Talk:Battle of Konotop (1659)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

NPOV

As the author of this article I am asking administrators to stop the vandalism of this article made by user: Ghirlandajo. Significant changes have been made without any consultation. The changes (vandalism) of User: Ghirlandajo have completely changed the article. It is my understanding that if any user is in disagreement, they shoul voice their objections first, before making such significant changes as have been made by the aforementioned user. --Hillock65 17:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I will not report you on WP:PAIN for the time being. Please consult WP:Vandalism#What vandalism is not before making outrageous (and quite silly) accusations against your opponents in the future. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Since my intention is to discuss content (rather than indulge in incivility as you do), I will point out that your ambition to represent the battle as a clash between "Ukraine" (anachronistic term) and "Muscovy" (also incorrect) is flawed. Trubetskoy's army contained a lawfully elected Ukrainian hetman (Vyhovsky had been deposed) and substantial Ukrainian contingents. So, it was a mixed East Slavic Orthodox force. Vyhovsky's army was a motley crew composed of peoples of different religions and ethnicities: Tatars, Poles, and Cossacks. Any attempt to represent this battle in isolation from the events of the Russo-Polish War is doomed. Since Vyhovsky betrayed the Treaty of Pereyaslav and returned to the policy of a Polish alliance, he naturally became the enemy of the Tsar, whose army occupied Vilnius at the period. A failure to mention these basic facts is the best evidence of bias. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, in your article about the Ruin you say that Vyhovsky was supported only by the higher echelons of the Cossackdom (starshina). Why do you assume that the army of starshina was the army of "Ukraine", while the army of ordinary Ukrainian Cossacks was that of "Muscovy"? It seems to me that there was an internal struggle within the Hetmanate rather than a "Russian-Ukrainian War" as you try to paint it. Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine, and such tricks are easily exposed for what they are. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

In my view, your recent significant changes are just as bias and POV-ish, if not more. You have cut whole chunks of the article without consultation or discussion to suit your flawed view of Ukrainian history. I have asked you repeatedly to consult before making siginificant changes and yet you seem to be looking for confrontation. As such, I will no longer be discussing this article, or any other issue with you and will seek outside mediation. --Hillock65 17:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Which "whole chunks of the article" I supposedly deleted? Could you elaborate? --Ghirla -трёп- 18:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Please refer to my last message. I will no longer discuss any issues with you for the reasons mentioned above. --Hillock65 18:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
This is a bad attitude, to refuse discussing the subject with an opponent because his understanding is "flawed", i.e., differs from yours. :( --Ghirla -трёп- 18:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Hillock65; I have to agree with Ghirla that there is much that can be discussed on this talk page. The article history shows no revert war, and Ghirla has made some arguments above - with which I don't all agree - but which await a meaningful responce from you. The article is now tagged, you can still edit it, but I'd strongly suggest you two discuss the changes here - how was the POV changed, what references back it, and what and why info was removed. PS. Also, please read the definition of WP:V. While again I will stress I often disagree with Ghirla's edits, in this case it looks to me like a good faith edit dispute about possible POV items, and not any kind of bad faith vandalism.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Piotr; thank you for your comment. By all means I will make an effort to discuss it even with Ghirla. I only ask for administrators to watch this page as in my view, he is using my inexperience in English Wikipedia to threaten me with all kinds of sanctions. You can see those on my discussion page. That's why I was seeking mediation to protect me from this kind of agressive behaviour. My only concearn is history and objectivity. Clearly, we have different views, I only hope that things could be discussed and agreed to mutually acceptable variant before being changed. Thank you.--Hillock65 21:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack removed--Alex Kov 02:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Title of the War

The title of the conflict cannot be Russo-Polish war, that is incorrect. There are several reasons for that. Namely:

