Talk:Khmelnytsky Uprising

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Taras Bulba?

Is this about the time when the (fictional) events described in Gogol's Taras Bulba took place? Perhaps a mention here would be good? - Guest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.242.4 (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] 1 million Jews killed?

This could use a source. Especially as the entire Commonwalth population was ~10,000,000, and I think the Jewish % was around 7-8% of total population. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Subtelny's Ukraine: a History (p.127–128) says
Within a few months, almost all Polish nobles, officials, and priests had been wiped out or driven from Ukraine. Jewish losses were especially heavy because they were the most numerous and accessible representatives of the szlachta regime. Between 1648 and 1656, tens of thousands of Jews—given the lack of reliable data, it is impossible to establish more accurate figures—were killed by the rebels, and to this day the Khmelnytsky uprising is considered by Jews to be one of the most traumatic events in their history.
This passage is endnoted with the following (sorry for the long quotation):
Estimates of Jews killed in the uprising have been greatly exaggerated in the historiography of the event. According to B. Weinryb, the total of losses reported in Jewish sources is 2.4 million to 3.3 million deaths, clearly a fantastic figure. Weinryb cites the calculations of S. Ettinger indicating that about 50,000 Jews lived in the area where the uprising occurred. See B. Weinryb, "The Hebrew Chronicles on Bohdan Khmelnytsky and the Cossack-Polish War," Harvard Ukrainian Studies 1 (1977): 153-77. While many of them were killed, Jewish losses did not reach the hair-raising figures that are often associated with the uprising. In the words of Weinryb (The Jews of Poland, 193-4), "The fragmentary information of the period—and to a great extent information from subsequent years, including reports of recovery—clearly indicate that the catastrophe may have not been as great as has been assumed."
—Michael Z. 2005-06-8 15:56 Z

I am unaware of any source citing a figure as large as 1,000,000 Jews killed (The entire Jewish population in Eastern Europe at the time was only ~1,300,000!). Most sources, such as Berel Wein's Triumph of Survival, cite "Jewish chronicles" for the figure of well over 300 Jewish communities destroyed and almost 100,000 Jews killed. The largest figure I have seen cited by a reputable historical source is in The Jew in the Modern World (Oxford University Press). It claimed that the uprising "left in its wake hundreds of thousands of of Jewish dead, and, according to one witness, 744 Jewish communities destroyed." However, this figure is not typically found in most authoritative historical studies. In fact while the Jewish Encyclopedia considers the "744" figure "unreliable," it does cite "chronicles" which state that approximately 500,000 Jews were killed [1]. HKT 19:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tnx for the sources. We could use estimates of Poles and Cossacks deathtoll as well - I will also try to look up something. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Incomplete and misleading

This page is drastically incomplete and thus misleading. One could only wish someone with a competency in history could turn it into something more informative. Compay 10:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Try to be more constructive and at least state clearly what you find is wrong here. That would really help. Halibutt 10:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok, this is what I meant: Such sectiions should be added: Causes; Course of the war, at least in broad strokes, with major battles and treaties (with a map of the battles) , Consequences, Meaning for the Ukrainian nation. As the article is now, it has a slight Jewish and Polish POV, and lacks a Ukrainian point, to say nothing of the significance of the uprising for Moldova. Unfortunately I lack now the necessary materials to prepare the amendments, but I am sure someone in Ukraine could at least scan a pre 1973 map of the battles. Compay 00:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
OOC, why pre-1973?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Because of copyright ;) [2]Compay 23:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
The qoute from the Jewish Encyclopedia has obviously been edited. In one sentence it explains the events and the Jewish point of view, in the next it explains why they were completly at fault. Aside from the point that an Encyclopedia about Jewish history would probably not blame a massive assault on the Jewish commmunity squarley on the shoulders of Jews, it still is obvious that a reputable source would not be this inconsistent. I am removing the passage until I can locate an unedited version.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg
Actually, the quote is exact. Please see the appropriate article in the Jewish Encyclopedia, and read from "Attacks by Cossacks." Whether it is accurate can be debated, but it certainly wasn't manipulated. --Goodoldpolonius2 14:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Do we want to restore it? I do agree it needs some copyedit and NPOVing. Sometimes the Jewish Encyclopedia has as POVed and outdated version of events as Britannica 1911... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matejko pic question

Who is the 'saint in the clouds' at Image:Bohdan Chmielnicki z Tuhaj Bejem pod Lwowem Matejko.JPG?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Warbox needed

Saint Jan from Dukla, Lviv Bernardin monastery monk. Lived in the 15-th.cent. 77.109.12.174 07:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)A.K.

[edit] Name - move proposed

In December 2005 the article was moved from "Chmielnicki Uprising" to "Khmelnytskyi Uprising". I have just received a request to move this to "Khmelnytsky Uprising". I decided to put this move for discussion, as we should use the Ch/K spelling variant which is most common in English (per WP:NC). This decision, as Kuban Kazak pointed at my talk, should also result the article about B.Ch/K himself, so we have a consistent naming. For now I did search results on Google Print with the following results: a) Chmielnicki: 267 books b) Khmelnytskyi: 23 books c) Khmelnytsky: 87 books It would appear that the correct move should be back to Chmielnicki Uprising. Any comments?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Well the big one is the Russian version Khmelnitsky 1590 books. So make your conclusions, but consistency has to be applied with the uprsing and the man himself. I would personally move right now the article to Khmelnysky Uprising and then continue the discussion/survey at Talk:Bohdan Khmelnytsky.--Kuban Cossack 16:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Not however that this search is in regards to general name, rather then specific person.

