Talk:Zaporozhian Cossacks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ukraine Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Russia Portal
Zaporozhian Cossacks is part of the WikiProject Russian history, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. (FAQ).Add comments
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Archive

Archives
April 2007 February 2008

Contents

[edit] Lead Dispute

Well the vast majority of the Zaporozhian Cossacks are the Kuban Cossacks, after all Black Sea Cossacks were loyal to Russia, and the Danubians relocated in 1828 (after a Pardon by Nicholas I) to the Azov and then in 1861 to the Kuban. Therefore yes, all. --Kuban Cossack 20:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no source to support that. Some didn't go to Kuban, some disbanded, some moved somewhere else, you cannot state with certainty that all of them became lackeys to the Russian czar. --Hillock65 (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Destruction vs absorption. The fortress was indeed destroyed, but the article does clearly state it is about the Cossacks, not about the Sich. Also Horlo changed the heading to be "absorbed", why have contradictions? Also why make revert my shortening of the heading? Headings do not need to be more than a few words, and certainly not to WP:POINT as the one here does. --Kuban Cossack 20:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It is even funny to discuss this. Read the sentence again. Carefully. The Host was not absorbed, it was destroyed. There is a difference. A big one, as you again trying to hide the truth that the Zaporozhian host was destroyed by the Russians. Be honest. --Hillock65 (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems accurate that the Host was destroyed. The dictionary says [1], of the word "destroy":
1. to reduce (an object) to useless fragments, a useless form, or remains, as by rending, burning, or dissolving; injure beyond repair or renewal; demolish; ruin; annihilate.
2. to put an end to; extinguish.
3. to kill; slay.
4. to render ineffective or useless; nullify; neutralize; invalidate.
5. to defeat completely.
Definitions 1, 2 and 5 apply to what happened to the Host in 1775. On the other hand, if that word seems extreme (most Zaporozhians weren't killed or slain) would disbanded be a more nuetral one?Faustian (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The point of discussioni is indeed the Host, which was destroyed. --Hillock65 (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
While the host was ended, it was re-created within a decade and a half. Moreover the individual units and regalia of the old Zaporozhian host were carried through to the next one. What changed was that the new Host of the Loyal Zaporozhians, later the Black Sea Cossacks, were under a different legal frame, and with much clearer responsibilities. So absorbed is much more correct to describe what actually happened to the Cossacks.
Also remember definition one applies to an object. An organisation cannot be an object. Also it was not defeated as no war took place. The Cossacks were released from the Sich and then their base was pulled down. There was no armed resistance, thereby definition 5 is also not correct.
This leaves us with definition 2, now there are a lot less POV alternatives than destroyed. --Kuban Cossack 18:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
One can be defeated without armed resistence, so definition 2 and 5 apply. I agree that destroy while correct may be needlessly strong/POV and support changing the word to disband for the sake of consensus. IMO absorb is at least as POV as destroy. "The Host was disbanded and the Sich destroyed by Catherine II..."Faustian (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how you can put it any other way, the Zaporozhian host was destroyed by the Russians, razed to the ground. There are scores of sources to prove that. What, now we cannot mention that and have to choose words to describe a clear act of destruction and demolition? I understand some don't like Russia being named as the one which destroyed it, but these are undisputed facts. Let's not play games. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Correction a "host" cannot be razed to the ground, because it is not a physical object...:) It can be disbanded, it can be merged but it cannot be destroyed. Only a physical object such as a base of operations can be destroyed, but such detail for the lead is not necessary per WP:UNDUE. Moreover fyi the base of Zaporozhian operations constantly changed, and the old ones were pulled down. So why make something special out of an event which does not stand out of the pattern? Since you are so concerned on national feelings, maybe that is the reason why you wish to include it? --Kuban Cossack 15:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The Zaporozhian Cossacks are an integral part of how Hrushevskyist Greater Galician nationalists conceive their history. It's important for them to see themselves as victims of Russian imperialism ... so anything as neutral as "dissolved" or "incorporated" will be unacceptable. WP:NPOV is irrelevant, so it's not surprising that such an ordinarily non-controversial NPOV edit would get reverted. Sad day. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Personal attacks and offensive labels aside, please consult the primary sources in this question, Catherine II's manifesto — if you find there any mentioning of dissolution, absorption or disbandment, you are free to change it that way. So far, the original historic reference to this event is destruction (Высочайший манифест об уничтожении Сечи Запорожской), nothing else. By the same token, lest you should be accused of pushing Russian imperialist revisionism, stay true to historical record and primary sources. --Hillock65 (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
If you wish to use primary sources like this as the basis for modern attempts at objective summary, we can call the people around Kiev as the "Russians of Kiev", right? Or would that be unacceptable to you? Why stop there ... why not label the conquest of the Aztecs "holy" and "righteous" or the Soviet defeat of Germany in 1945 the "victory of Jewry"? Oh, that's right ... we have WP:NPOV for these things. Well, we're supposed to at least. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, taking into account User:Ezhiki's suggestion, can we focus on issue at hand instead of going all over the board? Do you have any objection to the terminology used by the Russian tsarina in relation to the destruction of the Zaporozhian Sich? I would like to point out that she uses a far stronger language than that in her manifesto, and in this case you cannot blame it on evil "Greater Galician nationalists" (sic) as it was the contemporary of the events describing her own actions. If you wish, I can cite a couple more less prominent references to the fact, I am sorry to say, it is not going to sound any more flattering than now. Sincerely, --Hillock65 (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
If two other users say it's POV, then you should pause and raise your eyebrows. I don't think cherry-picking words from primary sources will get wikipedia anywhere because, really, everyone can do it. I do not see what from a neutral perspective is added by using "destroy" rather than "dissolved". Whether or not they were victims of Russian imperialism readers can tell for themselves by the events. Let readers make up their own mind ... wiki editors don't need to add spins unless they're POV-pushing! Anyways, that wasn't the only point of this edit-conflict. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Where do you find cherry picking? It is a general knowledge that it was destroyed, reflected in numerous sources; if you have other suggestions supported by credible sources, then we can come to an understanding. For the record, it was not me, who started this dispute — this word has been there for quite some time, until one of the editors decided to push his POV. If he disagrees with it, he should look for the consenus of editors before changing it and try to support it with credible sources. I am still waiting for any meaningful suggestions to resolve this conflict, enough of beating around the bush. --Hillock65 (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we can find a compromise here. The host may refer to the organization or to its base. There is no disagreement that the base on the Khortytsia island was indeed destroyed. So, if we use the term but make it clear that we are referring to the physical base, I don't think anyone would oppose that. --Irpen 21:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, in this case destroyed refers to both: the fortress was razed to the ground and the host itelf was destroyed and its leaders imprisoned, Zapoporozhian Sich was no more after that — it ceased to exist as an entity, both as a community of people and as a base. The very first sentence in Catherine's manifesto states unequivically that it was destroyed, not dissolved or disbanded, she even went as far as fobidding the name of Cossacks mentioned. (Please see the link to original document above). The article explains quite well what happened to the Cossacks and their leaders. I don't see why we need to bend backwards to suit one's POV. That is the case of a spade being called a spade. Nothing more. --Hillock65 (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Destruction of Zaporozhian Sich, again

