cossack land. Having a self-proclaimed organisation dressed up as clowns, hand over a piece of self-made replica of an ancient weapon to a president who was elected on a choreographed street demonstration rather than ballot paper is essentially off topic.--Kuban Cossack 00:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
One more thing : why should ukrainian cossakc belong to a russian movement???? Ukrainian cossack, (zaporozhian one) always choose their chief without any approval by any organisation ... As did Don Cossacks (except when they fall under tsarist power). You should not privatize cossack organization... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.249.80.121 (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, in that case why not include Kazakhstan (Semerechye and Ural Cossacks) or United States (diaspora there...), or Serbia and Bulgaria (main landing for Wrangel's exiled Volunteer Army which had a sizable Cossack contingent)? Or Abkhazia where my brother lives and is officially enlisted on the Cossack register there, or for that fact Pridnestrovye, Belarus (there are Cossacks there you know). If you want to make this article true and balanced, why are you only focused on the Ukrainian aspect of it? Well I invite you to read my comment below and then answer what happened to Zaporozhian Cossacks after 1775? Three got locked up and incarcerated where Kalnyshevsky's condition must have been so "terrible" that he lived to an age that is twice the modern life expectancy in Ukraine. About 12 thousand roamed about and then in 1787 formed the Host of the loyal Zaporozhians, later the Black Sea Host and in 1792 moved to the Kuban. Five thousand roamed around the lower Danube, formed the Danubian Sich by the Turkish Sultan, then in 1828 those loyal to Turkey got butchered up, and those loyal to themselves returned to Russia in 1828 moved to form the Azov Cossack Host and in 1862 moved to the Kuban. So by one path or another, all of the Zaporozhian Cossacks ended up in the Kuban. I myself can trace my roots to the original settlers of 1792. What was Ukraine left with, just peasants. If Kazakhstan decided to all of a sudden recognise official Hosts in the Seven River region and on the Ural River, then we could rightfully include Kazakhstan in the sentence, irrespective of what loyalty these people have. Yet Ukraine only has one such ethnic Cossack region and that is a far corner of Lugansk Oblast however I doubt that the political views of the Don Cossacks living there would agree with the sentiments that your dubious website is trying to push, particularly the religious part, as the UOC-KP has barely any parishes in Lugan'. --Kuban Cossack 00:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Kuban kazak, stop referring to things as "faeces". Ostap 19:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well why bother calling them things that they are not? I like to call things the way they are! --Kuban Cossack 20:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Moreover unlike a unified system of Cossack Hosts which are recognised by the state we have: ru:Украинское реестровое казачество (and on whose register are they?), ru:Казаческое войско имени гетмана Мазепы (even better, their main role is to highlight the life of a getman who lost...). At the same time we have Союз Верных казаков. That host is actually recognised by the Russian Union of Cossacks, but as an organisation, not a host, and their Cossacks do recieve training and support by us, but again, even I don't consider them real in the sense of their everyday activity. Now unlike the link I was given by the anon, these are real organisations not virtual, but they are still organisations, not hosts. In Russia, Cossacks are viewed as a separate ethnic group, and their culture is provided with national autonomy. --Kuban Cossack 20:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Lets keep this simple. You yourself admitted that Cossacks still live in the Luhansk oblast of Ukraine. Correct me if I am wrong, but Ukraine is a sovereign state, not part of Russia. As such, Cossacks still live in Ukraine. Now you may say they are loyal to Russia, part of the Don Host, and de facto Russian military, but, aside from being slightly ORish, this does not change the fact that they live in Ukraine. This really seems quite simple, don't make it harder than it is. Ostap 21:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok lets keep it simple, how many Cossacks are there in Russia? Well it is estimated that aprox. 7 million have Cossack Heritage, it is also true there are more than a two million people who live in traditional Cossack stanitsas, who take active part in the Russian Cossack service, and who are officialy enlisted as Cossacks. So why does the Russian census of 2002 only recorded 140,028 people? Because Cossackdom was an ethnic and social status. Thus for one to be labelled as a Cossack, you had to be of both descent and be officially enlisted in an official Cossack Host (not some neo-nationalist organisation). Now I remember the 2002 census, I had a friend of mine from my stanitsa, who lives in Moscow share his story when they came about and he proudly announced that he is a Cossack, and wanted to be labeled as such...showed his birth certificate, and when asked to provide official service identification he, upon not having any was politely denied. Even more startling happened in our home stanitsa, in particular our Ataman, now of all the people, someone who has served the whole of Afghanistan, a Hero of the Soviet Union, apart form countless other medals and awards, retired air force colonel...It says the least that we are proud of having such a leader. Dances lezginka like a true Gorets, in saddle he is born, knows all of our Cossack songs by heart. Each time a krug elects a new Ataman and he wins, NONE of the starshinas abstain or even veto the stanitsas decision. Yet, he is not a native Cossack, his roots go into every other people who were forced to re-settled in the 101 km bounds during the 50s, and hence his mother picked our stanitsa, Varenikovskaya to settle in. He was already six when he moved in in 1958. Now imagine an Ataman of a large stanitsa be told he is not going to be written in as a Cossack... Yet strictly speaking he is not. To be a Cossack you must satisfy both criterions. That way it is a very useful filter to really remove all of the Ryazhennye. Now then where were we? As far as I know in Ukraine Cossacks are not even considered a minority, I know that for a fact that in Lugansk (a very small strip of land, that is now almost totally deprived of stanitsas) the Cossacks exist only on support they get from Novocherkassk, but they certainly don't carry out any of the official duties their brethen do across the borders. So you got the ethnic part, but no social one. So strictly speaking they are not Cossacks
Now what is strictly speaking, well because for the sake of the article, we are not discussing individuals and their chosen lifestyle, we are classing a whole nationality that is defined by its ethnic and social criteria. Yet how can Ukraine have this if a) apart from its Don territory it has no ethnic Cossack regions b) it has no official register on Cossack service, in fact it has nothing about Cossack service. Once again I must stress that self-proclaimed organisations are not the same as Cossack Hosts. Which is why there are no Ukrainian Cossacks right now. --Kuban Cossack 00:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This is one of the differences : Cossack from Ukraine never claimed to be from a specific ethnicity, in Ukraine Cossacks always was and is a social status... Cossacks ethnicity is an invention from cossacks of Russia to have a difference with mouzhyk from imperial Russia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.43.24 (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Well Cossacks in Russia never themselves claimed separate ethnicity, but they were certainly different in lifestyle from a simple peasant living in an Izba, just like a Zaporozhian would be noticeably different than a peasent living in a khata. Point is fast forward 250 years and Russian Cossacks still live in stanitsas, and the Ukrainian "Cossacks" wake up in their Soviet-built apartments, go to their average job, and only afterwards put on their sharovars and go out on the streets wave a few banners and then go home to their apartments... Sorry my friend, but that is the exact same behaivour you would see from a Ryazhenny in Russia. You can make an article about self claimed Cossacks, to explain this "hobby" for some minded people in Russia and Ukraine, but its important that you do not call them Cossacks, compared to those who live a separate cultural and military lifestyle. --Kuban Cossack 18:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, this discussion seems to be pointless. There are Cossacks in Ukraine. Period. Whether they are organized into a host or otherwise is beyond the scope of this article. If anyone wishes to dwell in more detail about Cossack organizations in Ukraine, that can be done in correspodning articles. Secondly, let's stick to the point of discussion, Kuban's views on Cossacks in Ukraine are irrelevant as are irrelevant other people's views on people in Russia who in spite of Catherine II's manifesto, which prohibited it, still consider themselves Cossacks. If sources mention about modern Cossacks in Ukraine, irrelevant of what some may think of them, this should be reflected in the article. --Hillock65 (talk) 01:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the scope of this article is to describe the Cossacks as they are, not as they were that was the point of the introduction sentence. Sorry, but unless you want to expand the list and include all of the countries which have Cossack organisations (Belarus, Uzbekistan, Abkhazia, Serbia, USA etc.) then the only way to condense it is to include all of the Cossacks that are both social and ethnic. I don't know what Cathrine's manifesto has to do with this, as it only affected the Zaporozhian Cossacks, and indeed ten years later she issues another one, which effectively reverses its terms, yet as you say that is indeed irrelevant.
Point is prior to the Russian revolution, there were 11 hosts :Don, Kuban, Ural, Terek, Astrakhan, Orenburg, Siberian, Baikal, Amur, Semirechensk and Ussuri. The regions which they compactly lived in are considered ethnic Cossack territory. If you are a native of the named territories, irrespective of your career choice and where you choose to re-locate, you can still consider yourself filling the ethnic criterion of the Cossack. The modern Russian law has ten Hosts organised on the territory of the RF: [1]. If you are a member of any of those hosts, irrespective of your background you fulfill the social criterion. If you fulfill both criterions, then you are definitely 100% Cossack. Period. Now for the information of everyone, the Cossack Host themselves do not necessary have to agree with what Moscow throws at them (fair enough) which is why the Don Host maintains a district in Ukraine, much like the Kuban Host maintains a district in Abkhazia. Now in Ukraine, there are of course self-proclaimed organisations on all sides of the political spectrum, yet they are not Cossacks in the definition of Cossackdom, because they are not a traditional community. If they don't even have stanitsas in Ukraine (apart from Lugansk Oblast again) where is the base of knowledge, people, culture, tradition and closed community going to come from? Like you said there are also Ryazhennye in Russia, random men who put on silly uniforms, fake medals and go around Moscow acting like clowns, I would never consider them Cossacks, much like I don't consider any members of Cossack organisations in Ukraine to be Cossacks. Honestly there are differences between this clown and these Cossacks (even better example) that go beyond their uniform and political motive. --Kuban Cossack 02:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have put a footnote summarizing the discussion: Ukraine at present has no cossack hosts but a number of cossack organizations. BTW should we put a similar note to Kazakhstan? Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that Kuban Cossack has a gift to turn discussions personal. There is no need to call other Cossacks clowns, that only takes the discussion in the wrong direction. While I agree with Alex's compromise I have to stress that lackeys to the Russian tsars, who against the will of their empress still call themselves Cossacks will not be setting the criteria for who should be considered a Cossack. Please keep your insulting characterization to yourself. As far as I am concerned, this issue is closed. --Hillock65 (talk) 06:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Hillock, but I am afraid that if in Ukraine there were serious about making Cossackdom back, they might set their own criteria, but at least it will form a visible part of Ukrainian society, e.g. reforming the military into a Cossack Sich or the like. Likewise Astana might also agree to create a border guard out of the Ural territory in the north west and the Seven-River territory in the east, out of the existing Cossack organisations there. Yet that has not happened. So far Russian and only Russia has Cossacks, and yes Cossacks do set their own criteria nothing wrong with that, and no please get your history correct Cathrine's manifesto only affected one Host (by that time there were five other Hosts in Russia), which ten years later was reversed, stop inserting disinformation. Also how can one be a lackey, if the closest Cossack settlement to Saint Petersburg was thousand kilometres away? Don't be silly and arrogant!--Kuban Cossack 13:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The issue settled?