--Molobo 16:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Note the difference between hits and books. Khmelnitsky gives actually 271 books, so we now have one of those situations were two names have virtually the same popularity. Eh. I certainly agree we should use the same name for the man and for the uprising. I will move the article per your suggestion now for technical reasons (same name).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, that was the main reason of asking anyway. I think we should settle on this name, for one his legacy is certainly more relevant to Ukrainian history than Polish or Russian, and he was Ukrainian himself. So if you're happy then its a finished discussion...because right now - I am happy. --Kuban Cossack 11:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't see what would prevent us from moving it back and forth if we started, and it is probably better to leave the article at the spelling prefered by people who view him as a hero then those who see him as a villain. So I guess for now the move discussion is settled. There is however one more issue to address: how to call him in articles - i.e. if and when we are allowed to us 'Chmielnicki' in article's?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Bideleux and Jeffries

Robert Bideleux and Ian Jeffries, A History of Eastern Europe: Crisis and Change, Routledge (1998), ISBN 0-415-16111-8 (hardcover), ISBN 0-415-16112-6 (paperback), p. 138 has a somewhat different take on this. The following is verbatim:

In 1640 and 1644 Podolia and Volynia were ravaged by marauding Crimean Tatars, who made off with thousands of captives. These raids prompted King Wladyslaw IV to plan a major military campaign against the Crimean Tatars and their Ottoman overlords in alliance with Muscovy and the Dnieper Cossacks, who were promised substantial shares of the spoils. However the Sejm did not trust Wladyslaw IV and managed to obstruct his preparations in 1647–48, whereupon the already armed and mobilized Dnieper Cossacks ran amok under their unsavoury and opportunistic military leader Bogdan Chmilenicki (Khmelnitsky), who now made common cause with the Crimean Tatars against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. This Cossack rebellion, combined with several disastrously bungled attempts to bring the Cossacks to heel, ignited a massive explosion of peasant unrest in the Ukraine. At that time the Ukraine was home to a large number of runaway serfs, religious dissenters and peasants hostile to the soutward spread of Polish-Lithuanian landlordism, serfdom, and rack-renting Jewish ‘middlemen’. To a far greater extent than anyone could have foreseen in 1648, the Cossach--cum-peasant rebellion was to have deadly consequences. These abruptly terminated the 'golden age' of the Rzeczpospolita and heralded its long and calamitous decline (1648–1795). Numerous weaknesses and portents of decline can of course be detected before 1648, but until that year the Rzeczpospolita was to all appearances riding high.

Hope some of that is useful; it should certainly qualify as a citable, reliable source. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers

Here we go, over the number of Jewish casualties, yet again. Maybe both sides of the argument should be represented? --Hillock65 18:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they should. Jayjg (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Dubnov is a 3rds side, and off the deep end. There simply cannot be more casualties that a potential pool of victims would provide. Otherwise this would reflect rather badly on our credibility. Half a million victims in the population of 60,000 is NONSENSE. Both gentile and Jewish historians and demographers agree on that.Galassi 23:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