Once again you cannot destroy an object that does not have physical force. In any case the quote from the manifesto уничтожениe translates as elimination not destruction. Yet the Cossacks were not eliminated as such, only the ruling circle was arrested, the rest were sent free. Thus уничтожение in her manifesto is more closer to исключение (т.е. исключения из состава Российской армии и т.п.) rather than the other synomon of that word - рузрушение. Again your translation of the manifesto is not one by a professional translator, but an interpretation. --Kuban Cossack 13:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Now, you are cherry-picking. If you don't like the title of the manifesto, here is the first sentence from it to assuade your suspicions: Мы восхотели чрез cie объявить во всей Нашей Империи, к общему известно Нашим всем верноподданным, что сечь Запорожская в конец уже разрушена, со истреблением на будущее время и самаго названия Запорожских казаков... And yes, the community as well as the physical fortress itself were destroyed. No one is claiming that the Cossacks were destroyed, the Host was. It ceased to exist and was indeed destroyed. Whatever happened to individual Cossacks and to their leaders is explained in the article. Here, apart from the original document of the time, here is another reference to support the statement that Zaporozhian Sich was indeed destroyed (I outlined it in bold, so that you can grasp the meaning easier):

  • Zaporozhian resistance to these encroachments only hastened the destruction of the Sich in 1775. Orest Subtelny. Ukraine, A History p. 188