I was under the impression that Alex's compromise brought this issue to a solution. Apparently I was wrong as some people are itching for revert war over one silly word (historically). Let's agree to differ, the facts are there that there are modern Cossacks in Ukraine. They may not be up to your standards, bu they are there, let's agree on that. That measely word is not worth starting the revert war over. I propose we revert to Alex's compromise version. A compromise is better than a revert war, everyone has to make concessions.--Hillock65 (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

They are Cossacks just as much as I would be a cowboy if I wished to become one w/o moving to south-western America. They are not Cossacks! So let's agree to disagree. Since you so want a compromise, I propose this one here [2]. Less clutter in the lead. In the meantime I await a similar gesture at our still unsettled dispute at Zaporozhian Cossacks? --Kuban Cossack 16:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You are trying to push your POV as to who is a Cossack or not. This is not going to work. There was made an honest effort by an admin to find a compromise, I agreed with it. It is you who stalls the progress, refuses to compormise and creates a problem. You leave me no recourse but to tag the whole article as NPOV. I hope you will change your mind and revert to a compromise version. As far as the Zaporozhian Cossacks goes, I don't see any compromise being offered. As of now there is no concensus on the course of action. If you have a proposition, I would be glad to consider it at the appropriate talk page. --Hillock65 (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
No Hillock, it is you, or should I say an anon who is trying to push a POV into the article, there has been standing consensus for two years. Ostap decided to challenge it I pointed him to it he said he lost interest, than an anon account based on a very dubious website (which apart from a clickable map of Ukraine and some UOC-KP refrence bears no information on activity of modern Ukrainian "Cossacks"). So sorry Hillock, but all I am seeing is you trying to defend what is a silly WP:POINT attempt by going "enemy of my enemy is my friend" and instead of realistically considering the arguments made by me you continue to grind after the initial perpetrators have long moved on. Why? Reminds all to well on how you alone kept the Podilsko-Voskresenska Line dispute going long after its initial editor has lost interest. So before we continue can I ask you what are you after here? And no I will not revert because I have since re-wrote the lead completely and have attempted to highlight the difference in modern Russian Cossacks and the so-called "Cossacks" of Ukraine (and other regions). Now I am actually giving you an offer, either to restore the old consensus that was in place for two years or we simply make the statement general as it is right now, which I actually now favour even more as in interest of making the lead more general its best not to go into Cossack Hosts and organisations in the first sentence of the article. Your call, accept and move on, or be a stubborn and continue a debate which you yourself have named pointless. Question is, do you really want another debate that will run until a third party comes along? Oh I before you cite your favourite policy (which you yourself ignore) I should tell you that commenting on the contributor is valid in this case, since the contributor refused to accommodate the arguments given by his opponent... Regards. --Kuban Cossack 18:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You apparently fail to notice that until I came along, there was a revert-war going on with your active participation. It appears, some editors disagree with the way the lead is written. For me those arguments are worth listening to, unlike you, I don't OWN this article. WP is collaborative project, people get together to decide the course of action. That said, I corrected the last sentence of the lead to remove POV and hope you will find it a compromise and close this silly debate.--Hillock65 (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I also noticed that you took special care to extinguish the mere mentioning of Ukraine from the lead. What a fresh approach! I wish you would stop making it an article about Russian Cossacks. Removing every mentioning of Ukraine, where Cossacks are considered to be the progenitors of the Ukrainian nation, will not work. I wish you'd start listening to other editors and stop treating it like your OWN little essay. Doing so would be very counterproductive and will lead to nothing good. --Hillock65 (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Hillock, Ukraine is mentioned where it belongs. Also explain why you changed Eventually Cossacks became guardians of ethnic and state boundaries. to Eventually Cossacks became guardians of an embyonic Ukrainian state. Is that not a POV and historical OWNnership of a whole topic? The Cossacks of Zaporozhia have their own paragraph, if you want to put a one sentance condensation of the Legacy section of their parent article be my guest. The last section does not reflect a POV, it reflects the truth about modern "Cossacks" of Ukraine. Feel free to expand on the topic at the respective section of this article or in fact create your own article on modern Ukrainian Cossacks and we'll see how that goes dow
I see that you are bent on escalating the revert war. I will not be dragged in. I tagged the article. One sided, Russian nationalist version of the lead will not work. --Hillock65 (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
No Hillock, the article was fine before it was molested by one sided Ukrainian nationalists, which clearly evident by your comments. --Kuban Cossack 23:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the Alex solution here worked, before the article was molested by Russian nationalists. Assuming were still talking about that dispute and not another one. Ostap 00:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Issues with the article