For starters, I would be very skeptical of 1916 source. Quality of works from that period (and earlier times) are poor; for example any numbers quoted by such works are extrenly dubious as their creators most likely were not using methods of modern reliable historical demography, which were mostly developed and popularized in the second half of the 20th century. I am still looking for more sources for Historical demography of Poland, but recently I was able to find some good sources for 17th-18th centuries - see that article. Jewish population in Commonwealth remained at about 0,5 million from 1618 to 1717. About 100,000 Jews died during the Deluge/Uprising and accompanying wars, the Commonwealth lost 4 million citizens (that counts significant territorial losses, so total loss of life was smaller). All estimates are very rough, and putting aside semi-legendary tales of millions of deaths, we have few remaining records that are far from perfect: for example, one of my book has tax records for 1629 and 1661, showing over 50% fall in taxation of houses - but noting much of that may not be from destruction, but from law changes and people simply avoiding tax collectors in harsher times... Note this graph of Jewish population in Poland - the losses of KU time are not high enough to even show a fall, only to stabilize the graph (that said I think that graph is smoothed and more detailed one would show at least a small dent per following graph). Note however that deluge/uprising/wars impact on the Commonwealth was noticeable. PS. Note that my numbers refer to the entire Commonwealth, I am sure the Jewish communities in the south-eastern parts of the Commonwealth - center of the uprising - had a much higher death rates then 20%. Current article cites studies giving the death tall in those areas at 50%, which sounds quite feasible (note also that the 100,000 estimate above is to Uprising, Deluge and Muscovite wars). That said I am slightly suprisied that the uprising would claim only ~25,000 Jewish casualties (half from the 'halves of 40k-60k estimates quoted), and the Deluge and Muscovite wars 75,000. This would indicate, when we take into account the anti-semitic trends in the uprising but not in the Deluge and Muscovite wars, that the actuall casualties of the uprising would be the smallest of those three events. Now, time for a little of my OR: Commonwealth population in 1648 = ~11,5m. Losses in the next two decades: 4m. Uprising casualties - estimated at 5% based on this article Jewish casualties = 0,575m. Total Jewish casualties per other sources for that period - 100,000. Thus total casualties of that period - ~1,8m, let's round it up to 2m. Factor in significant territorial losses and 4m of lost population in that time seems feasible, with casualities in the eastern territories, affected by Deluge and Muscovite war, and than lost to Russian empire, likely in the order of 50% of region population. Factor in relative slowth growth rates of that era and 1717 estimate of 9m Commonwealth population sounds feasible - 2m casualties, 2m lost in territory changes, -0,5m gained from births in half a decade. So the numbers add up - but again, please note that per all disclaimers of the historical demography, they are very rough (but much more reliable then "legends" of national chroniclers common until the second half of the 20th century). Rule of thumb: treat numbers from those works as having standard error of thousands of percent... :) PS.2 Writing only about Jewish casualties seems like "undue weight"; the article should do its best to describe casualties of all ethnic groups affected by this terrible war.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I second Piotrus' opinion. Polish chronicle describing the siege of Florianow by Khmelnitsky similarly overstates the # of casualties x10.Galassi 01:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
To my dismay it appears that many editors here are wantonly disregarding WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. According to whom does Dubnow "uncritically reproduce the claims of the discredited Hanover chronicle"? Who discredited it in the first place, who says Dubnow is uncritical, and who says Dubnow is reproducing it? Jayjg (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Dubnov is not discredited, he is simply OUTDATED. Dubnov is "discredited" by statistical data. Galassi 02:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, per my comments about unreliability of works prior to the development of modern historical demography methodology.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the section for more neutral and scholarly look. There are still several problems. First, per my comments above, the article should describe all casualties, discussion of only Jewish ones is unbalanced (note I don't advocate a removal of the section, but expansion of the article). Second, Marcus and Eywitness quotes are useless to the article and should be removed (the contain no new information, are very POVed and unencyclopedic in tone (think 1911EB) and belong in Wikiquote at best). Similar with Dubnow; his estimate of 90% Jewish casualties is not correct per modern research (Stempfer, Magoczi and their 40%-60% range); his claim that the Jewish casuaties approached Black Death is simply ridicoulous (even at his highest range, 500 000, pales at Black Death claimed tens of millions' of deaths in Western Europe); therefore I don't see any reason for keeping him - not unless we want to have a section on inaccuracies in historical descriptions of the uprising. There is plethora of modern scholarly articles and books giving proper neutral and well research information; citation of century-old sources with their unencyclopedic tone and outdated numbers and conclusions is inappopriate for 21st century encyclopedia.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"More neutral and scholarly look"? I don't think so. Please provide sources for the claims that the other citations use "much less reliable numbers and less scholarly style", that Dubnow used the Hanover chronicle, and that the Hanover chronicle is "outdated". Jayjg (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Hanover was the only source ever cited during the romantic era. Magocsi says unequivocally that HAnover doesn't hold water.Galassi 11:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you provide quotations for this per Jayjg request?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Magocsi- p. 201 "vastly inflated figures".Galassi 17:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I see, so according to Magosci the figures are "vastly inflated". Good, now we are able to at least start approaching NPOV. Now, according to whom does Dubnow use the Hanover chronicle? Jayjg (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
In the 19th century Hanover was the only Judeocentric source available. It is quite romantic in character- at the time myth had more value than fact.Galassi 23:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
That's fascinating, thank you for sharing. Now, according to whom does Dubnow use the Hanover chronicle? I need a source for that claim. Jayjg (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Please note that the article states Dubnow... reproduces the claims of the Hannover 17th century chronicle, not Dubnow... cites the Hannover chronicle. But since you seem to be interested in specific relation, here it is (p.75, 2000 Avotaynu Inc edition: Dubnow discusses Hannover in a paragraph just following the one we quote - One of the eyewitnesses of the Ukraina massacres, Nathan Hannover, from Zaslav, gives a striking description of it in his historical chronicle... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Please provide a source that states that the specific claims he is making come from the Hannover chronicle; so far, you haven't managed to, but there has been a lot of POV inserted into the text, a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I provided a source above; anyway as the current version of the article has the long Hannover quote edited out, this is a moot issue (the short one seems neutral enough).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
That those sources are less reliable and scholarly is self-evident to anybody who reads the provided quotes from them - perhaps we should have some template to indicate this, just as {{1911POV}} was used to indicate problems with 1911EB. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#History specifically notes that historical accounts such as Hannover "should be used with caution". Those quotations are obviously non-encyclopedic, non-neutral, and information they provide is shown contradictory to more modern research; therefore there is no doubt that they should go - and this is supported both by our policies and by common sense. PS. We really need an article on Jewish historiography; for more info on what views are outdated, and what is reliable and what is not in that field, see such works as Jonathan Frankel, Reshaping the Past: Jewish History and the Historians, Oxford 1994 or Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory, Washington 1996. As for Hannover chronicle, just think why Lenn J. Schramm classifies it as a book of legends [3] - the last time I checked we were building an encyclopedia, not a legend wiki.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, we are trying, but we still have to abide by Wikipedia's policies, which don't allow the insertion of unsourced POV commentary. Jayjg (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Nor do they allow sourced outdated POV commentary, where sourced modern more NPOV one is available. Now that we have modern reliable numbers for 50,000 Jewish population and ~50% death toll we don't need to quote old historical texts with erroneus estimates and POVed unencyclopedic phrasing.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
They're a relevant document, even if more modern historiography considers them to be exaggerations, and I'm sure there's a way of referring to them that is NPOV; so far you haven't come anywhere close. I think you realize this. Jayjg (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The current version which notes that historical estimates are high (100,000 - 500,000) but modern one are lower (25,000-100,000) seems like a good solution, closing this issue, I believe.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see some change have been made, but only to insert even more uncited original research. Frankly, I'm appalled. Is no-one who edits these article familiar with the no original research policy? Or is it just not taken seriously? Jayjg (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing original here (mine is mostly from various Magocsi books and papers). I am currently 4000 miles away from my books, so I am not always in position to give exact page ##. But Piotrus is staying on top of that.Galassi 12:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you imagine that Magocsi actually comments on Dubnow's work? Jayjg (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
He does. Somewhere before p.300 he says wryly that a Yiddish folk-song about Koliyivshchyna does a better job than distinguished Dubnow, in its analysis thereof.Galassi 13:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Good; when you're able to get to your books, you'll be able to find some properly sourced criticism. Jayjg (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
You guys still don't get it, do you? You can't keep inserting your own opinions about sources into the article. I've cleaned the whole mess up, stating the facts in a sourced and encyclopedic way. In the future, please avoid adding emotional adjectives to your descriptions. Jayjg (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
You are overstepping your bounds. Stop inserting unscholarly and lachrymose BS. I am Jewish too, but I find your actions embarassing.Galassi 15:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I haven't inserted any new material, I've merely re-arranged the existing material, and removed the unscholarly and emotional descriptions invented for various sources. Jayjg (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
It was organized rather nicely before, and it should stay that way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Galassi (talk • contribs) 16:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
Rather than "he said, she said" arguments, can you explain what you don't like about the current organization? Jayjg (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not have any strong views on this, but a few comments questions:

  • One editor wrote, "given the lack of reliable data, it is impossible to establish more accurate figures." This may or may not be true, but it is not for editors to say. Is there a scholarly source we can cite that says this?
  • Above someone wrote, "I rewrote the section for more neutral and scholarly look." Folks, what matters is not how it "looks," i.e. appearances, what matters is whether we are in substance complying with our policies. What sources exist? Let us provide a proper account of them without inserting our own views.
  • Someone above wrote, "That those sources are less reliable and scholarly is self-evident to anybody who reads the provided quotes from them." That's as may be, but again, it is not for us to say, no matter how self-evident we think it is. Editors can provide context for a source "According to historian X" or "According to the Soviet Government." An editor can also report on the extent to which sources are used e.g. "Most historians use source x, but historians a, b, and c have recently argued for the importance of source y." All of these are things we editors do. But we cannot judge sources themselves. That is a straightforward violation of Wikipedia policy.