The statement that Zaporozhian Sich was destroyed is accurate and supported both by historical documents of the time and by references to historiographic literature. I suggest you stop disturbing the article by cherry-picking and hair-splitting — you haven't succeeded with underhand, sneaky edits with misleading edit summaries [2][3], now you wanto to continue the discussion of the obvious ad neuseum. It is what it is, a destruction, plain and simple. Give it a rest, finally. Please. --Hillock65 (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What about was "brought to an end" rather than "destroyed"? You've said nothing to convince me I was wrong when I said the Zaporozhian Cossacks are an integral part of how Hrushevskyist Greater Galician nationalists conceive their history. It's important for them to see themselves as victims of Russian imperialism. So why not just get rid of the editorial spin and let the events stand for themselves? You'd only be preaching to the converted in any case! Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Why would it be "brought to an end"? Was Byzantium brought to an end? Was the Aztec empire brought to an end? I am lost for words here... --Hillock65 (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
How about forcibly disbanded?Faustian (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Or disbanded by the Russian Empire? --Kuban Cossack 15:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

None of you as yet, have offered any sources to your POV nor have explained why destroyed reflected in the above sources is so wrong. Try pushing your euphemisms here. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hillock, it is you who is pushing your POV, but since you asked for it here: Помня указание императрицы провести операцию "спокойно и без кровопролития", Текели ...Так где же тот кровопролитный бой, о котором писали лживые историки и писатели? Где пушечный обстрел Сечи, разгромивший её укрепления? Все это выдумки, ибо ни одного выстрела в Сечи не было не только из пушки, а даже из пистолета. But it gets better, apparently the initial disbandtion of the host happened two months earlier, and the Zaporozhians offered no resistance warring AND political. Only after the authorities were left for the capital did the former Cossacks begin to fragment into anarchy, and Спустя два месяца, 5 августа, Екатерина II подписала Манифест о ликвидации Запорожской Сечи с перечислением шести причин, заставивших её это сделать, грабежи, захват земель, самоуправство и пр. Yet at the same time Tekeli mounted his operation on the 4th of June. So, here officially the Zaporozhian Host ceased to exist in early June. Whilst what remained of ther vacated base was pulled down in August. You were saying about general knowledge...--Kuban Cossack 17:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the big issue? Subtelny uses destroyed in his english language history of Ukraine. Would "abolished" work, as is used in the english language encyclopedia of Ukraine? Ostap 17:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I will ignore the preceding and the following rants of Kuban Cossack and will only remind that the word destroyed is neutral as it is. Moreover it is mentioned in numerous documents, as both the fortress and the host were destroyed per WP:V, WP:SOURCE. There was no other Zaporozhian Host after that. It was finished. There were other hosts but not a Zaporozhian Host. Some are trying to appease a known edit worrior and a POV pusher with a history of sneaky tricks to smuggle in his changes into the article (see refs above). It is a matter of fairness and principle. A destruction should be called that no matter how much whining we get from those who try to revise history and push POV. If it wasn't a big deal, Kuban Cossack would not have tried sneaky tricks and would have openly stated his position from the very beginning. Instead this circus over one measly word goes on. Question is, what is so disastrous and unfathomable in the word destruction used in numerous sources to justify all this!? --Hillock65 (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Gentlemen, particularly those who just arrived from WP:CANVASSing efforts by Hillock, the big issue is not what actually happened, as the sources say that the end of Zaporozhian Host was a string of events, as described in the relevant passage of the article, but to find one sentence description to describe the final 70 years of the Host's history. My proposal is that it should read (if we are to keep the generalised line in the rest of the article) ...before being absrobed into the Russian Empire and finally dissolved in 1775. Here, the fact that the vacated base was destroyed two months after the Host was formally disbanded is a mere detail, that needs not be amplified to the lead per WP:UNDUE. User:Hillock65 seems to take a no compromise (WP:FAITH, WP:EQ and WP:POINT as well as WP:DICK come to mind) and insists that this POV verb - destroyed be kept. (BTW five users have already stated that they do not mind it being substituted for something less POV, that's a higher majority than you had on the poster above, yet you still seem to refuse to accept the consensus between everyone else that destroyed can be replaced, and this will neither compromise the factual correction of the article, nor the string of events. Sorry to say this, but seems to be you are outnumbered.) --Kuban Cossack 17:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Are there (reliable, Western) sources that say destroyed? If so it may be a reasonable one-word summary of an obviously much more complex event (or series of). If not, then of course it should not be used.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