  • 1. The name of the country that is now Russia was still Muscovy, no matter how much some seem to be ashamed of the name. (I can't think why?) Please see article: Muscovy. There it clearly states that Muscovy (Moscow principality (княжество Московское) to Grand Duchy of Moscow (Великое Княжество Московское) to Russian Tsardom (Царство Русское)) is a traditional Western name for the Russian state that existed from the 14th century to the late 17th century. Events described in the article are clearly the late 17th century - 1659.
    • It is me who is in charge of the article about Muscovy. If I consider it prudent, I will move it to Muscovite Russia. The term "Muscovy" is (ab)used throughout Wikipedia primarily in Poland-Ukraine related articles, since it has derogatory connotations in the languages of those two countries. Its use in post-1552 context is certainly misleading. Since you don't deny that alternative names include "Russian Tsardom" and "the Russian state", I see your efforts at purging these from the text as tendentiously motivated. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You seem to be labouring under some misconception that you own something here, or "in charge" of something. The term Muscovy is the generally accepted term for the country of that peoriod in the English language. As this is an English Encyclopedia, naming rules shoul remain the same as they always have been. As well, considerable changes or movig of content of articles without prior discussion is considered vandalism. That includes the article about Muscovy.--Hillock65 12:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • 2. Secondly, the events of the battle cannot be part of a bigger war, because the main source of the event - records of Russian historian Sokolov Sergey Solovyov (see sources) state that Poland's participation was limited to about 4000 men. To ascribe to which country different territories of Ukraine belonged is extremely difficult.
    • Sorry, I don't know what Sokolov you talk about. Of course, there was no such state as "Ukraine" at the period. No primary source mentions it under this name. I'm afraid all this is original research. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I misspelled it first time. Please educate yourself on famous Russian historian Sergey Solovyov, and his research in this area [1]. Not a single time does he mention the word 'Россия' (Russia) in the whole book, it is either Muscovy or Moscow - and he was Russian himself! --Hillock65 12:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • 3. The army of Trubetskoy was sent to deal with Ukrainians, not with Poles and events took place in Ukraine. That same Sergey Solovyov mentions Ukraine in description of events, and about a conflict between Muscovy and Vyhovsky.
    • It was not sent "to deal with Ukrainians", because Vyhovsky's forces were as Ukrainian as they were Polish or Tatar. Trubetskoy's force operated against the Poles together with large contingents of Ukrainian Cossacks. When they saw that Vyhovsky had defected to the enemy and threatened to enter the war on their side, they naturally advanced against him. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Again, please educate yourself on the sources, Sergey Solovyov is not talking about Trubetskoy's expedition as war with Polang at all, that is because the troops were sent to meddle into Ukrainian civil war trying to protect their territorial possessions, well before an alliance of Vyhovsky with the Crimea and Poland had been concluded. --Hillock65 12:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • 4. If anything this battle is part of Ukrainian civil war - the Ruin. The only difference is that Vyhovsky fought agains invaders with the help of Tatars and Poles.--Hillock65 22:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    It is part of the "civil war" from the Ukrainian perspective, but it is part of the Russo-Polish conflict from the Russian perspective. One hetman involved Russia into a costly and bloody war with Poland which dragged for thirteen years. When Russian armies reached Wilno, his successor reneged on Khmelnytsky's promises and allied himself with Poland. I don't know why you are so ashamed to call his actions a "betrayal", since a betrayal it was. Please don't wipe out the vital background of the battle. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There was no Russo-Polish conflict. See the notes on names of Muscovy. Secondly, let's stay away from Russian or Namibian or whatever else point of view. Let's consider sources. My primary source of this article was Sergey Solovyov, a prominent Russian historian. While he writes extensively not only on this conflict, but also on other wars of Muscovy of the time, this conflict in his representation is viewed as Moscow's fight for influence in Ukraine. That included not just military option, but extensive and well documented negotiations with Vyhovsky and other rival factions of Ukrainian civil war. To term the Trubetskoy misadventure at Konotop a Muscovy-Poland conflict is wrong and is not supported by reputable source. Again, to have a meaningful discussion you have to educate yourself with well respected sources on this conflict. --Hillock65 12:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Please do not engage in edit wars. I explained my reasoning two times already. Both times I cite reputable sources and you continue to change the title. This has to stop.--Hillock65 12:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The Russian wiki lists it as part of the Ruin, the Polish wiki lists it as Polish-Russian war. Both interpretations are a result of different perceptions and so both version must be equally listed until we have more material on the subject. Wandalstouring 20:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure. But then Russians must include mentioning of the Ruin in all articles and Poles should list the Ukrainian and Russian variants. Is that feasible? Why don't Russian nationalists just leave us alone? Does everything have to be what they like? Someone doesn't like the name Muscovy in the title - fine, I changed it, now they don't like the new title either. It has to stop. This is counterproductive. Let people just write articles without dealing with all that garbage!--Hillock65 20:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
That is a usual outcome if you have to deal with sensitive issues. In these cases it is helpful not to be overly emotional but to keep a rational mind. If you feel the progress of the article is massively hampered by these conflicts you can call in other editors who have some knowledge on the topic. In this case I already told the Polish and the Russian military history task force. Wandalstouring 20:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I have been trying to resolve it amicably, you can see it on this page - I have cited sources and in responce just got reverting back and forth. Thank you for trying to help, but Russian and Polish editors are not often without bias themselves. It is about Ukrainians being able to write about their history without their neighbours telling them what and how. If historical facts need to be adjusted - it can be arranged, but, please just let us be!--Hillock65 20:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hillock, there is a space where Ukrainians can write about their own history without the interference of their neighbores. It is uk-wiki. Because en-wiki is much more of an international project, here we have to edit our articles together with editors representing different national POV. The crux of the matter is the middle ground between keeping "foreigners" from the national articles and allow them to engage into Tendentious editing that results in giving certain POVs an undue weight in the articles about the Ukrainian history. We should be looking for such middle ground rather than seeking non-Ukrainians banned from editing the Ukrainian topics. --Irpen 21:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not banning anyone, I think you are exagerrating it. My intention is that others, who have different perceptions, and often skewed perception of history of others allow people to write articles without harrasment because they don't like the name for their country that I cite from sources, or because in their view some other historical figure is a traitor, or some other silly reason. I do welcome criticism, but a criticism that leads to impovement of the article, not the kind of harassment that I received from our common Russian friend. I have a right to write whatever I want and wherever I want, I will consider other people view's, but will fight tooth and nail to defend my own.
BTW, have you already criticized Ghirla for moving pages without warning, or I missed it? I hope you were just as harsh and just as prompt in rebuking him as you were last night during my unfortunate misadventure. --Hillock65 22:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand something. Being a member of the Polish or Russian military history task force doesn't mean to be Polish or Russian. Some editors are even member in both groups simply because they are interested in the region. Wandalstouring 23:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop vandalism!

User:Ghirlandajo please stop reverting the page without discussion! I warned you once about your violation of policy (WP:3RR), instead you preferred to revert your own discussion page too to cover it. While you may do whatever you want with your page, any significant changes on this page and in this article should be discussed!--Hillock65 14:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So far it is you who refuse to discuss your POV edits and violations of WP:MOS, recruiting revert warriors on uk.wiki and accusing me of unspeakable offenses. I see that some of your friends even resort to death threats. This is totally unacceptable. I assure you (and I have been through thousands incidents like this one) that this strategy never succeeds. Either you discuss and substantiate your edits, or they will be deleted, no matter how many meatpuppets you recruit. One thing I specifically object to is your attempts to use the Cossack "Летопись очевидца", which is neither neutral nor reliable. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Frankly speaking, I expected a little bit more mature attitude. You will have to provide PROOF of all your accusations, including alleged death threats. Please behave as if you are over the age of maturity and refrain from personal attacks and limit your diatribes to the article. I had a concern about the title, I wrote about it. If you have a concern instead of broad and silly accusations, please type them here, I will discuss. Even with you. Since you listed the source concern, I will look into it and will respond. Congratulations on finally listening to my advice. --Hillock65 19:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I went to uk.wiki and discovered on your talk page a conspiracy with the object of destroying the neutrality of en.wiki by spreading Russophobic propaganda. I don't like when my name is slandered off-en-wiki, so you'd better stop it now. I will go seek opinion of administrators about your attempts to recruit partisans and revert warriors in your national wiki. Best, Ghirla -трёп- 19:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
You have just vandalized the article again! I have warned you several times of (WP:3RR) and called on you to talk before making changes? Why are you doing this? --Hillock65 20:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Both of you run into violating (WP:3RR). A possible solution would be to start a sandbox like in the crossbow article. It really helps to write with far less pressure. Insert the new version when all involved editors agree on it. Wandalstouring 20:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Further Sources

In addition to Russian language sources that I cited above, in an attempt to prevent further confrontation I will add an English source as well:

Vygovsky defeated the Muscovites in 1659 only to be unseated by a revolt on ordinary Cossacks. Ukraine divided: The "right bank", west of Dnieper, under Khmelnitsky's epileptic son, remained Polish; the "left bank" returned to Moscow's control. David Mackenzie, Michael W. Curran. A History of Russia, the Soviet Union, and Beyond. Fourth Edition. Belmont, California. p. 200., 1993. ISBN 0-534-17970-3.