Slrubenstein | Talk 16:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, I don't know how to put this more clearly; you need to stop adding editorial commentary to the articles, and instead just reproduce what the sources have to say on the subject. I'm not sure why you're finding this so difficult. Jayjg (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Piotrus and Galassi, I'm still dismayed at the editorializing and original research you feel you need to do to the article, but it's really not acceptable. In fact, a large number of modern sources still say the death toll was 100,000, and each time you try to insert some sort of editorial POV into the article highlighting the particular estimate you favor, you force me to find yet another source for the higher numbers, and the case you want to present gets weaker and weaker. The article is extremely neutral now; it shows that early estimates were high, that many respected histories of the mid twentieth century still used high figures, and that even now high numbers are often seen, but that academic estimates are considerably lower. Let people read the article; don't force them to accept your POV, when you word it the way you do, it just looks like POV pushing. There's a nice narrative here of high numbers gradually coming down over time, as more studies are done. By pushing and pushing and pushing you are destroying that. And, by the way, Sir Martin Gilbert is a vastly more honored and famous historian than Stampfer et al - if it comes down to that - and he says 100,000. Again, let the story tell itself in a neutral and interesting way; don't force your POV on the piece. Jayjg (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, what you are operating in is good faith error. There are millions of "sources" that say 100,000+, but all of them are SECONDARY, and they all derive from the same primary sources that have already been discredited. There are essentially two documents at war here, the Hanover Chronicle vs. POlish fiscal records. And the latter are a lot more convincing.Galassi 19:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Your assumptions are fascinating, but none of the sources actually state that they are using the Hannover chronicle. Anyway, we just present what the reliable sources say, we don't insert a lot of editorializing. Jayjg (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, it would be nice if Jayjg would stop with his assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks, especially as it seems we all agree on most of the current version. I don't understand why Jayjg wants to remove info that most recent academic research has the estimates in tens of thousands, if as above he agrees that there is a trend of lowering the estimates. Nor do I see the reason to remove links to historical demography or historiography. Gilbert is a very honored and experienced historian, but his 1976 work is outdated by more modern research. This is what happens in academia: old works are corrected by more recent research, old numbers are revised. There are hundreds of respected historians whose numbers are no longer valid; no matter how many old academic sources you present for 100,000, or modern non-academic publications; the fact remain that our most modern cited academic works show lower numbers. And the article clearly states that, acknowledging that older academic estimates were higher - I don't understand what can be non-neutral with that.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I haven't made any bad faith assumptions or personal attacks. There are plenty of 21st century sources that say 100,000, and your editorial comments and original research really aren't helpful. You need to quote other people making the claims you want to make, and review WP:NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers (section break)