Davies, Europe, a well-known historian with mild Russophobic tendencies, says that the state "was suppressed". Not sure I can make up my mind if that's more POV than "destroyed". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Per Piotrus' request western published sources:
  1. Ukraine: A History By Orest Subtelny
  2. Russia and Ukraine: Literature and the Discourse of Empire
  3. A History of Ukraine By Paul Robert Magocsi
  4. The Military Revolution Debate: Readings on the Military Transformation --Hillock65 (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It should not be forgotten that this was done by force, by the Russian military, and invovled the arrest and imprisonment of the Host's leader. Yes, no one was killed, but it wasn't a mere bureucratric action either, as would be implied by stating simply disbanded or absorbed. It was done by force.Faustian (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
For the sake of space and time, let's not go into technicalities of the destruction. The question is not how it was done, but rather that it was finished, ceased to exist. Put it any way you want it, Zaporozhian Sich was no more, the community of people and the fortress itself were destroyed. There were other hosts but not this one. Plain and simple. --Hillock65 (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Orest Subtelny : Ukrainian nationalist historian in the Canadian diaspora, and refers to the Sich not host.
Myroslav Shkandrij : same as above on both counts
Paul Robert Magocsi : refers to Sich, not host.
Clifford J. Rogers : cannot view. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Orest Subtelny is the utmost authority in Ukrainian history, he is cited in scores of articles in Wikipedia, his academic credentials are without reproach. Sich was the Host, hair-splitting will not help. It is abanduntly clear what those academic sources meant. Keep looking for evil "Hrushevskyist Greater Galician nationalists" (sic). Sincerely. --Hillock65 (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Nuh uh Hillock ... nice try. ;) I never used the word "evil". It's not up to you to determine that "it is abanduntly clear what those academic sources meant", especially as part of a POV-dispute. Anyways, it is theoretically relevant (though not actually here) that those two historians are diaspora nationalist revisionists, since Piotrus asked for "reliable Western sources". Orest Subtelny may or may not be an "utmost authority", but per the discussion of Serhii Plokhy and others (e.g. The History of a "Non-Historical" Nation: Notes on the Nature and Current Problems of Ukrainian Historiography), can't be cited as "objective" or "Western" in this context. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


No comment. :))) I hope other users will be clever enough to make up their minds without your help. Cheers. --Hillock65 (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

For Deacon of Pndapetzim: According to his biography [4], Orest Subtelny received his Ph.D. at Harvard, wrote the entry on Cossacks for the World Book Encyclopedia, and is a professor at York University of Toronto. Your dismissal of him as a "Ukrainian nationalist historian" and not "Western" might speak more to your objectivity rather than his.Faustian (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
As for which word to use - destroy is correct [5] : "to put an end to; extinguish". Absorb is not, because the Host was indeed destroyed, extinguished, an end was put to it. Its reconsituted form several years later was absorbed. However, "destroy" is not the only correct term; if people object we can choose another one. As I've mentioned before, "forcefully disbanded" described what happened accurately.Faustian (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Harvard or not, I checked both Subtleny and Magosci. They speak about the destruction of Sich. --Irpen 19:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Do you have an opinion about how to describe what was done to the Host? best, Faustian (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Faustian, I'm not dismissing him, just putting him in context. He did indeed get his Ph D. at Harvard, no surprise there, as Harvard has the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, founded, funded and sustained in that era by anti-Soviet, anti-Russian Ukrainian nationalist exiles and emmigrants, the institution that provided the major focus in North America in that era for these sentiments, not unrelated to America's cold war stance. Pointing this out hardly means I'm biased, just that I'm not naive. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you have as much healthy skepticism of the work of those coming from a Soviet context or of a White Russian emigre context with respect to this history? respectfully Faustian (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Why just the other day I was pointing out to some Russians that, contrary to Gumilev, Kliuchevsky, and others, Russian colonization of Siberia wasn't a particularly pleasant experience. We all have biases Faustian, but I don't think think I'm psychologically more inclined to favour Soviet or Russian propaganda over Ukrainian ... though if I appear more sympathetic towards the former than the latter it's because the former's flaws are too well known generally to be a problem in English-language contexts and hence are rarely an issue. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I agree that Subtelny is a major authority here. Hence I am convinced that the word "destruction" can be used here (of course, let's not overuse it when not needed). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, are you saying that Subtelny's using a term is alone a justification to use it at Wikipedia? Does the context matter? Does it matter whether we are talking facts or opinions? --Irpen 20:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Piotrus, article say The Host went through a series of conflicts and alliances involving the three powers before being destroyed in the late 18th century by the Russian Empire. while Subtelny says "destruction of the Zaporozhian Sich". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's not go into hair-splitting again. Zaporozhian Sich is the same as Zaporozhian Host — one and the same thing. Please read Zaporozhian Sich, especially this part: The term has also been metonymically used as an informal reference to the whole Zaporizhia or to the Zaporozhian Host. Moreover, none of the academic references above make any distinction between the Sich and the Host as they are indeed one and the same thing. Sich in the meaning of Host if very common: see Danubian Sich, which is another Cossack Host. There are historic references (Catherine's statement of destruction in her manifesto, see above) and plenty of historiographic references from academic publications to finally leave this article in peace and free of revert wars. --Hillock65 (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I've gotta say ... this isn't a big issue for me, was just adding my thoughts ... but really, since I don't think it ought to be an big issue for anyone, your enthusiasm and insistence on strong wording doesn't decrease my suspicions of editorial spinning. That's not what wiki is for. Is it so hard to leave the reader to make up his own mind? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
That's been my intention all along, to leave the readers decide for themselves instead of changing the present wording back and forth. It is neutral enough. --Hillock65 (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: Was Zaporozhian Sich destroyed?