Please note the use of terms Muscovites, Moscow to which some so streniously have been objecting. I hope this finally settles the issue and this artcle will be free from vandalism. Should there be more question about the source, please post here. Otherwise, I do hope this issue is finaly closed.--Hillock65 21:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine. If you can use the source for the article just go on. To mention you a different example would be the use of German for Germanic peoples in Roman times. It is widespread in English historic sources, although the term is only a few hundred years old, created to name the remaining people of the Holy Roman Empire who prior had all been called Dutch. The Dutch for example proudly present their Germanic roots but would run amok if you misspelled it as German roots. So the use of German is not appropriate for the ancient Germanic tribes who also didn't have any such national idea, but formed small ethnic groups like the Franks, Saxons or Goths. Wandalstouring 23:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
This is not the case in Russia, however. I cited above a famous Russian historian Sergey Solovyov, and he never even mentions 'Russia' but because someone didn't like it, he was brushed away. --Hillock65 23:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

The article does not tell that the Russian goverment declared war after Vyhovsky had signed the Treaty against Russia.

What are the sources, who declared war and when? If you make allegations, please substantiate them!--Hillock65 15:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The article gives anachronistic name of the Cossack state. Vyhovsky started his declaration of war against Russia with words "We, the Army of Zaporizhya", the official name of the state. The article mentions "Ukrainians" though the are no information that any contemporary of the battle used this term; it had been never used in ethnic or geographical meaning; the only used similar term was "Ukraine".

So, if "the only used similar term was Ukraine" - what is the problem, then? And where exactly is the mentioning of the name problematic for you?--Hillock65 15:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The article gives no coverage of the begining of the campaign, unwillingness of Trubetskoy to clash with Cossacks (according to recommendations of the Russian goverment "to persuade Cossacks"), his long negotiations with Vyhovsky. It gives to schedule of forwarding Russian troops:

  • January, 30 1659 - Putivl (Russian border)
  • End of March (about 2 months later, after unsuccessfull negotiaitons with Vyhovsky) Russian troops passed into Hetman Ukraine territory.
  • April, 19 1659 the beginning of the siege of Konotop.
  • June, 1659 - first preparations of Russians to storm the fortress, after negotiations with Hulyanytski (Cossack defendant of Konotop) failed. At last, June, 29 - the battle itself.
This article is not about Muscovite invasion into Ukraine, but about a single battle, a background informations is given to explain what was happening before, to explain the circumstances of the battle. If you wish to eleborate on the circumstances of Romodanovsky and Trubetskoy's invasion, you may write a detailed article about that, where you will also, I hope, mention in detail about atrocities of Romodanovsky and enumerate the list of burned and looted cities he left.--Hillock65 15:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The articles tells no word of consequences of the battle for Vyhovsky as a political leader and uprisings in Ukraine against him - before and after the battle. The article does not mention that Vyhovsky abandoned Hetman`s title and Ukraine as soon as 4 months after the battle.

I believe you missed this part: "By the end of the year he resigned and was executed by the Poles in 1664". Again, this article is about a battle, whatever is mentioned about any participants is second to the main point of narrative. If you want to expand on the Ruin period and mention what happened to Vyhovksy, Hulyanytsky, Trubetskoy and others, there is another article that covers it: Ruin (period of history) --Hillock65 15:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The article does not include information of other historians except Solovyov about the number of Russian troops (100 000 according to Savovydets, who was a contemporary of the battle; 100 000 according to Ukrainian historian Doroshenko).

The article does not include information of other historians except Solovyov about the number of Russian troops killed in action (20 000 - 30 000 according to Savovydets, who was a contemporary of the battle). Russianname 10:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If you dispute the numbers a word "around", can be inserted in the text. That will explain that different historians present different numbers. In any event, I don't see why numbers from a respected and famous Russian historian should be disputed, just because you don't like them?--Hillock65 15:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Tagging

Let me quote User Irpen here on tagging:

Placing a global tag all over the article is a very serious matter. While sometimes unavoidable, it should not be done lightly and other means, namely the good faith talk page discussions should first be exhausted.[...] --Irpen 19:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to concur that placing a NPOV tag over the article is a serious matter and good talk page discussions certainly have not been exhausted here. A person placed the tag prematurely, provided a number of questions, answers for which have been supplied. The discussion is far from being exhausted, so placing of the tag is indeed unnecessary.--Hillock65 02:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hillock, what I meant was that it is wrong to tag the whole article for a disagreement over a single fact. There are local tags for that, such as {{fact}} or {{dubious}}. User:Russianname's objections are rather global and he voiced them in good faith. You responded only now. But when Alex Kov removed the tag, the responses to the raised objections were just not there. Now, that you replied, you can either wait for the reaction to see whether the tagger is now satisfied, or if you really can't wait and really think that the objections are with no merit or asnwered fully. You may remove the tag and see, whether Russianname will replace it. To summarize, I reverted Alex Kov, because, unlike you, he did not bother to respond to the tagger's objections at all. Now that you responded and will not interfere if you think the tag's removal is warranted unless Russianname has new objections. --Irpen 03:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Let's wait and see. However, I do believe you were right in saying that placing a tag is a serious matter, and as long as discussion is still going on I don't see the point in putting it over the whole article. There were some general questions and disagreements, it doesn't warrant the whole article being tagged. I don't want to make a big issue over this, it doesn't matter if the tag stays, what at issue is that placing a tag should not be taken lightly by anyone and should be treated without bias in all cases by everyone. This will promote good faith discussion rather then making a point and only then discussing.--Hillock65 03:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. That said, I take no position (yet) whether the tag is warranted. I have not looked at the issues deeply. I simply acted on Alex Kov's unexplained removal of the explained tag. --Irpen 03:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The only historical source about the battle

Please read it and then cvheck the nonsense you put to the article.

Боярин князь Трубецкій от его царского величества з войсками великими прислан в Путивлю, до которого и князь Ромодановскій зо всіми полками білагородскими, князь Пожарскій и инних много з войсками великими скупилися в Путивлю. Против которих Гуляницкій з полком Ніжинским и Черніговским поишов, и там споткавшися за Конотопом, давши з собою бой, и Гуляницкій не додержавши, в город Конотоп вступил, которого боярин Трубецкій з великими войсками, которих было болше ста тысячей, облегши Гуляницкого в Конотопі, от проводной неделі аж до святого Петра держал в облеженю недель з дванадцять, розними способами достаючи — так приступами частими, яко подкопами и кгранатами великими, промисл чинячи. А наостаток хотячи коло города ров засипати, вал перед собою войско гнало, у ров землю сипячи, але тую землю облеженци вилазками в город Конотоп носили, и с того собі вал приболшовали, в которых то приступах боярин князь Трубецкій много людей потратил.