Please show us those "plenty" of academic 21st century sources. And pelase show us OR and POV by other editors. Or stop accusing others of violation of policies, this falls under NPA.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  07:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Look at the footnote for the 100,000 figure, which lists a number of academics who have used the 100,000 figure, they include
  • "After defeating the Polish army, the Cossacks joined with the Polish peasantry, murdering over 100,000 Jews." Chmielnicki, Bohdan, The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2001-05.
  • "The peasants of Ukraine rose up in 1648 under a petty aristocrat Bogdan Chmielnicki... It is estimated that 100,000 Jews were massacred and 300 of their communities destroyed". Oscar Reiss. The Jews in Colonial America, McFarland & Company, 2004, ISBN 0786417307, pp. 98-99.
  • "In 1648-55 the Cossack under Bogdan Chmielnicki (1593-1657) joined with the Tartars in the Ukraine to rid themselves of Polish rule... Before the decade was over, more than 100,000 Jews had been slaughtered." Robert Melvin Spector. World Without Civilization: Mass Murder and the Holocaust, History, and Analysis, University Press of America, 2005, ISBN 0761829636, p. 77.
  • "Moreover, Poles must have been keenly aware of the massacre of Jews in 1768 and even more so as the result of the much more widespread massacres (approximately 100,000 dead) of the earlier Chmielnicki pogroms during the preceding century." Manus I. Midlarsky. The Killing Trap: genocide in the twentieth century,Cambridge University Press, 2005,ISBN 0521815452, p. 352.
  • "... as many as 100,000 Jews were murdered throughout the Ukraine by Bogdan Chmielnicki's Cossack soldiers on the rampage." Martin Gilbert. Holocaust Journey: Traveling in Search of the Past, Columbia University Press, 1999, ISBN 0231109652, p. 219.
  • "A series of massacres perpetrated by the Ukrainian Cossacks under the leadership of Bogdan Chmielnicki saw the death of up to 100,000 Jews and the destruction of perhaps 700 communities between 1648 and 1654..." Samuel Totten. Teaching About Genocide: Issues, Approaches, and Resources, Information Age Publishing, 2004, ISBN 159311074X, p. 25.
  • "Between 100,000-500,000 Jews were murdered by the Cossacks during the Chmielnicki massacres. Zev Garber, Bruce Zuckerman. Double Takes: Thinking and Rethinking Issues of Modern Judaism in Ancient Contexts, University Press of America, ISBN 076182894X, p. 77, footnote 17.
  • "In response to Poland having taken control of much of the Ukraine in the early seventeenth century, Ukrainian peasants mobilized as groups of cavalry, and these "cossacks" in the Chmielnicki uprising of 1648 killed an estimate 100,000 Jews." Cara Camcastle. The More Moderate Side of Joseph De Maistre: Views on Political Liberty And Political Economy, McGill-Queen's Press, 2005, ISBN 0773529764, p. 26
As far as original research goes, according to whom is it the case that "Jewish casualties of the Uprising have been a subject of numerous studies and considerable controversy from 17th century to our time?" Name the person who says this. Also, according to whom is it the case that "While modern academic estimates of Jewish casualties are about 25,000 (50% of total population)"? Name the source who says this. Also, please quote the statements in which Pogonowski says "The entire Jewish population of the Commonwealth was about 500,000, and remained the same between the early 16th and 17th centuries; many Jewish communities were also located on territories unaffected by the uprising." According to whom is it the case that "Based on 1618 population map (p.115), 1618 languages map (p.119), 1657-1667 losses map (p.128) and 1717 map (p.141) from Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski, Poland a Historical Atlas, Hippocrene Books, 1987, ISBN 0880293942</ref> which may explain attribution of the most common 100,000 casualties number to the uprising?" I've tagged some of the other original research as well. Also, why are you removing citations, and why are you removing the statement "and perhaps conservative"? Considering that Flannery explicitly says "Many historians [100,000] a minimum" and Gilbert says "Over 100,000 Jews were killed", it's unclear why you would remove this simple fact. Jayjg (talk) 02:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed it appears many academic contemporary sources also give the 100,000 number, I have adjusted the text accordingly. As for Pogonowksi, you can see his text on the scanned map links, I believe. If you have different estimates of PLC population and breakdown of that time, I would really like to see them. Note he also gives the 100,000 death rate for the Uprising, but note also that the Jewish population of the Commonwealth was big enough to ensure the graph is only flat for that century, not dropping (therefore population growth must have equalled 100,000). As for most Jewish settlements being unaffected by the uprising, it is rather obvious: map of the uprising shows where it didn't raeach (note that dark green represnts both the Uprising and the Muscovy war, the Uprising didn't reach beyond Ukraine so only southern dark green part counts); north and west were much more densly populated, thus most Jews (as did most of Commonwealth population) lived there, this explains while Ukrainian settlements could have been decimated but the overall Jewish Commonwealth population was stable.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
So you took at look at some maps, and did some estimates and drew some conclusions based on that? Please review WP:NOR. Also, since you insist on inserting unsourced claims, and revert warring over them, I am going to place fact tags on all of them until you provide sources for them. Don't remove them again; just source every claim you make. Jayjg (talk) 04:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, I've remove Subtelny from the 20,000-30,000 claim. Subtelny says "tens of thousands", which realistically could include any number between 20,000 and 90,000. Jayjg (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The maps are a valid source of information, you have to provide sources to the contrary if you want to challenge them. Majority of Jewish immigration and settlements in Poland were NOT in Ukraine (see map of major immigration centers). Here is a map of Jewish centeres in Commonwealth of that time, note more than half lies on the territories unaffected by the uprising.(map) Khm. Uprising did not extend significantly outside Ukraine (see precise map). Jewish population in Poland of that era was approximatly 500,000 (sources provided above, other sources, ex.[4]). Here's a source for Jewish population of Ukraine in 1648 being 51,325 [5], although note it is a bottom estimate. This gives the number of 51,525 and 115 settlements This source states: Jews in Ukraine flourished, reaching a population of approximately 40,000 by the middle of the seventeenth century (later it confirms the 50% death toll of local populations during the uprising). For reference, here is Stampfer work with 40,000 number for total population ([6]). Note also that Stampfer work is the first and only - as far as I can tell - modern work dedicated to the casualties, not just mentioning them in passing, here it is specifically cited ([7]). Here ([8]) Stampfer is again cited as expert on Jewish casualties. Here is another source that gives the number 45,000 for the J. population in Ukraine at the begining of thje 17th century ([9]). Here we have a source that notes that most Jews lived in Poland-Lithuania, fewer in Ukraine. And lastly, here is a source that confirms what I wrote earlier: that estimates were changed and revised (down), and confirms the trends (as several sources above noted, Jewish population recovered quickly, which would not have been possible if most were wiped out); the number for Jewish population in Commonwealth in this source is even lower - 350,000. Here is an estimate for 300,000 only[10] and here, for 200,000 (plus Uprising casualties of 20,000 - [11]). One more: a good source for historical demography struggle for numbers - [12]; it is only recently through works of such caliber that we are getting to reliable numbers, all the previous estimates of 100,000 or such as now as good as time measurement based on sundials ;p. Now, are you satisfied that Stampfer research, being well reviewed and considered expert study on Jewish casualties, should be given more weight than citations of old numbers in passing by others, that majority of Commonwealth Jewish population were not affected by the Uprising, and sources that give information about Jewish population in Ukraine of that time seem to agree on 50,000? If not, please present your own sources that specifically deal with Jewish casualties (no mentions in passing, please), that claim Jewish population was higher and that Jews in Commonwealth were concentrated in Ukraine.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The maps are a valid source of information, but your complicated analysis of (and conclusions drawn from) them is original research. I don't need to present research contradicting your own original research; instead, you need to properly cite sources. I'll give you some time to find proper sources, but ultimately if you can't source it properly it will go. And, as I've pointed out, every time you revert in your original research, I'm going to add even more sources for the higher numbers, so your case will get worse and worse. I'm up to over twenty sources already, and there's no end in sight. Wouldn't it be better to simply avoid trying to POV the section, and inserting all that WP:NOR? Jayjg (talk) 06:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, I have provided citations above plenty for all my claims; I am drawing no OR conclusions, just stating obvious facts (if most Jews lived in western Poland and Uprising happened in eastern, is it OR to state most Jews were not affected by the Uprising?). And it doesn't matter how many books mention the 100,000 number, if more reliable - dedicated works - agree on lower number. Wikipedia should not spread common misconceptions, if more up-to-date research has ruled them outdated.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  06:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
There are still claims in the article you haven't cited; those would be the things with "fact" tags in them. Also, making estimates based on maps, and areas in them, is obvious original research - cite someone making those claims. As for "more up-to-date research", the sources I've quoted are newer than the sources you've quoted. I am still astonished at the utter disdain for WP:NOR that has been shown on this page. Jayjg (talk) 06:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
And I am astonished at your utter disdain for science and rationality. It doesn't matter if the source you quote is just out of print if it is not written by an expert in Jewish historical demography when such an expert published recently a well-reviewed work contradicting it. Sure, we should and will say 100,000 is the most popular number - just and we should and will note that expert on Jewish historical demographics, Stampfer, quotes a lower number. Also, how can you deny that all sources give Jewish Ukraine population at ~50,000 is beyond my understanding - but let the reader of the article make the judgement whether he should trust the estimates that give Jewish casualties at 200% of local population (or higher...). I will replace facts with citations tommorow.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  06:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I see that you have been steadily modifying your comments above, long after I have responded to them. Please don't do that any more, it gives a false impression of the conversation. Also, please don't make any false claims; I'm all for science and rationality, which actually goes hand in hand with Wikipedia policy. The key is that you have to stop inventing claims, and instead start citing sources. I haven't had a chance to look at all the stuff you've inserted into your comments after I already responded to them, but I note that at least one of your new sources has Stampfer estimating "13,000", when we already have him estimating 18,000-20,000, so it doesn't say much for that source. Finally, the estimate of the Jewish population at 50,000 is just that, an estimate, no doubt all based on one paper. It's not holy writ. Jayjg (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, you cite papers like this. Who wrote this paper, and where was it published? Jayjg (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Just as your favourite estimate of 100,000 is based on some old source, at least most of my refs are from Jewish hist. demo. experts (still, it's a progress you dropped the pre-20th century sources). As for 13,000, read the paper or contact prof. Gershon David Hundert from McGill University, I am sure he will explain why he chose it. As for the pdf you ask about, it's a referenced work of prof. Albert Lindemann, published on his university pages ([13], [14]). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  07:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
100,000 is not my "favorite estimate"; I was irritated by your and Galassi's absurdly POV and non-encyclopedic writing and blatant disregard for WP:NOR, so I started looking at what the sources said, and most of them used that number. I've brought lower numbers as well, when the sources stated them. I never used pre-20th century sources, of course; that's just some rubbish you've invented. The pdf you mention is not a published paper, but rather some unpublished course notes, clearly not citeable in any way. Also, one or the other of you has been inventing false claims for Magosci as well; I'll have to fix that now. Jayjg (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, also, (1) The article quotes Subtelny as saying "According to B. Weinryb, the total of losses reported in Jewish sources is 2.4 million to 3.3 million deaths, clearly a fantastic figure." Fantastic indeed, since I've never found a source claiming more than 500,000 Jewish deaths; I don't know who has invented this, Subtelny or Weinryb, but someone is making things up. Magosci, by comparison, attributes to the Jewish chroniclers the numbers 60-80,000 (Hannover) and 100,000 (Cohen). (2) For the longest time you guys kept claiming that everyone was basing their numbers on the Hannover chronicle, but you never even mentioned Cohen. Error? Original research? Who knows? (3) Magosci doesn't say "50% of 60,000", he merely quotes various other claims. Along with the scads of original research, you've all been playing fast and loose with the sources. Frankly, it's disgraceful. Jayjg (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, much of the Subtelny stuff actually comes from a footnote on page 635. More bad citing. Jayjg (talk) 08:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, we've been through this already - you really cannot insert original research into articles, it's against policy. Picking out one specific article to jump to the front of the queue, and describing it by the red-linked POV term academic article simply will not do. Remember, we're letting the narrative develop naturally in this article, we're not POV-pushing one specific view. Also, we've been over the "perhaps conservative" phrase, it comes directly from the sources used. You have to let sources tell their own story, you can't push them into your preferred position. Please don't make me add more sources stating 100,000, you know that's coming next. Jayjg (talk) 04:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm amazed that this is ongoing. Piotrus, please stop inserting OR. It's not our job to analyse RSs, but to report their findings. Jayjg producing more and more sources which contradict your OR should give you pause. <<-armon->> 04:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Piotrus is not inserting OR. Jayjg is inserting discredited sources.Galassi 20:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, there must be historiographical consensus we can fall back on, including but not limited to the claim of discredited sources. El_C 20:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
My understanding that the standard figure for Jewish casualties is around 100,000 deaths. The Hebrew Wikipedia echoes this. El_C 20:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Briefly: yes, that's the most common number. But in the recent years several studies dedicated to Jewish casualties in Uprising have presented a lower number, presenting arguments making the 100,000 claim outdated. No sources have been shown to show any academic works arguing against the lower claims in defense of 100,000 number also some sources (likely unaware of those publications and not concerned with Uprising in detail) repeat the claim 100,000.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers (section break 3)