Was the Zaporozhian Sich destroyed?

The Encyclopedia Українське козацтво, Київ 2006 states on page 195 that the Zaporozhian Sich was destroyed in 1709, when the Zaporozhian cossacks crossed over to the protection of the Crimean Khan and Turkey. A new Sich was set up in 1734-1775. After the скасування - abolishment of the Hetmanate, Zaporozhia became the only remaining centre of Cossackdom.

Після зруйнування Січі традиції З. к. продовжувалися ма Задунайській Січі, у Дунайському війську, Усть-Дунайському Буджацькому козацькому війську, Чорноморськомукозацькому війську, Кубанському козацтві, Бузькому козацькому війську, Катеринославському козацькому вуйську, Азовському козацькому війську.

It states that the Zaporozhian Sich was destroyed and by inference that the Zaporozhian cossacks as a unit were also, although it states that the traditions of the Zaporozhian Cossacks continued in various places under various different names.

Bandurist 16:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well there you go, the Zaporozhian Sich, which as we all know is only a generalised term that actually refers to several Siches and some were destroyed, first one back in 1709. The question is destroyed acceptable as a generalisation for one word summary of the lead? Bandurist's text above clearly states:the traditions of the Zaporozhian Cossacks continued. Indeed the Danubian and the Black Sea Cossacks were the same Zaporozhian Cossacks. Moreover my refrence above states, wrt Faustian's initial definition 2, that the correct alternative if we are to be true to the historical events and the details of 1775, then the Zaporozhian Host was disbanded by Empres's order back in June. Formally that is the end point of the official Host. Period. The empty sich was then levelled in August of that year. Now I am not denying that Ukrainian-conscious minds over history have interpreted that second event of 1775 "the end" rather than the first one, which as far as the Host, as a military and political organisation are concerned was the end (no quotations here). This is well explained in the legacy section and a reader will be able to see that should he chose to read the article. --Kuban Cossack 20:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I would add that iti s important to note that the Host was disbanded by force. Although there was no bloodshed, it's leaders were arrested and exiled, the tsarist military was involved, etc. The disbandment was not a mere beaurocratic procedure. The Host was forcefully disbanded.Faustian (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Well as my ref above states, there was no force employed, Tekeli surrounded the Sich and after a few negotiations the Zaporozhians surrendered without fight and left the Sich. Two months later the empty base was razed. Also though the leaders were arrested it is a matter of wonder on how "terrible" was Kalnyshevsky's (for example) "exile" that he managed to live double the current (2+ centuries later) life expectancy of Ukraine...--Kuban Cossack 18:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Here we go again... Everyone agrees the Sich was destroyed, both the host and the community. Sure, the majority of Cossacks were unharmed, but the community was finished. Please bear in mind that we are talking about a lead, where short, concise form is preferred and the quite neutral description of events there now is good enough. Unless someone can finally explain to me what is so terribly wrong with the term used in numerous academic sources and in Catherine's manifesto, I cannot understand what is all this hoopla about? Destroyed in introduction is quite appropriate and neutral. Can we finally leave this measly word alone or should we argue about it in perpetuity? --Hillock65 (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Like you said a short, concise form is preferred and the quite neutral description of events.' The end of the community was not by destruction of its base but by a bloodless surrender two months earlier, where not a shot was fired as sourced by my refs above and indeed Tekeli's report there. The community was finished? Again nothing but an interpretation of the events, the Cossack community would continue into the 19th century, and make a name for itself over and over again. So destroyed sounds like a contradiction to what really happened, and is certainly not neutral. --Kuban Cossack 18:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that destruction is correct. However, other ways of describing what happened are equally accurate. Since wikipedia goes by consensus, I'm just offering some alternatives.Faustian (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Well I disagree with the destruction part, particularly in the lead. Please tell me what's wrong with: The Host went through a series of conflicts and alliances involving the three powers before being absorbed by the Russian Empire and disbanded in the late 18th century.? --Kuban Cossack 18:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem with the version you write above is that, with all due respect, it seems to whitewash what actually happened. The Host was surrounded by soldiers, its leaders arrested and imprisoned, it was liquidated as an organization, and many of its members fled into exile. "Absorbed" doesn't accurately convey what happened. Destroyed is technically accurate, although I can understand your presumed point that the word destroy may imply physical destruction (i.e., when one writes that an army was destroyed, this implies bloodshed) which did not happen, so other versions are equally accurate. Absorb is not one of them. I've already mentioned forcibly disbanded, perhaps liquidated would also work. I wonder what the consensus is.Faustian (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no wonder that you disagree, as usually you want to push your POV. The community and the host were destroyed not absorbed, it is corroborated by numerous academic sources. You haven't given a single one! Substituting a destruction with POV-ish euphemisms will not work. As for me the present wording is concise, neutral and quite appropriate. Please find something better to do than disturbing the whole article over one word. --Hillock65 (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't threated me, I have provided resources above, and as both Faustian and others have said above there are less POV alternatives than destroyed irrespective what happened. There are also many "acedemic sources" (Do you decide what's academic?) that claim Holodomor was a genocide and yet we don't include it into that category.--Kuban Cossack 20:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
If you have any objections to the use of this word in the historic manifesto of Cathrine II and in four other academic publications, please voice your objections to each. Otherwise, I don't see the point to continue this useless discussion over one and the same thing. --Hillock65 (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I stated my objections above, and please no need to panic about premature closing of this discussion (I though it was your style to continue them in circles) I will take this up to the Medcab if necessary. Now since you refuse to answer them there I shall repeat my objection that: In any case the quote from the manifesto уничтожениe does not necessarily translates as destruction. Уничтожение can eqully mean elimination. Yet the Cossacks were not eliminated as such, only the ruling circle was arrested, the rest were sent free. Thus уничтожение in her manifesto is more closer to исключение (т.е. исключения из состава Российской армии и т.п.) rather than the other synomon of that word - рузрушение. Again your translation of the manifesto is not one by a professional translator, but an interpretation . Since the manifesto is the only primary source you pulled. --Kuban Cossack 20:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please, do provide your translation of the word in bold: Мы восхотели чрез cie объявить во всей Нашей Империи, к общему известно Нашим всем верноподданным, что сечь Запорожская в конец уже разрушена, со истреблением на будущее время и самаго названия Запорожских казаков... --Hillock65 (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do prove to me that the noun reffers to the whole Host and not the physical fortress. --Kuban Cossack 21:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is going nowhere. Why not consider Faustian's proposal? Ostap 21:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Which one? Forcefully disbanded? I am against it, the host was not disbanded it was destroyed. It never existed again. By saying disbanded we are denying the fact that a unique community of people was finished, we imply that a group of Cossacks was dispersed. Yet we are talking about a community that survived centuries before Russians destroyed it, that had centuries of glorious past, that was the cradle of Ukrainian statehood. It does not convey the magnitude and the impact it had. Not only the host was finshed, it sigified the end of free Cossacks. After Zaporozhian Host's destruction and exile elsewhere they would never be as free and self-governed as in Zaporozhia. Their ancestors pride now of being servants to the Russian tsars, something that the free Zaporozhian Cossacks would never do. That was the end of all this that you propose to term a disbandment? --Hillock65 (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
As a compromise we can add the part to the lead sentence to convey that many Cossacks survived: The Host went through a series of conflicts and alliances involving the three powers before being destroyed by the Russian Empire in a bloodless takover. --Hillock65 (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like the best compromise. I wonder if he will agree... Ostap 22:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, too.Faustian (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually it did exist again, all of the confiscated regalia was returned to the Black Sea Cossacks who formed the same Kurens that were under Zaporozhian times. Again you just exposed your POV on the matter: Their ancestors pride now of being servants to the Russian tsars, something that the free Zaporozhian Cossacks would never do.. You will find that up to the revolution the Cossacks had more civil rights than modern citizens of western Europe have, they were free from taxes, free to own huge amounts of land, free to do anything they wished on it. Not very far from how the Zaporozhians were. Besides one can argue that before that they were equal "servants" to the Polish king. Like I said Don't use wikipedia to make a point!, and stop bringing your Ukrainian Nationalist POV here. Also before Russians destroyed it fyi, Catherine II was German, whilst Tekeli was Serbian. "bloodless takeover" is too detailed for a lead, and I insist the word destroyed is replaced by