Того ж часу князь Ромодановскій міл потребу з полками козацкими под Борозною 3, где козаки не додержавши, мимо город утекли к Ніжину, а князь з войском Борозни достал, одних порубали, а других в полон выбрали и місто спалили.

Того ж часу, мая «8», князь Ромодановскій з войсками великими под Ніжин приходил, с которим войско козацкое, маючи з \80\ собою татар тисячей дванадцять при зятю ханском Мамсир мурзі, дали бой в полю, але не додержавши, и козаки вступили в город за гетманом наказним. А орда оборонною рукою в поле на Лосиновку вступила, за которими князь ишол, але ничого не вскуравши, назад вернулся под Конотоп. Того ж часу гетман Выговскій, скупивши всі полки козацкіе и маючи при собі Нурадин султана, притяг з войсками на Крупич Поле, где й хан з великими потугами орд 1 прибыл до него юня «24». И там гетман Выговскій зо всею старшиною, а полковники и сотники зо всею черню присягали хану кримскому на том, жебы его не одступать, там же и хан з солтанами и усіми мурзами присягал козаком, жебы їх не отступити в той войні, як ударятся з войском московским. И так тії трактати скончавши, просто под Конотоп притягли 2 и зараз спод Тиници подіз[д] добрій виправили, где пришовши на переправу в селі Сосновці, немал през цілій день міли потребу, где язика взяли, а люд московскій не достал язика. И на той переправі в милі доброй 3 от Конотопу заставу отправовали и там того дня розишлися. На другій день зась юля 4 28 дня, в середу рано, гетман Виговскій войско вшиковавши козацкое и полскіе корогви, просто на Сосновку рушил, а хан з ордами на Пустую Торговицу рушил з людом перебраним 5 до бою; и там пришовши гетман Виговский до Сосновки ку переправі, застал великії войска его царского величества, с которими был околничій князь Григорій Ромодановскій и князь Пожареній и иних много началних людей конних и піших, и на килка годин у той переправи великій 6 бой был. Але хан з ордами с тилу от Конотопу ударивши, оных зламал, где за один час болей ніж на двадцять тисячей албо на тридцять люду его царского величества полегло. А князь Ромодановскій з того бою здорово увойшол, а князя Пожарского живо поймано 7, которого хан стратив того ж часу, скоро приведено, для того, же хану домовлял. Іюля 29 8 Гуляницкій з войском в Конотопі зостал волним от облеження, которих тилко было зостало 9 полтреті тисячи. Князь Трубецкій, видячи, же на войско трудно от орди, табор справивши и войско ушиковавши, третего дня рушил зпод Конотопу и так оборонною рукою аж до Путивля пришол юже без шкоди. А гетман Выговскій з войском, з ордами от Путивля отступивши, под Гадячое потягнул, и там ставши, орду с козаками выслал в землю Московскую задля здобичи и ижбы пустошили.

How about you make up your mind once and for all before making never-ending complaints about the sources. First you ask, why wasn't Solovyov mentioned [2] and now that he is, you found something new unreferenced and start all over again. Is it ever going to end?--Hillock65 07:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
How about to look into the source? --Russianname 09:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Dmitry Pozharsky, Prince Semen Romanovich Pozharsky was brought before the Khan of Crimea Mehmed IV Giray, at whom Pozharsky, according to the witnesses [1], hurled obscenities [1] and even spat in his face [1].

This is have no sources in Solovyov. Please revise the translation. --Russianname 10:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read carefully the source and don't spam pages. Пожарский был одинаков и на поле битвы и в плену: выбранив хана по московскому обычаю, он плюнул ему в глаза, и тот велел тотчас же отрубить ему голову. --Hillock65 11:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Now you read very carefully what the Witness said: а князя Пожарского живо поймано 7, которого хан стратив того ж часу, скоро приведено, для того, же хану домовлял. This information you had by hand but ignored and preferred a clearly anti-Russian abstract. --Russianname 10:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The Witness is just another source. That is all. I for one trust famous Russian historian Solovyov as well and don't see why his account of the events should be discarded in favour of a version that you like better. The article should represent all the variety of sources. If you have different account of the events by someone else, you may add it, but it will not allow you to erase evidence from other credible sources. --Hillock65 12:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Nonsense. The Witness is the source, Solovyov is just an author with his POV. he did not specialize in this battle. And he is known for his scepticism about the Russian monarchy, his views touched his writing. Solovyov did not give any sources of the text, so his words are unproven. --Russianname 09:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Since when do you decide who Sergey Solovyov was? You might want to read more about "one of the greatest Russian historians whose influence on the next generation of Russian historians was paramount". I understand that you don't like him, but that is not the reason for his version of events to be excluded from the article. Given his stature and prominence, his account of the battle will stay and is a very valid source.--Hillock65 12:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Hillock65 please explain why did you sweet out a few abstracts from the article? This information brings more light to political situation in the times of the battle. --Russianname 10:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop personal attacks and explain your move before you make them. That includes NPOV tags, no reasons for which have been presented. If you have concerns about the neutrality of the article point out what needs to be improved. It looks like all your actions here are nothing but a revenge for edits in other articles. Please see WP:POINT and do not disrupt this article to settle your scores. If you have issues to settl mention them in a civil manner and we will discuss.--Hillock65 12:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The moving text with the sources out of the tarticle and swepping out NPOV tag are clear proofs of vandalism. The same thing are your claims about revenge. This is a personal attack. --Russianname 09:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Please state your reasons for the NPOV tag and what issues have to be settled. That what usually happens when someone challenges the neutrality of the article, unless this tag is the revenge for something else. There should be an effort to improve an article, not just to punish other editors.--Hillock65 12:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that the article was based on the work of Solovyov who was a "zapadnik" and politically biased against the Russian monarchy. He thought that describing the Russian past in pejorative way will add more charm to his "liberalism". Also he "corrected" sources and usually "forgot" to indicate his sources. So in this article we should understand that political orientation motivated writing of any historian and we cannot rely mainly on Solovyov. We have to use all sources that were found. If the Witness said that Пожарский слова домовлял, this means that Pozharskiy was not polite according to the etiqutte of the Crimean sultan court. Being a prisoner Pozharskiy conducted himself independently or arrogantly. But there is no word about spitting or the foul language. --Russianname 16:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't care who Solovyov was and what ideals he believed in and neither should you. He was a very famous Russian historian and that is enough for me. He will never be excluded from the body of historiographic research and his views are as important as anybody else's. As far as foul language and Pozharsky's behaviour before he was executed, this story is corroborated in many sources, not just one. However, unpleasant it is for you these are facts. --Hillock65 16:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
If you do not care about who was Solovyov, why do you cite him? I think we would like to cite some other historians alike. the story about Pozharskiy spits is grounded on Solovyov, there is no other "sources" about his bad behaviour in prison. --Russianname 16:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I only care that Solovyov is a good and well respected historian. That is all that matters. And his account is important to the article. --Hillock65 17:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Tag