Piotrus is quite correct in his actions, and he does no OR. Jayjg's SECONDARY sources are all dated, mythopoeic, unprofessional. I have contacted a professional historian and had him read the article. He called the Jayjg citations utterly untrustworthy, and gave us a reading list on our subject. Eventually Jayjg's citations will have to be put in a separate category of OLD MYTHOPOEIA.

I am adding a list the sources that are considered PROFESSIONAL, here and in the article:

  • Sysyn, Frank E. . A curse on both their houses: Catholic attitudes toward the Jews and Eastern Orthodox during the Khmel'nyts'kyi Uprising in Father Pawel Ruszel "Fawor niebieski". In: Israel and the Nations, (1987) xi-xxiv
  • Rosman, Moshe (Murray) J. . Dubno in the wake of Khmel'nyts'kyi. In: Jewish History, 17,2 (2003) 239-255
  • Yakovenko, Natalia . The events of 1648-1649 : contemporary reports and the problem of verification. In: Jewish History, 17,2 (2003) 165-178
  • Kohut, Zenon E. . The Khmelnytsky Uprising, the image of Jews, and the shaping of Ukrainian historical memory. In: Jewish History, 17,2 (2003) 141-163
  • Sysyn, Frank E. . The Khmel'nyts'kyi Uprising : a characterization of the Ukrainian revolt. In: Jewish History, 17,2 (2003) 115-139

Galassi 09:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

  • A solution: 2 separate subsections, MODERN and EARLIER casualty estimates. Jayjg, feel free to expand your section.Galassi 11:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
What a bizarre "solution"; you had views from 2000-2004 in the "earlier" section, and views from 1988 and 1996 in the "modern" section. You can't use sources you have not seen based on some outside correspondence you claim to have had; quote exactly what the sources say, and add them to the existing section where appropriate - but only once you have quoted what they have to say. Jayjg (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It is not bizarre. First- timelines OVERLAP. Old sources still continue to be used by the unscrupulous journalists.