disbanded. For consensus I would agree to Faustian's (Ostap's) suggestion. --Kuban Cossack 16:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Too bad, that was close, read WP:IDONTLIKEIT and get a grip, no one is going to get out of the way to please you. WP works by consensus and you are being the one, who disrupts it. This article was fine a mere week ago, there were no complaints as to the word destroy, no revert wars or disputes when you were away, now again, who is pushing POV and disrupting the encyclopedia for nationalistic reasons? --Hillock65 (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Apply it to yourself, per WP:ILIKEIT, and please stop putting the issue of yourself being a majority. Do you remember where our dispute on PVL got to? Russian is still in the line's title, and I was up against at the height of about 5 users. Here only you are insistent on destroy, other users, have already showed their willingness to accept alternatives should they be necessary. Wikipedia goes by consensus and you are destroying it. Incidentally status Quo on the article was such that you added it only two months ago, the article existed since Summer 2004... regards. --Kuban Cossack 17:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Let's find out what the community thinks. Do you support the following amendment of the lead sentence: The Host went through a series of conflicts and alliances involving the three powers before being destroyed by the Russian Empire in a bloodless takeover. If you disagree, please state your reasons and provide an alternative. Thanks. --Hillock65 (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Support — The Sich was indeed destroyed as supported by historiographical academic literature [6][7][8][9] and Catherine II's own manifesto[10]. The Host and the Sich are one and the same thing — none of the cited sources make a distinction between the two. --Hillock65 (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Sich and Host are not necessarily the same, physically the Sich was destroyed, as pointed out in Cathrine's manifesto. However there is a separate article called the Zaporozhian Sich destroyed. This article however is about the Zaporozhian Cossacks, and the Zaporozhian Host. The Host's existence was ended two months prior to destruction in a bloodless surrender. Therefore I ~propose that he Host went through a series of conflicts and alliances involving the three powers eventually being absorbed by the Russian Empire, before being [forcefully] disbanded in the late 18th century. The "forcefully" is my offer of consensus. --Kuban Cossack 18:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - The sources clearly say "destroyed". The Sich ceased to exist. --Greggerr (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I also support Kuban Kazak's version equally to the one above.Faustian (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support watched this debate long enough to chime in Eduvalko (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sich and and the Host aren't the same. Destroyed is stronger than necessary to get the meaning, and using destroyed leads to the impression that the Host was wiped out, which as Kuban has shown was not really the case. being disbanded is fine, and as it's a passive verb, there's no need for [forcibly] either. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support based on my previous comments, but I may change my mind if a reasonable alternative is provided.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Not only was the Sich destroyed, but the very mention of the term "Zaporozhian" and "Zaporozhian Host" was disgarded particularly by Potemkin, who turned blue whenever he heard it spoken by anyone else and who never used it after the destruction of the Sich. Bandurist (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, destroyed is indeed unnecessary. Kuban Cossack's alternative seems reasonable. Bogdan що? 00:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Kuban Cossack and Bogdan --Russianname (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per Hillock65 and Bandurist. Ostap 04:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, The Sich was destroyed (and Hillock's sources prove this), but the host was rather disbanded indeed. Alæxis¿question? 07:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Disband - To dissolve the organization of (a corporation, for example). To cease to function as an organization; break up. To cause to break up or cease to function; To stop functioning or cohering as a unit;
Destroy - to reduce (an object) to useless fragments, a useless form, or remains, as by rending, burning, or dissolving; injure beyond repair or renewal; demolish; ruin; annihilate. to render ineffective or useless; nullify; neutralize; invalidate. to defeat completely.# To subdue or defeat completely; crush: The rebel forces were destroyed in battle.
  1. To render useless or ineffective: destroyed the testimony of the prosecution's chief witness
—Synonyms 1. smash, level, waste, ravage, devastate. Destroy, demolish, raze imply reducing a thing to uselessness. To destroy is to reduce something to nothingness or to take away its powers and functions so that restoration is impossible: Fire destroys a building. Disease destroys tissues. To demolish is to destroy something organized or structured: to demolish a machine. To raze is to level down to the ground: to raze a fortress. 2. extirpate, annihilate, uproot.