What are the remaining objections? The last entry was a week ago and no response, so the tag does not belong here if there are no contentious issues left.--Hillock65 13:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

My objections are the same, they are unsettled. You did not want to use other works except Solovyov. Please check this Ukrainian article http://www.history.org.ua/jornal/1998/3/S6.pdf , it is dedicated to the battle and gives more info about the troops` number. --Russianname 14:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
That is not true! Please check the article, it includes a number of sources apart from Solovyov. Look at the list of references, you didn't see other sources?! On the contrary it is you, who insists on exclusion on Solovyon on the grounds that he was anti-something. The article should include all the variety of sources and it does now, including the different assessment of Russian troops and Russian losses. Check again. Please list your objections in point form so that they can be addressed issue by issue or remove the tag. My fear is that you are using it to stall the progress rather than try to improve it. --Hillock65 14:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The true is that you cited Solovyov who was politicall y biased and wrote 120 years ago. So please use new articles and clean away his long quotes. --Russianname 16:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
So, these are all your objections? I asked you to list all your objections and you mention Solovyov? A notable historian like Solovyov's account of events will never be removed. What you are doing is disrupting WP with tag spamming. This will not be tolearated. --Hillock65 18:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I propose to keep the tag for a couple of days (say, until June 23), so Ghirlandajo and Russianname would have time to propose changes or better formulate their objections. If no substantial objections are given the tag should be removed. Solovyov is certainly a reputable historian. If anybody can provide contradicting data from different sources, please put them in the article or discuss it here. Putting NPOV tags only because Solovyov is an old source does not seem to make sense. Alex Bakharev 00:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The credibility of Solovyov

I don't know much about the battle itself, or Solovyov for that matter, but I understand that some here think that his sources are credible and non-trivial, while others think they are not. What are the grounds to say that he is not credible? If you can, could you point to some sources for that? Martijn Hoekstra 13:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The grounds for considering Solovyov biased is exactly mine question too. We have an article on Sergey Solovyov, who is considered "one of the greatest Russian historians". Even if someone finds his account of events questionable that does not and cannot mean that his evidence should be excluded. That can only happen if Solovyov is proven to be a fraud and pseudo-historian, which is impossible. He was and still is an unquestionalbe authority on Russian history. His ample evidence cannot be excluded just because some editors don't like his views. The article should present evidence from different sources, which it does in its present state. --Hillock65 14:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • His greatness is dubious and your talks about his unquestionalbe authority are really ridiculous. This shows the lack of basic knowledge of historiography. Besides that any "greatness" is not the ground to reject the views of modern historians. So you must use the writng of other historians and you must show that different historians had different views of what have happen, what was the sequence of events during the battle, what were the casualties. And, finally, Solovyov, is the only source that claims that Pozharski spitted and said something wrong to the Khan. --Russianname 16:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Russianname, could you provide some sources that claim the opposite? Martijn Hoekstra 16:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure: http://www.history.org.ua/jornal/1998/3/S6.pdf http://ukrstor.com/ukrstor/adk_konotop2.html http://reitar-military.ru/mag.php?clause=425 --Russianname 16:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The first article is nationalistically biased (it is written in modern Ukraine), but it gives more broad view and decribes the main views of the problem in depth. So we can use it instead of archaic views of Solovyov (he did not wrote a special article about the battle, this is just a chapter in his review of the Russian history). The only reason why modern Ukrainian nationalist love to cite him is Solovyov`s exaggerated tales about tzars`s fears and Pozharsky`s spittings. By the way, even Doroshenko in his fabulously anti-Russian history of Ukraine did not cite these exaggerations about Russian casualties and Pozharsky`s behaviour. Doroshenko showed some dignity and gave the whole picture of the events: Vyhosky was unpopular and the Russians did not want to fight the Ukrainians. --Russianname 17:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's not go all over the board here. The question was that Solovoyov was biased. Fine. You have been asked to present evidence of his bias. Of the two sites, one is not working at all, the other doesn't discuss Solovyov altogether. Let's stick to the point of discussion. If you claim Solovyov is biased, prove it with credible sources. If his credibility is no longer suspect, then we will move to other topics of discussion. --Hillock65 17:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
If we do stray a little from the point of Solovyovs bias, how do you feel about a solution in the form of "according to A, X, and according to B, Y". That would leave the credibility issues out altogether, and leave it for the user to decide. Is this a solution you both would support? Martijn Hoekstra 20:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Support I see no problem with adding "according to" to the text of the article, in fact in several cases it is already there. --Hillock65 20:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

    • I support this. You must put the information that gave the only sorce about the battle - the Witness first, then all the authors that wrote about it. --Russianname 09:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
One source cannot preclude the use of other sources. Witness is one of the sources, just like Solovyov. --Hillock65 11:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
So I can say that you both support putting in more available sources, including the eye witness, Solovyov, and modern sources. Martijn Hoekstra 12:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The article is not based on one source exclusively! Please read carefully the list of sources and literature as well as inline references. It is just that User: Russianname particularly likes one source and particularly dislikes the other one. He wants to exclude one source in favour of another one. That is unacceptable. There are multiple sources there already. His constant complains is that his source of preference mentions something differently and doesn't mention something at all, so he wants to remove sources that don't agree with the one that he has. That won't work either. Per WP:Sources the article does contain multiple sources, the problem is that not all of them to his liking. That is just too bad. --Hillock65 12:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I do not discuss the credibility of Solovyov. The problem is that the whole artticle is written in aggressively anti-Russian tone. The article does not use new works on the problem. So, yopu need to clean away these unproven and chauvinistic sentences:

What?! Now you don't doubt the credibility of Solovyov? A few paragraphs above you do just that! Only when you are asked directly to prove your allegations of bias, you flip-flop back and say that now you do not discuss credibility of Solovyov. So, not if Solovyov credibility is not suspect anymore, the list of new and original demands below don't make sense, since all of them are based on Solovyov's account. --Hillock65 11:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
What you read. Tone down. --Russianname 12:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • even overt instigation of a civil war
I don't see anything wrong with this statement. The sentence follows: "by way of supporting Cossack factions opposing Vyhovsky." If you support one side in a civil war - it is instigation of a civil war.--Hillock65 11:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Under the new treaty Ukraine was to become an equal constituent nation of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth along with Poland and Lithuania under a name of Principality of Rus, forming the Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian Commonwealth. Brutal lies, because the treaty did not mention any ukraine.
Tone down your abusive tone. Read attentively the above sentence and this part: under a name of Principality of Rus. It already says that Ukraine wasn't mentioned, it was to be not Ukraine but Rus. Which is the territory of modern Ukraine. --Hillock65 11:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
You tone down. Stop lies about Ukraine in Hadach treaty, there were 3 voievodships , not Ukraine in modern sense, so you must spesify this. --Russianname 12:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The latter were mercilessly exterminated along with wide-spread abuse and robbery of the civilian population Please leave this tone for nationalistic yellow pnewspapers.
This is supported by a quote from historian Markevich. If you want I can include a quote from him: "Он, при встрече от города с процессиею, помолившись и покрестившись пред ними по-Христиански, разграбил город и его обывателей по-Татарски и сказал, « что: виноватого Бог найдет, а войска надо потешить и наградить за труды, в походе понесенные.» Потом сожжены Лубны, Пирятин, Чорнухи, Горошин; Гуляницкий осажден в Варве; и как зима принудила снять осаду, то наконец Ромодановский расположился с войсками в Лохвице, а Безпалый в Ромнах." Robbing civilian population like Tatars is, indeed, abuse and robbery. This claim is baseless.--Hillock65 11:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
So you must specify : according to a historian Markevich. --Russianname 12:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • On April 21, 1659, after a morning prayer, Trubetskoy ordered an all-out assault on the fortress's fortifications. The city was shelled, a few incendiary bombs were dropped inside, and the huge army moved on to capture the city. At one point the troops of Trubetskoy even broke inside the city walls, but were thrown back by the fierce resistance of the Cossacks inside. After the fiasco of the initial assault, Trubetskoy abandoned his plans of a quick assault and proceeded to shell the city and to fill the moat with earth. The Cossacks stubbornly held on in spite of all the fire unleashed on the city: during the night the earth put to fill in the moat was used to strengthen the city walls, and the besieged even undertook several daring counterattacks on Trubetskoy's besieging army. These attacks forced Prince Trubetskoy to move his military camp 10 km away from the city and thereby split his forces between the main army at his HQ and the army besieging Konotop. It is estimated that in the siege alone the Trubetskoy forces suffered casualties up to 10,000 men.[4] Instead of a quick campaign the siege dragged on for 70 days and gave Vyhovsky the much-needed time to prepare for the battle with the Russian army. Please clean away this exaggerated and long tale about nothing. You must add information, that Trubetskoy negotiated with Gulyanitski and finally had to put siege. Gulyanitski just wanted to win time. You must give time schedule, dates of the events and clean away this heroisation of some coronel.
It is not about nothing. It is about how Cossacks heroically defended the city against invaders. 4000 against more than 100,000. I mentioned that Hulyanytsky wanted to win time, and he did. He is a hero, even if you don't consider him one. That allowed them to get support from Crimea and defeat the invaders. Negotiations with Trubetskoy are mentioned above - that they demanded surrender and were refused. Read carefully the preciding and this paragraph. --Hillock65 11:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Vyhovsky and his allies approached the area and defeated a small reconnaissance detachment of the invader's army near the village of Shapovalivka Why invaders? The Ukraine was part of Russia.
Ukraine was not yet part of Moscovy. It was under suzeranty of Moscow's tsar. The tsar didn't execise full control of the territory. It was under control of the Hetman even if he had rivals. Traitor Bespalyi joining the invaders, was not an ivader himself though. Troups and powers that fere foreign were invaders. Read above about the behaviour of Romodanovsky. He was an invader. --Hillock65 11:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The bloom of Moscow's cavalry, troops that happily accomplished campaigns of year 54 and 55 have perished in one day — the victors got only about 5000 captive. The unfortunate were led onto an open space and slaughtered like lambs — that was the agreement between the Crimean Khan and the hetman of the Zaporozhian Cossacks! Never again was the tsar of Moscow able to master an army that strong. In mourning clothes showed himself Alexei Mikhailovich to the people and the terror seized Moscow. The blow was so hard because it was unexpected, and it followed such illustrious successes! It was only recently that Dolgoruki brought to Moscow a captured Lithuanian hetman, only recently was everyone talking about successes of Khovansky — and now Trubetskoy, for whom everyone had hopes higher than for others, and who was "a man devout and graceful, in military affairs skilled and a fright for a foe" — has ruined such a huge army! After capture of so many towns, after capture of the Lithuanian capital the royal city trembled for its own security: in August by tsar's decree people of all ranks hurried to build fortifications around Moscow. Often the tsar and the boyars were present themselves during the construction; people from outlying areas, their families with meagre belongings filled Moscow, and a rumour spread that the tsar was leaving to beyond the Volga and Yaroslavl[1]. Clean away this quote or I will give other long quotes from other books concerning the battle. This is not a wikiquote. This citation is not appropriate.
I don't think so. It is very appropriate and from very credible source. It is very common to give quotes from credible, published scientific sources. I see why you don't like it, but that is just too bad. --Hillock65 11:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. Solovyov wrote in 19, so his writings are not worthy now. If you do not want to add info from modern historians, this means that you are biased and not neutral. --Russianname 12:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Solovyov is a famous historian and his views will never be ingnored. He is, by the way, more contemporary than the Witness, whose testimony you seem to prefer. Once again. Excluding one author in favour of another will not work. --Hillock65 12:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Prince Semen Romanovich Pozharsky was brought before the Khan of Crimea Mehmed IV Giray, at whom Pozharsky, according to the witnesses [1], hurled obscenities [1] and even spat in his face [1]. For that he was promptly beheaded by the Tatars, and his severed head was dispatched with one of the captives to Prince Trubetskoy's camp. Clean away these lies, that are not supported by the Witness.
These statements are supported by famous historian Solovyov, whose credibility we are not discussing any more. --Hillock65 11:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
These statement are not supported by Solovyov. He is author of these statements. The Witness did not write this. So NPOV will be cleared when you will clear away this nonsense. --Russianname 12:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Did you read what you wrote above? You contradict yourself! If one source doesn't mention something and the other does, that doesn't mean that the source cannot be used. --Hillock65 12:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The info about Pozharski spittings is found only in Solovyov`s writings. It is not found in the Witness (the only real source). Solovyov did not give any sources, so he lied or gave wrong information. So you must add that this information was not proven by the only written source about the battle. --Russianname 12:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, per WP:Sources, the fact that one souce doesn't mention something cannot mean that this source is invalid. Especially if it is coming from such a famous and respected hitorian as Solovyov. So Witness didn't mention it, but Solovyov did, does it mean that it didn't happen? Not at all. Different sources supply more information. --Hillock65 12:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Then you must sit and read what modern authors write about the battle, different views about how it hppened. The only source is the Witness, and he did not gave many lies you put into the article. --Russianname 09:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
There cannot be only source for Wikipedia. Read carefully WP:Sources, information should come from many sources, present article does include sources from different authors - from Solovyov and others, including modern Ukrainian ones. This ploy of finding new exuses to stall the article over and over again cannot continue for long. Every time they are refuted, you come with a set of new ones. First you claimed Solovyov was biased, now you don't want to discuss him, then you found new passages you don't like. Now that these have been explained, I can predict what's going to happen again - there will be something new that you don't like and insist on removing passages supported by sources that you don't like again. That will not happen. This article includes passages from the sources that I don't like either, but I am fine with that as long as they are from published scientific literature. I suggest you adopt the same attitude and stop disrupting WP with incessant pestering and fault-findidng. --Hillock65 11:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Aha, this is my stand, that you must Read carefully WP:Sources, information should come from many sources, present article does include sources from different authors - from Solovyov and others, including modern Ukrainian ones. I gave you the sorces, so come on, read them and add other info from other authors. --Russianname 12:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The article is not based on one source exclusively! Please read carefully the list of sources and literature as well as inline references. You want to exclude one source in favour of another one. That is unacceptable. There are multiple sources there already. Your constant complains is that your source of preference mentions something differently and doesn't mention something at all, so you want to remove sources that don't agree with the one that you have. That won't work either. Per WP:Sources the article does contain multiple sources, the problem is that not all of them to your liking. That is just too bad. --Hillock65 12:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Russianname, you're wrong. The article is based on reputable sources. No blog articles or statemants from pro-Russian or pro-Ukrainian websites. You're trying to make original research here proving you views by quotes from the chronicles of the 17 century. Wikipedia is not a place for such kind of activity (see WP:OR). In wikipedia we present only reputable theories from reputable books that were publish by reputable historians. You're trying to present your own theory about Battle of Konotop. Thats fine, but you should do it at scientific conferences rather than wiki pages. The various details concerning Battle of Konotop are still to be explained by researchers, not wiki users. The topic was banned for a long period, so no wonder that nowadays we have only a few reputable books on it. This article is based on reputable sources. You may dispute its number or views of the authors. Thats your right. But you have no right to revert quotes from them in Wikipedia only because you dont like them. You should become a reputable historian and than beat your oponents (Solovyov and others) with arguments, oherwise you pushing your views and making your original research. So, please stop re-writing history. Let proffesional historians do this. --Alex Kov 12:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Nonsense, the only "professional historian" that stats something about this is Solovyov. Nobody supported these views. So you must add info from the source. --Russianname 12:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Your claims are nonsence. Solovyov is a professional historianbut not Russianname. So, please, calm down.--Alex Kov 13:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The easiest solution here is to remove all of the flowery descriptions, and just stick to the dry facts. Nobody can take offence to that. It might make the article less fun to read, but for objectivity it is the best way to go. A good read might be words to avoid, in this case more about the general guidelines and motivation of those guidelines than the specifics, although there are some violations of the specific guidelines there too. For direct quotations it is usualy best to summorise the citation so that it fits the article and is a part of the text, and cite the quote with a reference, possibly containing the full quote. When it is written that way, I believeyou might find it much more neutral, and easier to fit in more sources and different viewpoints. Martijn Hoekstra 12:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, I removed the text by Solovyov and added info about the Winess. --Russianname 12:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Removing parts of the article, while you participate in mediation is unacceptable. That defeats the purpose of this mediation! I hope the mediator can talk sense into this user. In mediation people talk before engaging in revert wars. That is very counterproductive and is done in very Bad Faith. Especially since mediation is still going on. --Hillock65 12:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes the complete hiding of the quote is a bit of a strech in interpeting the suggestion to avoid direct quotations in the text. However, I doubt it was done in bad faith, but merely to improve the article in the point of view of Russianname. I was thinking more along the lines of