It seems that the lead has been monopolized by some users in order to push one-sided POV. As of now I see the following problems with the article:

  1. A special care has been taken to eradicate any mentioning of Ukraine in the lead, while their role as "an integral part of Russian society" is featured prominently. I don't object to those in Russia who continue to call themselves Cossacks being featured in the lead, but not to the complete exclusion of Cossacks being an integral part of Ukrainian history.
  2. Contrary to well-known sources it is not Ukrainian serfs who made up the bulk of the Cossacks in the middle ages, but curiously Ruthenians. Again the same is not applied to Russians, but only to Ukrainians.
  3. Curiously the destruction of the Zaporozhian Sich is termed as an absorption, again, contrary to the known sources.
  4. The lead also conveniently omits active collaboration of many Russian Cossacks with the Nazis.
  5. A one sided view is impressed that only Russian Cossacks are somehow true Cossacks, while others only "claim to be".

This one sided monopolization of the lead is unacceptable as it not only distorts and purposfully omitts important facts but is heavily laden with one sided POV. This is a collaborative project, consensus should be sought, opinions of other editors should be taken into account. I urge other users to voice their opinions so that a consensus on the lead can be reached. Views of every single user are important, as again, this is a collaborative project. Please speak up. We don't need another revert war. Let's look for a compromise. --Hillock65 (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  1. The topic does not omit Ukraine from the lead, it has a distinct paragraph on the Cossacks of Zaporozhia and their impact on European Politics in the 16-18th century.
  2. Contrary to the dubious Encyclopedia of Ukraine which can't even spell Sevastopol correctly, the Ukrainian ethnicity came about only in the first quarter of the 20-th century, incidentally the serfs fleeing from Russia to the Don and from Poland to Ukraine also never questioned their ethnicity, if you like I can replace Ruthenian (the historic name which applies to them) with East Slavic.
  3. Actually the 1775 event is specifically covered as an example of what happened to Cossacks when they got to irritant to the Russian state, it fits perfectly in the context
  4. Why would it not then state on how the fate of the Cossacks at Lienz was tragic? Again misinformation inserted by Ukrainian nationalists who wish to discredit the volume of Russian Cossack history is much greater than theirs, which ended 233 years ago...
  5. Well again it provides examples how the historically traditional way of Cossack life has been restored in Russia. Whereas other places that are void of their Cossack population have taken no steps in restoring the way of life that they once shared.
The current article is not a monopolization, but instead a realistic and honest portrayal, free from nationalist revisionist claims. Moreover for two years there has been a steady consensus and the article lead remained unchanged. Up until a few users carefully coordinated and attack to POV the article in their favour. --Kuban Cossack 00:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  1. Please have a look at the lead. Of 10 paragraphs, only once at the last 10th mentions Ukraine by name and also with that POV "claims to be". Is that an example of Ukraine not excluded? I counted, by comparison Russia is mentioned by name 14 times - 13 times more than Ukraine! Is that an example of objectivity?
  2. They still came from Ukraine and considered world-wide as Ukrainian Cossacks, yet you specifically bring in Ruthenians to exclude Ukrainians from history.
  3. If they became an irritant, why is that dance with "absorption"? Why not tell frankly, the Sich was destroyed and they were disbanded?
  4. You are pushing your POV of only Russian Cossacks being "real" Cossacks, which cannot be further from the truth. The fact remains, there are modern Cossacks in Ukraine and elsewhere. You cannot discard them as not real, what if someone applied the same logic to the lackeys of the empire, who curiously still call themselves Cossacks in Russia?