But this organization is logical, sheep are safe and wolves are sated. BTW, Rubenstein is not a historian. He is a belletrist and a rabbi.Galassi 13:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

How can it possibly be "logical" when you have sources from 1988 in the "modern" section and sources from 2004 in the "earlier" section? I'm afraid it's more of the POV-pushing OR. Also, it's rather strange to hear you describe people like Sir Martin Gilbert, one of the most distinguished historians in the United Kingdom, as an "unscrupulous journalist". Finally, "sheep are safe, wolves are sated" is typical of the non-good faith Talk: that you have used on this page, when you have bothered to comment here at all. Jayjg (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and also, WP:CITE#Say_where_you_got_it says it is improper to add sources that you haven't seen. Have you seen any of the sources in the list you provided? Jayjg (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
See http://aleph1.libnet.ac.il/F/QILANS9RNKYJ4QFI7V24ARU5CU8UFEXH7SISFUFK1MC52V72TT-01561?func=file&file_name=find-d1

Galassi 14:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC) BS: my russian expression denotes compromise, which is a lot more than merits your tendentious view of the events. I have no issues with Gilbert, except he that he was superficial with our issue. He believed what he wrote, for sure, but had no acess to primary sources. Galassi 14:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the sources you are citing? Please answer "Yes" or "No". It looks like you are violating WP:CITE, but I want to make sure before I report you on the Administrator's noticeboard. Jayjg (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I have seen these sources, and they are perfectly legitimate. Lute88 15:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, except the last one, which is being sent to me tonight.Galassi 15:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that's great, you've both seen these source. What does Rosman, Moshe (Murray) J. . Dubno in the wake of Khmel'nyts'kyi. In: Jewish History, 17,2 (2003) 239-255 say regarding the Jewish death toll? What does Kohut, Zenon E. . The Khmelnytsky Uprising, the image of Jews, and the shaping of Ukrainian historical memory. In: Jewish History, 17,2 (2003) pp.141-163 say? Please quote them both. This shouldn't be difficult, and I've quoted every single one of the two dozen sources I have added. Jayjg (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, it's not very convincing when you attribute a simple claim to and entire twenty or thirty page article. Typically these claims are found on one or two pages at most, and can be quoted. Jayjg (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
These articles are relevant in their ENTIRETY. Period. Concentrate on your contribution to the "earlier". Piotrus and I will take care of the "current".Galassi 15:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you please quote a few sentences from these articles which relate directly to the issue of Jewish casualties? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
As soon as I get home. 11-hour flight...... Galassi 16:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
So you haven't read them yet, but plan to at some point? Jayjg (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I will help and post some now. In fact, the entire July 2003 issue of Jewish History journal is devoted to these events, every single article. Here are some refs:

Quote:
Jews have long read Natan Neta Hannover’s chronicle “Yeven Metzulah,” as well as Tit ha-Yaven and other accounts to paint a picture of catastrophe. Yet their reading, as Gershon Bacon explains, is often intertwined with myth that is the product of memory.... Catastrophe, of course, the events of 1648–1649 were, particularly for the Jews. Shaul Stampfer downgrading enormously the number of Jewish victims, still concludes that one-third to one-half of the Jews in various parts of the Ukraine perished, a number in excess of 10,000."
  • Kenneth Stow, Adam Teller, "Introduction. The Chmielnitzky Massacres, 1648–1649: Jewish, Polish, and Ukrainian Perspectives.", Jewish History June 2003, Vol. 17 Issue 2, p. 105. ISSN 0334-701X
Next quote:
"Writing the history of the events of 1648–1649 has been especially difficult. The chronicle sources used by modern historians to unravel the course of the war, irrespective of whether the author was a Jew, a Pole, or a Ukranian, privilege argument over accuracy. Their priority is to justify national ideologies, and they are replete with motifs, topoi, and symbols that do not easily strip away. One motif is that of the “wars of mercenaries,” in which elements typical of professional soldiery appear to cut across religious or even national lines. Two additional topoi, “the purification of the land” and the “syndrome of the overturned world,” repeat constantly, both describing what must be either done or reversed to achieve national deliverance. To take the chronicles at face value is to risk simply reproducing the topoi, if not the myths, of the chronicles themselves."
  • Natalia Yakovenko, "The events of 1648–1649: Contemporary reports and the problem", ibid, p.165
Another quote:
"The question of how many Jews died and how many survived in 1648 has produced much historical discussion. The problem is always the incompatibility of scholarly estimates and what is found in contemporary chronicles. Using demographic tools and applying them to all the regions of the Ukraine, it appears that no more, and possibly much fewer, than fifty percent of the 40,000 or so Jews in that region perished. The survivors mostly returned to their homes and rebuilt. Though speculative, the commensurability of the results argues their probable accuracy."
  • Shaul Stampfer, "What actually happened to the Jews of Ukraine in 1648?", ibid, p. 207


The contents table of the entire issue is probably freely available online. If anyone finds the article that one wants to read in full, please drop me an email as I have an online access to entire issue but I cannot post full articles of course.

A little more general comment, I am surprised to see that the data from history books specifically devoted to the period and area is countered by quotes randomly picked from books whose subject is unrelated to these events, like "Jews in colonial America", etc. or by quotes from CBS news, a respected news agency no doubt but whose reputation has been established by producing the news and their analysis rather than historic writings. This is exactly like producing claims about alleged massacres committed by Soviet troops in Poland during the WW2 referred solely to popular Polish press.