Solovyov describes the event as -a line or two summorising Solovyov description of the event-<ref name=Solovyov quote=<part of, or the full quote>.

If you want I can give a hint how I have it in mind, either directly in the article, or on a sandbox subpage. (doing it here will cause too much clutter I fear). Martijn Hoekstra 13:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I hided it, because it makes article concentrated on Solovyov`s POV. --Russianname 13:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Note to all parties

A full protection for the article has been requested. The revert war while mediation still continues is unacceptable. This is precisely why I filed for MedCab, so that discussion can start and to prevent the revert war. Please start discussion and avoid reverting pages until dialogue is over, this will not help and will only aggravate the situation. --Hillock65 12:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not address to all parties, because this is you who wrote aggressively anti-Russian article and then do not want to neutralize it. --Russianname 13:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
If we assume Hillock65 is part of all parties, I see no problem there. Martijn Hoekstra 13:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
He can address to me directly. Now, please check if my edits are OK, and I will be ready to clean away the tag. --Russianname 13:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Revert war

I tagged the article as not neutral. Please do not remove the tag. --Russianname 13:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
In mediation it is best not to have a direct opinion on most things regarding the article, but since the whole mediation is about the dispute around the neutrality of the article, a tag stating that the neutrality is disputed seems rather reasonable. Martijn Hoekstra 13:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
note with not having a direct optinion, I meant me. Martijn Hoekstra 13:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I made corrections to the article: the territory of Kivan principality, references to the historians and numbers of the troops. Please check. --Russianname 13:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, so please give your opinion again. You proposed to reference to the historians. --Russianname 13:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
This mediation is very haphazard and disorganized. I requested full protection on the page. Can I suggest that we move discussion to the MedCab page where it will follow at least an understandable pattern? Right now Russianname is engaged in revert wars and is talking only to the moderator, while bits and pieces of everything are scattered all over the page and are hard to find. This is not the kind of mediation I had in mind, this looks more like a squabble. This mediation needs to have some structure, so that we can focus on problem areas and address the issues seriously. --Hillock65 13:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Right now you too and your colleague Alex Kov reverted my edits. I will not give any content to the article that is written in not neutral tone. --Russianname 13:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
To start a revert war in the middle of mediation is counterproductive. I only reverted 2 times and even left the NPOV tag. You, on the other hand started removing portions of the text. Consensus has not been reached. Why did you agree to mediation if you continue to wage revert wars?--Hillock65 13:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing tag

I do not think that the dispute is productive now. So I remove the tag now to stop it. If the content of the article will be accepted, we are able to write other articles. --Russianname 14:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Moving the discussion