Look, no one objects to you featuring the resergence of Cossack life in Russia. But that does not and will not mean that this will be done at complete exclusion of Ukrainians from Cossack history. --Hillock65 (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  1. Nine paragraphs, of which six can apply to Ukraine, five indirectly one directly. Same way that out of nine paragraphs eight can capply to Russia, five indirectly, three directly, which is fair because Russian Cossackdom has two centuries (and counting) of history more.
  2. Who comes from Ukraine? Who are reffering to the paragraph is to illustrate a parallel situation in both Zaporozhia and Don, what's wrong with that?
  3. I expanded the paragraph, the Cossacks were first stripped of their Cossack status, but then re-created under different circumstances. Any problem with that?
  4. That is not a POV, that is something that one can see per WP:COMMONSENSE, and if you like ask for a third opinion on this (but one from a truly independent source), there is a difference between a political organisation and a Cossack Host, which has social autonomy, parallel civil administration, an actual home region, distinct military units in the armed forces etc. What do Ukrainian Cossacks have that ordinary Ukrainian citizens don't? How is their lifestyle different from that of ordinary Ukrainian? Where are their home stanitsas/kurens? Do the settlements include starshinas, women, children? Is the community affirmed by the Ukrainian state, have they any role to play in the Ukrainian affairs? Sources that come with answers are welcomed, and don't use that dodgy website, find something else. --Kuban Cossack 10:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Ukraine must be mentioned in the lead. Whether some like it or not, the role of Cossacks in Ukraine's history and culture is of high importance, and its idiotic to relegate it to comparison with Cossack organizations in the US and Serbia. Ostap 00:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
So is having the following paragraph in the lead an act of omitting Ukraine?
“ The other main Cossack group was the Zaporozhian Host which formed at similar times as the Don, but grew on to organise its own republic the Cossack Hetmanate initially a vassal of Poland–Lithuania. Their prominence peaked in the mid-17th century when Bohdan Khmelnytsky uprose the Cossacks in a great revolt against the Commonwealth, shaking the geopolitical foundations of eastern Europe.[1][2][3][4]. To ensure that Poland-Lithuania would never recover from the defeat, Khmelnytsky signed the Treaty of Pereyaslavl with Russia. ”
Does the fact that the article mentions Ivan Mazepa and the 1775 end of the Ukrainian Cossackdom a sign of omission? Incidentally it does not mention the modern Russian Federation up until the very end. Your accusations are as dubious as the fact that your edit pattern to this article happens within minutes of one another with no interim edits in several hour space in between. --Kuban Cossack 00:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll take that as an admission of WP:STALKing. Trying to portray others as "dubious" certainly won't help your case. As far as I am concerned, all the problems my sock puppet Hillock brought up remain unanswered, and cries of Ukrainian nationalist revisionism only makes you look like a moron. Ostap 01:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Looking at a contribution list is not exactly prohibited, following the contributor around is. Since I don't wander off at another article such as the one-sided Racism in Ukraine (Having neo-nazi groups in the south-east and yet forgetting that organisations glorifying SS Galizien exist in the west discredits it as objective, yet still I am not involved there, are you "inviting" me to participate?). As for nationalists well who used the word first, yet you will not see me bitching about Personal Attacks, the moment someone even blows on that "editor" in any particular way let alone calling him a moron, although for the record, your remark applies there as well. --Kuban Cossack 10:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, let's have a look, the above paragraph mentions by name Russians (of course!) Poles, and Don Cossacks. Not a word about Ukrainians. Not a single one! And this tip of the iceberg of POV pushing only shows the agenda to monopolise the history and exclude Ukrainians from Cossack history altogether! This cannot and will not be allowed. --Hillock65 (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok lest dissect the lead then:
First paragraph, most general introduction does not specify any regions applies historically as it does in modern terms.
Second paragraph, a general explanation that there are different Cossack groups, each unique as the next one. I gave two examples, one of an extinct Cossack Host which was formed out of Danubian Sich Cossacks, the other of a Russian Cossack Host. Again nothing that I don't see unfair
Third one: Very general summary of how Cossacks formed, this includes both Don and Zaporozhia, since their formation goes very parallel to each other. I used the word Ruthenian to indicate that in both cases of Poland and Russia, Cossacks were fleeing their owners to the two respective regions. If you don't like it, I don't mind replacing it by East Slavic, although I should just mention it that in the former case you had a wealth of Belorussians in addition to Ukrainians, so why can't we be fair to your brothers?
Fourth paragraph history of the Russian Cossacks prior to the 18th century, speaks for itself
Fifth paragraph history of Ukrainian Cossacks prior to the 18th century.
Sixth paragraph history of both Cossack groups during the 18th century.
So just a little note there, the sixth paragraph finishes at 1775, so up until that five of the six paragraphs can apply to Zaporozhia as they can to all the other Cossack Hosts in existence prior to that date
Seventh paragraph describes what the Cossacks have become in the 19th century, sorry by that point Zaporozhia was non-existant.
Eighth paragraph the fate of the Cossacks in the 20th century, same argument about Zaporozhia as before.
Ninth paragraph about modern Cossacks, and the great lengths that Cossackdom has traveled in Russia in the past two decades, and the pity progress it has made in Ukraine by forming half a dozen semi-nationalist organisations. I am only being objective.
So out of the nine paragraphs, six can apply to Ukraine, eight can apply to Russian Cossackdom. Considering we have managed to crunch through 7 centuries of history, I don't see how the smaller proportion that Ukrainian Cossackdom recieves is unfair because in the last two centuries the Ukrainian Cossackdom was non-existant. By tampering with this proportion, or downplaying important developments in Russian Cossackdom you are violating WP:UNDUE. --Kuban Cossack 10:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The lead

I see that you are itching for a confrontation. I was expecting an addition or correction but you have competely reverted my version. That doesn't sound like an honest, workable approach. You didn't even bother to note your objections. Reverting text will not help. Compromise is the solution. Reverting the text is not the way to compromise. --Hillock65 (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Then why have you reverted here? As for itching, then again let I remind you that the article was fine the way it was for two years before you came along... Also if you have noticed I took steps to incorporate some of your edits into the article with which I agree and comfortable to compromise on, why have you not even responded to my comments above? Why don't you compomise on my suggestion above? --Kuban Cossack 15:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I reverted because your version didn't offer anything new. It's a non-starter. To reach an acceptable version of the lead we need an exchange of ideas and a variety of options. You just reverted wholesale and didn't offer anything in return. This is not going to work. If you are still labouring under the impression that your meatpuppet's reverts will help, you are mistaken. This is a road to confrontation and protracted revert war. You of all people should know that reverting pages will not work, never has. For the record, I offered a compromise verision - by reverting it you rejected an offer to look for compromise, so be ready to accept responsibility for what happens later. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh please, you know well that the revert war could have been avoided if we kept the article as it was for two years, yet your meatpuppets refused to accept the past consensus, so if anything this confrontation is of your doing. Once again above you can see my reasoning of the nine paragraphs, which I laid out, unlike you who re-wrote the lead to your liking without waiting for consensus. Yes I reject your version because it is one-sided and gives WP:UNDUE portrayal of only one Cossack group which happens to be gone for 233 years now. I tried to modify my version to further appease your liking yet you reject it by reverting, and by talking of a revert war you are openly admitting your participation in it, as well as your responsibility of starting it. I asked you above what are you trying to achieve here? I hope you are happy with the results we have so far. --Kuban Cossack 16:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, Kuban Cossack does not and will not have a monopoly over what the lead in this article should look like. I am asking other editors to compare the two versions and offer their views on the lead. Maybe a consensus can be reached with participation of other interested editors. Please offer your suggestions. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I think that people should not limit themselves with two versions and instead take their time to review the arguments made above and rightfully discredit one version of being a WP:POINT and WP:UNDUE violation. The fact that people are accusing me of a monopoly sounds very much on what exactly they wish to obtain, for reference feel free to review their previous attempts at the talk pages of Zaporozhian Cossacks, Russians in Ukraine and Ukrainians in Russia as well as many other examples I can readily provide. --Kuban Cossack 16:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Where is the evidence of me looking for monopoly? I retained 80% of the text of the lead from your version, you instead reverted it completely. Your only objection was that too much emphasis was on Zaporozhian Cossacks. Did you correct it? No you reverted the whole page completely. You also reverted important parts about the Cossack experience in state-building — the Cossack Hetmanate, WWII which you conveniently omitted and much more. I am not pushing my verison, I am looking for a compromise version and am ready to make concessions. It is you who stubbornly sticks even to grammar mistakes to preserve your POV.--Hillock65 (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok in that case, when I restored my version I accommodated some of your changes, when you did so you just reverted. As for grammar mistakes, second paragraph of your version, punctuation. For the record why did you omit the paragraph about the whole 18th century: Bulavin, Mazepa Pugachev? What exactly is wrong in World War II with the current version it states they fought on both sides and that the Nazi collaborators' fate was tragic. Hetmanate is mentioned in my version, although in the correct time frame as the Hetmanate was not formed after 1654 but in 1506, 150 years prior ref, it was after 1663 that the Hetmanate was split into right and left bank Ukraines which were in turn abolished in 1714 and 1723 respectfully. The administration was already fully integrated into the Russian Empire by that point, although several people held the Getman title afterwards right until 1764. Now why did I wish to keep the 18th century in the same paragraph, well did you know that after Pugachevshina, at the end of 1775, the formerly independent Yaik Cossack Host was also fully subjected into the Russian Empire, its open krugs were forbidden and elected atamans became appointed, and it was renamed as the Ural Cossack Host. Powerful people btw, during the Russian Civil War they equally held out against Bolshevism, the famous Chapayev was killed there. Old Believers, just like the Terek Cossacks. Now their territory is part of Kazakhstan...and unlike Ukraine, whose Cossacks left for other regions, here the Ural Cossack descendants still live there, but despite having some organisations they have no autonomy, no military units and no dual administration. Through the eyes of Astana they are just ordinary people like every other citizen in Kazakhstan. --Kuban Cossack 17:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Come on, this is not serious. You call the three measly sentences that you changed completely an "accomodation"? You removed completely whole chunks of the text without any regard for other editor. None of the neutral text was preserved, you left only what suited your POV. This is not a workable approach. If you are interested in Cossack Hetmanate, read the article. It starts in 1649, was an important event in Cossack state building. I understand that everything remotely connected to Ukraine, its name or its history probably causes an allergic reaction with you, but you don't own this article. Never have and never will. There just as many important events in Cossack history before they started to serve the empire, I am not trying to shift balance to that period. There is a limit of what is to be written in the lead. Please familiarize yourself with what a WP:LEAD should look like: It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article. I highlighted in bold the parts you should pay attention to. --Hillock65 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Well those are the edits I agree with, now WP:LEAD is indeed a guideline and we can indeed merge some paragraphs, which I did. So far they stand at seven paragraphs. Thats to the topic. Sorry Hillock, but your text is far from being neutral, driving the Poles out of the country (Sizeble Polish minority existed in Ukraine right up until mid 20th century, and there was no country then...) . If you are not trying to shift the balance then why did you distort the third paragraph and make it fully Ukraino-centric? It was never meant to be focused on either Don or Zaporozhia but both of them. Hetmanate was started in 1649? Well how come then the first Hetmans were in existance long before e.g. Dmytro Vyshnevetsky, Petro Konashevych-Sahaidachny? Like it or not, but the Cossack state was established by Poland as a way of spreading her influence over Cossacks, the plan did backfire, but only 150 years later. --Kuban Cossack 01:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Look, I am not going to lecture you on Ukrainian history - get a book. The first Ukrainian Cossack state was founded by Bohdan Khmelnytsky in 1949 and it was based on Cossack military structure. Ukraine was divided into regiments and polkovnyks were placed as heads of districts. That is common knowledge. We don't need anything else in the lead.--Hillock65 (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise attempt # 2