I agree that the Columbia Encyclopedia claim is OK to use. I disagree with going to google books, entering the search string of what one wants to find and picking all quotes one finds that support certain claim thus giving equal credence to the classic books specifically devoted to the history in question and books on unrelated subjects which passingly make claims outside of their main scope. --Irpen 16:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, finally, someone who has actually read the sources. Do you have access to Sysyn, Frank E. . A curse on both their houses: Catholic attitudes toward the Jews and Eastern Orthodox during the Khmel'nyts'kyi Uprising in Father Pawel Ruszel "Fawor niebieski". In: Israel and the Nations, (1987) xi-xxiv as well? Jayjg (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, I looked for all sources giving total casualties; I haven't selectively chosen sources. Many of the sources used are specifically on this or related topics, including books on Jewish history, books on genocide, etc. Jayjg (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the quotes. Just OT please note that is not the same case as Przyszowice massacre; there we had no contradictory sources (press had similar claim as academia); here of course we have contradictons in secondary sources. Bottom line is that if recent reliable academic secondary sources devoted to the issue of Jewish casulaties agree on X, but many other sources just treating this issue in passign state Y; this clearly shows that Y has been outdated but not spread widely enough for all scholars to be aware of it being outdated. Therefore we should, as suggested by Galassi, me and others, note that modern research states X but lots of older and less detailed research states Y which has been until recently considered reliable estimate (but is no longer by specialist). This is no OR, besides being perfectly logical we have (already cited) sources where scholars note this evolution in estimates; and finally not a single publication has been cited that would be disputing the lower numbers in favour of the higher ones. PS. Jayjg, please stop accusing others that they have not read the sources they cite; so far it is only you who seem to be picking paragraphs from random sources as long as they state that Jewish casualties were 100,000. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Piotrus, I've brought all sorts of sources, some higher than 100,000, some lower, some at; please try to make truthful statements. Also, I'm the only person here who has been citing things properly. In addition, when I bring different reliable sources all discussing the Jewish casualties in the Chmielnicki uprising, it can hardly be considered "picking paragraphs from random sources". Finally, when a person cannot quote a sentence of list a page number for a claim they are trying to make, then they clearly haven't read these sources. If someone has e-mailed Galassi some PDFs, but he hasn't read them, then he can't use them as references. Jayjg (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I've read this 3 years ago, but I didn't feel like relying on my less then photographic memory. [;-D} so far missing- the 1987 item.Galassi 17:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Galassi, you realize the nonsense you've inserted will have to go. We don't insert long lists of article names in the middle of articles. If you have specific information you wish to cite from these sources feel free to; of course, that will mean you will actually have to read them, but that will be required of you in any event. Also, the false division of material will have to be fixed, and the two sections properly integrated again. Will you do it, or will I be forced to? Jayjg (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attempt to avoid the revert war

Jayjg, please explain here in detail which parts of mine and Galassi's revision are not to your liking. Please be specific, accusations of OR or POVishness are not helpful. As for your edits, I find removal of ilinks to historical demography, historiography and summary of information in the begining of the sections unhelpful and disruptive.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  07:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've listed some of the issues above, but they should be obvious; your unsourced personal opinions are obviously unacceptable. Jayjg (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I am afraid that if the only thing you will show at talk are your accusations of other violating policies, and you will not discuss content issues, there is little progress to be made. Once again, I ask you to present specific content issues that you find objectionable.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I second that motion.Galassi 09:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I've listed them at length. On the other hand, it seems nearly impossible to even get Galassi to the Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
May I add one:
  • By the time partitions of Poland ended the existence of the Commonwealth in 1795, many Cossacks have already left Ukraine to colonise the Kuban.
versus, Galassi's
  1. The Zaporozhian Host ceased to exist in 1775.
  2. After its dissolution, Suvorovo created a Host of Loyal Zaporozhians made from ex-Zaporozhian volunteers soon to be renamed the Black Sea Cossack Host.
  3. Soon after the Russo-Turkish Wars, the Black Sea Cossacks (Chernomortsy) were granted the Kuban land which they began settling in 1792.
I hope nobody minds my reversion. --Kuban Cossack 21:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anybody has object to your version so far? I have no view on it, as Cossacks in the 18th century fall outside my primary interests (PLC).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Kiev?

Polish wiki has quite a few more battle articles related to the uprising; it has however no equivalent to our red linked battle of Kiev (see campaingbox). Would anybody object to removal of this battle from the campaignbox? On a related note, the article should have a better coverage of the military side of the uprising (after all, it was the primary part).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No objections to the removal, but perhaps it would be better to leave it "red" and allow someone who comes across it in the future to write that specific battle. --Riurik(discuss) 20:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, the point is that I don't recall any source I read mentioning battle of Kiev in this context. There were battles near Kiev but they are described in their respective articles named after smaller, but closer, settlements (ex. Korsun). History of Kiev mentions that In 1648 the Bohdan Khmelnytsky's cossacks triumphantly entered Kiev in the course of their uprising establishing the rule of their Cossack state in the city, but there is no mention of any military conflict in the city or its vicinity...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as there are no refs or arguments for keeping this battle, I am removing it - and adding several battles stubbed on Polish wiki.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arendators

GalAssi, can you please quote the relevant section from Magocsi regarding "arendators" on page 147? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"The landowners therefore turned to the Jews [...] for their expertise in leasing. The Jews obliged [...] 1617th centuries they had come to to dominate the arenda system and to manage a considerable portion of the aagricultural economy in Ukrainian lands...."Galassi 05:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I am just wondering if "arendator" is the best term. But as I don't have any sources to the contrary, it can stay, and indeed it describes the phenomena quite well. Could you expand the arendator article, and throw a ref there too?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  06:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
ADENDATOR (ORENDAR in Ukr., OTKUPSCHIK in Rus.) is THE term. There is nothing derogatory about it. Arenda was a common practice throughout Europe, and it made a lot of people rich.Galassi 10:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I never thought it could be derogatory; thanks for expanding the stub: for a common practice across centuries of Europan history, it is still a drop in the ocean of what we need... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not quite sure why someone wants to insert mentioning of Jewish captives of Tartars in the sentence that deals with the contradiction between Khmelnytskyj's policy of union with the Crimea and paying off Tatars with Christian captives and self-image of Cossack as the "Defender of Christian Faith against the Infidel". Jews are neither here nor there in this sentence, they and their suffering were irrelevant to Cossacks.Chestnut ah (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

They must be mentioned because 1. they constituted a large part of the "jasyr", and 2. this contradicts neither Cossacks' image nor historical reality.Galassi (talk) 12:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)