—Antonyms 1, 2. create. To me Destroy and disband are very similar, indeed in this case almost like synonyms. Bandurist (talk) 11:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If you we are talking about disbandment of a group of people, Cossacks in out case, then indeed this word is appropriate. We are discussing however, not only of disbandment of a group, but about the destruction of a community — the Zaporozhian host, with its own unique culture, customs and traditions in the same terms as we would be discussing the destruction of Carthage. The disbanded group of Cossacks was regenerated elswhere, but a destroyed unique community wasn't. I am yet to see any sources per WP:SOURCE or any arguments apart from "I think so" to substantiate any votes against the proposed amendment. --Hillock65 (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose and prefer the compromise one. Sources confirm the destruction of Sich. Projecting it as a destruction of Host is the Wikipedian's own. --Irpen 00:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per all above arguments They were destroyed as entity by Russian Empire.--Molobo (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kuban Cossack and Bogdan. Note that all those that have voted support are Ukrainian.--Miyokan (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Please explain how that matters. Are you suggesting that we do not count the opinions of Ukrainian editors? That is petty racism. And Piotrus will be surprised to learn that he is Ukrainian. Ostap 02:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
That's unnecessary indeed. Most of the opinions are posted here in good faith. Isolated "stalk after your opponent" votes do not add much to this picture except raise some eyebrows. Ukrainian editors are not voting in unison, neither here, nor in any other wikipedia discussions no in the voting booths. --Irpen 02:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
It is obvious what I meant by that comment and it has nothing to do with racism. I am not suggesting that they are working in unison, my observation meant that it is interesting that only Ukrainians voted support while editors of different nationalities have voted oppose, indicating that perhaps Ukrainians have a certain bias towards this. Deacon of Pndapetzim pointed out the exact same thing on the recent Kiev renaming vote.--Miyokan (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Please keep your theories to yourself. Piotrus and Molobo are not Ukrainians which completely deflates your argument anyway. Would you like me to bring up a theory about why you, and others of your nationality, cast your vote the way you did? Ostap 02:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
On that note, you may want to ask Molobo what brought him here (or to the Ukrainian nationalism article). Anyway, I think the bad faith votes here constitute a negligible fraction and editors seem validly divided. Compromise is always a good thing. --Irpen 03:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
On that very same note you may ask this User:Miyokan what brought him and his racist insinuations here. I don't see him taking part in any discussions above. People seem to be voting mainly because of political and in this case of their ethnic biases. The gaping and striking absence of any academic sources to support votes against points to that fact. --Hillock65 (talk) 12:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Well the fact that none of the voters above apart from me are Russian surely would go against your opinion above, considering that the two Polish voters or at least one of them was brought here by your Canvassing effort. Yet you accuse me of canvassing...the nerve ;). --Kuban Cossack 12:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, let's keep racist insinuations away from this discussion, or else I might wonder why the second Russian editor thinks enthnicity is a factor in how people vote here. Please keep to the subject matter of this discussion, which is not the ethnic makeup of its partcicipants. --Hillock65 (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
In that case, I shall put an announcement asking for participation at Portal:Russia, since obviously national and ethnic composition of editors make no difference. --Kuban Cossack 13:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Deacon of Pndapetzim. Basically, "destroying" when applied to people, is a weasel word for "killing them all". it is clear they were not all killed. And even if they were all killed, we should not be saying that they were destroyed. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Irpen. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Irpen and support the less POV description.--Voyevoda (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)