According to the above criteria of WP:LEAD it should contain no more than four paragraphs. Could you please list in point form the events that should be covered in concise form in 4 paragraphs? Here is my version:

  1. Origins of Cossacks and Zaporozian Sich
  2. Cossack Hetmanate
  3. New hosts (Kuban Host)
  4. Caucasus War, Napoleon
  5. Civil War and WWII
  6. Modern Cossacks

Hope you can come up with your list and we can move towards a compromise version of the lead, that is if you show a genuine interest in compromise. --Hillock65 (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure,
  1. General info about Cossacks (right now instead of two paragraphs I condensed them to one)
  2. We need to outline that by the end of the 15th century there were two distinct Cossack groups, Don and Zapor.
  3. Explain the Don Cossack role in the transformation of the small and weak Muscovy into the strong and powerful Tsardom of Russia in the 16th, 17th centuries.
  4. Expalin the Zaporozhian Cossacks role in the transformation of the strong and powerful Poland-Lithuania into a small and weak Rzeczpospolita in the 17-th century
  5. How in the 18th century the Russian Empire absorbed the Cossacks in carefully coordinated steps, and how by the 19th century they have become a loyal force and a sterotype of Russia (formerly in two paragraphs now condensed into one)
  6. The fate of the Cossacks in the 20th century
  7. Modern Cossacks.
Seven paragraphs so far. --Kuban Cossack 01:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get too verbose. The lead is supposed to be no more than 4 paragraphs. That's the WP rule, read for yourself. There is no compromise over breaking WP:LEAD rules. Second of all. Zap Cossacks' role in the history of Ukraine is far greater than that of Don Cossacks in the history of Russia. Zap Cossacks redrew the map of the Eastern Europe - you cannot compare that with Stenka Razin and the lot. I think a sentence of two is all we need. Please don't try to push that rubbish with "absorbed in carefully coordinated steps". That is a non-starter and a compromise breaker dead-on. You can talk about how hosts were recreated when Zap Sich was destroyed, but trying to pull that stuff with absorption will destroy the tenuous compromise that we are slowly moving towards. Let's keep POV characterization out, I am not insisting on persecution and repressions against Cossack starshina and you please stay away from absorption and other weasel words. The Sich was destroyed, new hosts were founded (both of which are facts), we don't need to fight over whether it was reprssion or absorption, wrong or right. I also suggest we stay away from characterizing modern Cossacks one way or the other. They are less numerous and not organized in hosts like in Russia, and that is all we need to know. Let's keep it neutral and concise. --Hillock65 (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually you are quite wrong, thanks to Cossacks of the Don, the whole of Siberia was colonised (Yermak) and to think it was a peaceful expedition is also a grave mistake, the whole Siberian horde had to be defeated. Alaska was first settled by whom? Cossacks. Zap Cossacks might have redrew the borders of Eastern Europe, Don Cossacks - of the world, you are quite right that you can't compare that with a tiny border change in the southwest, yet I am not giving them excessive coverage, in fact Siberia is mentioned only in a list. Same way the Volga Cossacks (a historic branch of the Don Cossack Host) was formed, and how did the Tsardom of Russia managed to have the security to grow and develop? Zasechnaya cherta is the answer, cities of Samara, Tsaritsyn were founded to guards from the Nogays and Crimeans, and like in case of Siberia, the Terek Cossack Host was an expedition after Astrakhan fell to secure the footholds. So you were talking about redrawing borders, need I provide a map to show just how much area was changed by actions of the Zapors versus actions of the hosts Don and other hosts? In fact Sloboda Ukaine was exactly a way of extending the Cherta's further south and it was thanks to Peter I that he passed several of the regiments stationed there to Mazepa before that fellow back-stabbed him... Maybe its something to mention, but recently all of the historic regalia of the Kuban Cossack Host, that inherited all of the Zaporozhian reglia as well was returned to Krasnodar property of the modern Kuban Host. Some Ukrainian politicians wanted to intercept the transfer and demand that some of the items are Ukraine's property, to which our Supreme Ataman Vladimir Gromov politely replied that if Ukraine wishes to chase up historic artifacts that would belong to her, it should approach Sweden where Mazepa finished his days. Which brings me to say that after the Battle of Poltava, the Zapors were effectively part of Russia as any further concessions that were made to them (such as the re-establishment of the Sich) was done in such a way under tight control, same with the Hetmans. By the end of the 18th century after Crimean khanate was gone, and PLC was about to be partioned the need for them vanished altogether.
Now that said lets get back to the article, I feel that either we break the four paragraph limit (again WP:LEAD is after all a guideline not a policy, i.e. suitable exceptions can rightfully exist, and do exist, particularly for an article this big). Well take my version so far as the next step forward. --Kuban Cossack 00:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Well don't ask how I did it but I managed to cut it down to five now. I have decided that if we want to save continuity why not describe Zaporozhians first and be done with them, and then describe the rest of the Cossack Hosts. So its five paragraphs now, and now its a case of working on what we can throw out and what we must leave in. Can I ask you to have a loot at my present version and instead of reverting, point out what else would you like to see included, and removed? Hopefully the latter list is going to be fuller. --Kuban Cossack 01:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to confess, I haven't finished reading your long preceeding message. Imperial version on history doesn't interest me. Can we agree to differ and skip the lectures?

  1. Please don't lecture me on imperial history again. I hope you know by now that you will never persuade me. Ever. So, let's not waste time and focus on the content of the lead instead.
  2. You are wrong about the Cossack Hetmanate, please consult the article and sources, it was never subordinate to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It was founded in 1648 [3].
  3. Inserting POV characterizations like "betrayed" is a compromise breaker. I am not inserting POV characterizations of Russia's brutal occupation, colonization and assimilation of Ukraine, so please do me a favour - reciprocate.
  4. I ammended my version. As of now of the 4 paragraphs the 2 and 3 are the most contentious. Let's work out the differences there. I stress again - it can only happen if we stay away from loaded POV characterization of each other's history.
  5. So far, I am content with the paragraph about Don Cossacks although I do think it is too verbose and goes into too much detail for a lead. As of now it is twice as large as the part about Zap Cossacks. Could you, please remove non-essential characterizations to shorten the lead?
  6. Overall I am happy that we are slowly moving towards a compromise version. --Hillock65 (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
It a shame, because if you don't have patience to listen to your opponent and understand him, how are you ever going to achieve a compomise with him? Now really your version of history: occupation, assimilation and so on are just as silly as would be that all the Zaporozhian Cossacks were so (un)happy with the Muscovite allies authorities that they sat around on their rears for two centuries and did not put up a single fight. For the record my version of history is neither Imperial nor POV, its a chronological fact by fact, which does not come from the Encyclopedia of Ukraine who can't even spell their own cities correctly.
I am indeed rather dissapointed that you have no interest in broadening your knowledge of the Russian Cossacks, which you clearly lack. For example you believed that in 1775 all Cossack Hosts were disbanded and from I understand that in the Russian Civil War the Kuban People's Republic was the only participation on the Cossack's behalf. For your information the Don Cossack Host was never disbanded or dissolved, and it has remained the largest Cossack Host in the Russian Empire in 1914 it numbered 2.5 million Cossacks (Kuban Host had 1.4 million, whilst the remaining nine hosts were somewhere between Orenburg to Ussuri, 500 and 34 thousand respectfully)...I could spend hours here writing about the Don Cossack Host's battle against the Bolsheviks (considering that the front line was always on the Don territory...) but I instead encourage you to read some of Sholokhov's novels, or is that also Imperial Propaganda?
On the positive side I am liking the way it is going, I will try a new attempt at my version, which I managed to compress into four paragraphs. Here is how I see it, let's not make too much difference in the Zap Cossacks being "completely different" from other Cossack groups. I think that is a POV and also by keeping them separate it really is unbalancing the integrity of this article. --Kuban Cossack 23:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Also since progress has clearly been made, its important that we reject our personal ambitions so I have requested a Third opinion just to see how the two versions look from the outside, and maybe they can see more compromisable scenarios that we don't. --Kuban Cossack 23:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
In spite of the progress, I was disappointed to find that the lead is still too large. It needs to be cut by at least 50%. This is not an article but an introduction. It is supposed to be concise and to the point. Please consult WP:LEAD to find more. --Hillock65 (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I think the lead is acceptable in the allowed bounds. For example if you look at the lead to several FA articles, it is not much longer than many of them. For example today's Monarchy of the United Kingdom. How small do you want it to be? The original version that was in tranquil existence before Ostap disturbed it was 323 words, my first re-write did increase that to 605. Since then each of my second re-write increased its length to 739 I was not aware of the four paragraph limit them, and attempted to ensure all significant events of the Cossack history are covered that way, since you enlightened me the subsequent versions were: 675, 652, 612 the present version is at 472 words. WP:LEAD does not have a word limit. --Kuban Cossack 12:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise attempt # 3

I was disappointed to find that you reverted the part about Zap Cossacks again and made only superficial changes. This doesn't seem like a move towards consensus. You reverted the text with outright mistakes, for example that Cossack Hetmanate was founded before the rebellion of 1648. I am also disappointed that there are still attempts to give POV explanations of events. Treaty of Pereyaslav was not concluded to ensure that Poland would never recover. This is nonsense. It seems we hit an impasse yet again. To get over these disagreements I suggest the following:

  1. we limit content to sentences describing events without giving expanded explanations or characterizations. I suggested we stay away from loaded characterizations like "dissolved" of "absorbed". Sich was destroyed - Cossacks founded new hosts. Clear and to the point.
  2. content of different parts of the lead should agree with corresponding parts in the body. For example in the body there is almost nothing about Pugachev and Razin, yet they are mentioned in the lead. Lead should show topics that one can read more on in the body. There is nothing to read about those two.
  3. Reverting each other's text with cosmetic changes of single words is not going to lead anywhere. I understand we no longer have disputes over the first and last paragraphs, so let's agree not to change those parts and focus on areas where we have disagreements, otherwise it will never end.
  4. I am waiting for your suggestions to format the second and third paragraphs. It needs to be balanced, inaccuracies and POV removed. Progress is still possible.--Hillock65 (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

It sometimes takes a significant amount of patient perserverence to reach a consensus. At this point it looks as though progress is still being made. My opinion is that you guys should keep working at it. It would help if editors would state specifically which details they believe should or should not be included in the lead, and why. Perhaps user Hillock65 could begin by making a proposal for the second and third paragraphs here on the talk pages where the proposal can be discussed in detail. Mmyotis ^^o^^ 02:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I see a coordinated POV pushing started again and nobody bothers to explain their edits. The introduction is replete with factual errors and outright POV. --Hillock65 (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Please be more specific. All I see is your copy/pasting of Krys' POved lead without a slightest change, the lead indeed replete with POV. You did not even bother to correct his "Dnipro" to an English name Dnieper, other things aside. --Irpen 21:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Please look above at the Compromise attempt #3. The intro marginalizes Zaporozhian Cossacks, the mere mentioning of Ukraine is virtually eradicated and is replaced by "rutheninans". Firther POV is pushed in dissolution of the Zaporozhian Sich, which was destroyed, not dissolved. Procalamation of the Hetmanate didn't initiate the rebellion - this is bullshit. The Treaty of Pereyaslav was not concluded to "ensure that Poland would never recover from the defeat" - this is another POV bullshit. --Hillock65 (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh Hillock where is the WP:CIVIL you so repeatedly wanted others to follow. Ruthenian refers to both Northeastern (Great Russians) and Western (Ukrainians and Belarusians) that joined the Don and Dnieper Cossacks respectively. Noone is marginalising anyone. There were a total of nine Siches not one. And Treaty of Pereyaslav was concluded to re-unite Ukraine with Russia but historically it was the beggining of the end for the Commonwealth.
Noone is marginalising anyone, there were about 30 different Cossack groups that existed in history, now you are never going to fit all of them into four paragraphs. There are specific articles on each of those groups that can go into great detail, there is also the main body of the article which is yet to be properly written. --Kuban Cossack 21:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. Zap Sich was MUCH larger in terms of manpower and influence. In its peak the number of Zap Cossacks reached to over a hundred thousands. Don Coss never had anything close to that. While Don served the tsar, the Zap Coss in fact redrew the geopolitical map of Europe and forever changed the balance of powers. There is nothing to compare.
  2. Fleeing serfes from Ukraine and other territories did join the Sich at all times, even near its very end. Let's not engage in hair-splitting: the overwhelming majority came from Ukraine and the overwhelming majority were fleeing serfs. That is the truth. If you want to expand on the territories and other peoples, the lead is hardly the place. Orthodoxy didn't unite them either, as there were Poles, Tatars and others among them.
  3. Again, you hair-splitting. It was the Polish domination. Poles dominated in the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth.
  4. You are confusing Ukraine with Russia. The role of Cossacks was indeed diminishing after union with Russia. The story with Mazepa clearly testifies to that. Finally, please keep the imperial bull with "reunification" out. We are not here to justify Russian imperialist aspirations with regards to Ukraine. It was just a union and a controversial one at that.
  5. You are TOTALLY wrong on Cossack Hetmanate. Its capital was in Baturin and it existed idependently from the Sich. Please consult the Cossack Hetmanate article. --Hillock65 (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. Don Cossacks had 2.5 million people in 1914. Their expeditions: Yermak etc. brought the whole of Siberia and Alaska to Russia. Re-drew map of Europe? They re-drew the map of the world!
  2. See that is the confusion, the migrants fleeing or not, serfs or not, came much the same way to the Don as they did to the Zapor. In fact there was a saying that the Don Cossacks went by: S Dona vydachi net It was one of the main reasons why the Bulavin rebellion took place. That's the whole point about the "Ruthenian" part we don't specify the host or the group, you are the one who is splitting a section which can be kept compact and thus to avoid repeating.
  3. Well since 1654 they were part of Russia, the story of Mazepa is one of how a loyal vassal got overbribed by Sweden and in turn got what he deserved. As for Imperialism, your POV is your POV, please keep it to yourself.
With respect to Mazepa, this is one (the traditional Russian) POV. Other POV is that the tsar failed to meet his obligation to Mazepa. Keep in mind that in the traditional European feudalistic system the vassal owed service to the liege, but the liege also had the duty to protect the vassal; if the liege failed to provide that protection then the relationship was terminated. Mazepa only came to an agreement with the Swedes after the tsar had refused to protect Mazepa's lands against the Poles and Swedes (Peter could not help, but the rules are the rules). More here: [4]. regardsFaustian (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
"Mazepa as well as the officer-corps (starshyna) intended to maintain and defend their rights. Mazepa considered himself a faithful vassal of the Tsar, who in turn was obliged to guarantee and honor the basic provisions of the agreement reached in Pereyaslav.

Despite the Tsar’s favors, there were serious indications that Peter I wanted to abolish the autonomy of the Ukraine and oust Mazepa from office. 24 In addition, the Tsar refused the Hetman’s request for military aid against a possible Swedish attack. In fact, the Tsar expressed his refusal: "...I can give you neither ten thousand nor even ten men. Defend yourself as best as you can." 25 However, many of Mazepa’s regiments were engaged in the Tsar’s service elsewhere and the remaining troops were insufficient for the defense of the Ukraine. The Tsar’s refusal to defend his faithful vassal meant that Peter violated the Agreement of Pereyaslav — the basis of loyalty to him. Consequently, this agreement was no longer binding, because this contractual arrangement had been an act of mutual obligation. If the vassal, who was loyal, faithful and obedient to his lord, "had good reason to believe that his lord was breaking his obligations," argues Subtelny, "he had the right — the famous jus resistendi — to rise against him to protect his interests. Thus, in theory, the lord as well as the vassal could be guilty of disloyalty. Throughout Europe, the contractual principle rested on the prevailing cornerstone of legal and moral authority — custom. The German Schwahenspiegel, one of the primary sources for customary law in East Central Europe, provided a concise summary of the principle: ‘We should serve our sovereigns because they protect us, but if they will no longer defend us, then we owe them no more service.’" 26 Mazepa was not the only one who tried to protect the rights and privileges of his country. For example, Johann Reinhold Patkul from Livonia rebelled against the Swedish King (1697); the Transylvanian Prince Ferenc Rakoczi II led an uprising against the Habsburgs (1703—1711); Stanislaw Leszczynski, representing the republican traditions of Poland, aided by the Swedes, fought against the autocratically minded Polish King Augustus II; Demetrius Kantemir, Hospodar of Moldavia, a vassal of the Porte, aided by the Tsar, rebelled against the Sultan (1711). Yet none of them was branded as "traitor", but Mazepa was."Faustian (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


  1. You are right about that, however the Hetmanate as an admin unit was disbanded much earlier that in 1764, and at times there was no Hetman. --Kuban Cossack 17:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I broke the comments out to facilitate discussion. That way you can discuss and reach agreement on each point on it's own merits. It would help if you guys cited sources and refrained from editing until you had some consensus. Mmyotis ^^o^^ 22:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I prefer number points, and I ask Hillock to create a similar "problem-analysis" of the current version. --Kuban Cossack 22:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Larger of the two?

The Zaporozhian Sich being larger of the two. How do you know it was larger? Did you count? Also what is large? Territory? Manpower? Military potency?

Hillock65, do you have a reference for that discusses the relative sizes of the Zap Sich and the Zap Coss? If not, would it be reasonable to state to edit the lead to say:"The Zaporozhian Sich lead a rebellion against Polish domination in Ukraine." and work the details out later? Mmyotis ^^o^^ 23:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
It is difficult to establish one time frame to compare the both. Zaporozhian Cossacks had different structure, only arm-bearing men were considered part of the host, while at Don all people in stannitsas were part of the host. For Zaporozhian Cossacks I found this: In 1725 the Cossacks in Left-Bank Ukraine numbered 55,000–65,000: in addition, there were 8,000–10,000 Zaporozhian Cossacks, and 23,000 Cossacks in Slobidska Ukraine, which was part of the Russian state.[5] --Hillock65 (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Well Don Cossack Host in 1914 had 2.5 million and controlled territory that was as very large the Don Cossack Oblast. Also it is Slobodska Ukraine not Slobidska. Again, the reason why larger of the two does not fit is that I want to preserve chronology in the lead, we begin in the 14th century, the larger of the two is a fact that the lead can do without. --Kuban Cossack 16:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I was expecting you making the changes in those places where you disagreed. Instead, you just reverted to a previous version.[6] This is not going anywhere. I voiced my objections to this version before to POV and factual errors. If you disagree with the version that you don't like, please make adjustments instead of wholesale reverts. --Hillock65 (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Fleeing" "Ukrainian" "serfs"

Joined by numerous serfs fleeing from Ukraine. Only partially correct, first of all no time frame given to this sentance, serfdom in PLC came about in early sixteenth century, if we are talking before than incorrect. What is wrong, is that among the people absorbed into Cossackdom not all were peasants and serfs, many merchants, smiths, clergy and even gentry joined them. Second the definition of Ukraine in that time frame is also most abstract, and for one the people that came to the Cossacks were not necessary all from Ukraine, many came down from Belarus and Lithuania. What did unite them was Orthodoxy, not national feeling, which was rather absent at that point.

Since the goal is to make the lead more concise, I propose that it would be best simply to state that: The Zaporozhian Sich being larger of the two swelled into a powerful military force and lead a rebellion against Polish domination in Ukraine. and address the details in the main article. Mmyotis ^^o^^ 23:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Polish domination?

And lead a rebellion against Polish domination in Ukraine. Not Polish but Polish-Lithuanian, and domination is not exactly a correct term to describe a territory that was de jure integrally part of that state (I think we can do without some of our Polish colleagues coming here and telling us this).

Polish since Union of Lublin. However Ukrainian and Polish people were on both sides. I'm not sure if Jeremi Wiśniowiecki was more Polish than Bohdan Khmelnytsky.Xx236 (talk) 11:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The "diminishing"

Its prominence and the role of the Zaporozhian Cossacks began to diminish after the Treaty of Pereyaslavl with the Tsardom of Russia. . Not quite, the Treaty of Pereyaslavl had a huge affect on Russia, for the next century Ukrainian clergy would dominate the Russian Orthdox Church. The Cossacks would contribute greatly for the next century in keeping the southern buffer zone, settling the Sloboda region. Or how about Mazepa's little stunt, was not a big role?

[edit] The Cossack Hetmanate

The Cossack Hetmanate in Ukraine was abolished in 1764. Nonsense, the Hetmanate was first abolished, when the Treaty of Adrusovo split its territory into Right and Left bank Ukraine. Afterwards as a territorial unit, it ceased to exist after Peter I destroyed the original Zaporozhian Sich in Chertomlitskaya Sich in 1709. That would the more correct end of the independent Ukrainian Cossackdom. Only after their return from Turkish exile in 1734 did the Russian government allowed them to create the New Sich, which lasted for only 40 years as you know. That final Sich was already a shell of its former self, and effectively operated like any other Russian Cossack Host. And like all other Cossack Hosts. The Hetmanate by that point was nothing but a privleged title, which in 1764 was indeed written off and the final Hetman spent more time in a laboratory than in Ukraine. Again you insisted on removal of small beuracratical details...--Kuban Cossack 21:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The Hetmanate was seperate from the Sich following Pereyaslav (though with the same ruler), and continued to function with some degree of autonomy until 1764. Andrusovo did not end the Hetmanate; it merely confined it to the left bank and formalized the split between the Hetmanate and the Sich (the Sich tne elected its own rulers). The Hetmanate continued to exist after Poltava. Here is a summary from Britannica: [7].
"After the partition of 1667, the autonomous hetman state, or Hetmanate, was limited territorially to Left Bank Ukraine. At the head of the state stood the hetman, elected theoretically by a general Cossack assembly but in effect by senior officers, who in turn were largely swayed by the tsar’s preference. The terms of autonomy were renegotiated at each election of a new hetman, and this led over time to a steady erosion of his prerogatives. Nevertheless, for a century the Hetmanate enjoyed a large measure of self-government, as well as considerable economic and cultural development.
The ruling elite in the Hetmanate was composed of the senior Cossack officers, starshyna, who had evolved into a hereditary class approximating the Polish nobility in its privileges. The common Cossacks, too, were undergoing stratification, the more impoverished hardly distinguished, except in legal status, from the peasantry. The conditions of the free peasantry worsened over time, their growing obligations tending increasingly toward serfdom. Urban life flourished, however, and the larger cities and some towns continued to enjoy municipal self-government; the burghers largely maintained the rights of their social estate. In the ecclesiastical realm, the Uniate church disappeared, and the Orthodox Kievan metropolitanate itself was transferred in 1686 from the patriarchal authority of Constantinople to that of Moscow. Although Ukrainian churchmen eventually gained enormous influence in Russia, within the Hetmanate itself in the course of the 18th century the church progressively lost its traditional autonomy and distinctive Ukrainian character.
The hetman state reached its zenith in the hetmancy of Ivan Mazepa. Relying at first on the support of Tsar Peter I, Mazepa exercised near monarchical powers in the Hetmanate. Literature, art, and architecture in the distinctive Cossack Baroque style flourished under his patronage, and the Kievan Mohyla Academy, the first Ukrainian institution of higher learning, experienced its golden age. Mazepa aspired to annex the Right Bank and re-create a united Ukrainian state, initially still under the tsar’s sovereignty. But Peter’s centralizing reforms and the exactions imposed on the Hetmanate in connection with the Second Northern War appeared to threaten Ukrainian autonomy. In 1708, in furtherance of his plans for independence, Mazepa made a secret alliance with Charles XII of Sweden, but in the decisive Battle of Poltava (1709) their allied forces were defeated. Mazepa fled to Moldavia, where he died shortly thereafter.
Although Peter allowed the election of a successor to Mazepa, the Hetmanate’s autonomous prerogatives were severely curtailed and underwent further weakening over the remaining decades of the 18th century. From 1722 to 1727 and again in 1734 to 1750, the office of hetman was in abeyance, as the imperial regime introduced new institutions to oversee the country’s governance. In 1750 Empress Elizabeth revived the hetmancy for Kyrylo Rozumovsky, the brother of her favourite. On the accession of Catherine II in 1762, the hetman and the starshyna petitioned for the restoration of the Hetmanate’s previous status; instead, in 1764 Catherine forced Rozumovsky’s resignation. Over the next 20 years all vestiges of Ukrainian autonomy were eliminated, and in 1775 the Zaporozhian Sich, the bastion of the Cossacks, was destroyed by Russian troops."
I am not sure if this situation is comparable to that of other cossack hosts or not, as I do not know about them as much as you do.Faustian (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military rank table

There is something wrong with the table. There no direct connections between Cossacks' military ranks and modern Russian Army ranks. And there is as it extravagantly said Junior Lieutenant in Russian Army. It is possible to compare it with Russian military ranks. --Iakov (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the OR tag there is quite justified. There need to be sources presented to support those claims and comparisons with Russian Army ranks. --Hillock65 (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is the copy of the 1998 presidential decree: [8]. The Cossack units in the Russian army use standard Russian army ranks, whilst the Host units use those ones. The similarity is only by comparison of historical hierarchy, there are ranks now that Cossacks have that Russians do not use anymore. --Kuban Cossack 17:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)