Hillock has requested to move the discussion to the MedCab page. If there are no objections, we can further the discussion there. Martijn Hoekstra 14:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Please check the current version. If it is ok, no need of any further mediation. --Russianname 14:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

I've fully protected the page, given the ongoing edit war. This is not an endorsement of the current version, but when protecting a page we generally don't revert to prior versions unless there's a WP:BLP issue. Please discuss the dispute and hand and pursue mediation. If you feel you've reached consensus before the week of protection expires, you can list the page at WP:RFPP to request early unprotection. MastCell Talk 16:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

At the request of the mediator, I've added a "neutrality disputed" tag to the article. However, if there's any objection to having this tag in place, I'll remove it, as the protection policy suggests that edits should not be made to the protected page by me or anyone until the dispute is resolved. I'm placing the tag solely to indicate that there is an ongoing dispute here; however, if there's an objection to the tag, let me know on my talk page and I will remove it and go back to the originally protected version. MastCell Talk 17:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Never mind; the request has been withdrawn and I've reverted to the originally protected version. Good luck with the mediation, and let me know if consensus is reached and the page can be unprotected. MastCell Talk 17:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant info

This article is about the Konotop battle and only the info related to that even is relevant, not what happened to those who signed the Hadiach treaty. Info on that belongs to a different article, the one about the Treaty of Hadiach. --Hillock65 13:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Not irrelevant. The treaty caused the war. --Russianname 15:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
This is not about the treaty. Read carefully, the irrelevant info is about who did what to who for participating in the treaty. If you want to discuss the treaty be my guest, but discussing irrelevant stuff what happened after it, has nothing to do with the Battle of Konotop.--Hillock65 19:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Izvestia as a source?

I am surprised to see Izvestia as a source for information on this battle. It is not a historiographic literature, an article written by two unknown journalists (not historians) is used as reference to number of casualties and other historical information. This is unacceptable. Moreover, the article itself is very biased, here is an example of its "legendary impartiality". And this source is used along such respected historians as Sokolov and Subtelny?! This is not funny. Please do not disrupt the aticle with every new biased article that comes out in Russian press, please use respectable academic sources. --Hillock65 (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I already answered you at Ukrainian Wikipedia. Izvestia is not a less trustworthy source than NYT or LeMonde which are broadly accepted throughout Wikipedia in any cases. Journalists of such newspapers would never write something unproved. And caricatures exist everywhere and are surely not an proof for something. You would use your time more sensefully showing concretely what facts you consider wrong. Voyevoda (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
You must be kidding, right? A Sovit-style and Kremlin-backed newspaper Izvestia is as trustworthy as NYT and LeMond? Please read carefully the article on Izvestia and on freedom of the press in Russia before making these outlandish statements. And in the unlikely event that your assertion might be true, it still doesn't change the requirement for the article to use academic sources as a primary source of information on its contents. Please check the Battle of Waterloo if they use NYT or LeMonde as the source of troop casualties and the such. It is simply totally unacceptable to use a Kremlin-sponsored newspaper from a country ranked 147 out of 168 for freedom of press as a source for historiographic articles. Did you even read the article you are trying to introduce as a source? It mentions a decision to commemorate the anniversary of the battle as an anti-Russian event. I wonder if it views annual Victory parades on the Red square as anti-German events, or annual reanactments of the Battle of Borodino as a xenophobic anti-French event? So much for objectivity and impartiality. And this is supposed to be a source in Wikipedia?
I noticed that you spend too much time disruptting these articles in Ukrainian and English Wikipedias with the same biased source, why don't you devote some time to improve the same utterly pitiful and one-sided article in Russian WP, where you edit most? --Hillock65 (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it's not helpful to ignore the obvious. Just open your eyes and you will see quite a big amount of media sources in key Wikipedia articles. Izvestia might be not as oppositional to Kremlin as, for example, Moscow Times, but what about patriotic Ukrainian neo-"historians" acquiring grants from western NGOs? Isn't that the kind of sources you rely on? I'm sorry to tell you that compared to May 9th or Borodino anniversaries the commemaration of Konotop or even Poltava has purely political background. Yuschenko seeks to mobilize nationalists groups to save himself from his coming political death. The fact that large parts of Ukrainian population are angered by Yuschenko's history manipulation shows that his feasts are everything but natural celebrations of the people compared to Russian holidays. Since you sneak out of providing concrete disproofs for my edits about
  • participation of Ukrainian Cossacks on the Russian side
  • looting by the Crimean Tatars
  • solitude of this victory over Russia
I consider it not very sensible to continue this discussion with you.
PS: The article in the Russian WP says everything essential and is quite proportional for this pretty poor of consequences historical event which would be hardly more than a marginal note if it wouldn't be exploited that much by current political leadership of Ukraine. Voyevoda (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
It is no wonder that you avoid discussing the validity of your questionable source. The point is (and I am sure even you now realize this) that it cannot be used as a source on historiographic data in this article. Moreover, much of the information, with the exception of Russian nationalist bias, has been present in this article.
  • Even the respectable Russian historian Solovyov admitted participation of the pro-Russian Cossacks and it was reflected in the article.
  • With respect to the looting by the Tatars, you will have to present a valid and neutral academic source for that, which I doubt will be hard, because I suspect, it might have happened.
  • Finally, this battle was not the only victory of Cossacks over Moscow. I may not be a journalist at a nationalist Russian newspaper, but even I know that this statement is a lie. To see the proof for yourself, please read carefully the articles Livny and Yelets, especially the parts about them being captured and burned by the Cossacks at least 50 years before the Battle of Konotop. I regret to inform you, contary to the Izvestia BS even this was not the last time Russians were beaten by Ukrainian Cossacks.
Not that it is relevant to this article: unlike you, I am not planning to recount the times Russians were beaten by Ukrainians or by anyone else. It is irrelevant to the subject matter of the article, and quite frankly is childish. Again, so much for validity of your "source". You will have to face the reality: that newspaper article is so full of holes, it is a shame for anyone to be relying on. Please, reconsider including it as a source, there is enough historiographic literature for us to be competing in who can dig up more dirt. It will not lead to anything good, trust me. Sincerely, --Hillock65 (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Izvestia, while a mainstream newspaper acceptable as a Reliable Source in articles about current events, has no standing as a scholarly source on the subject of history. Just exactly as the NYTimes or Le Monde. What makes the newspaper reputable is it's fact checking policies but those only apply to reporting. We expect the newspapers to be good at their job, and their job is not to write about what happened 300 years ago but what happened at the meeting between Putin and Medveded the other day. That saidm there is an important exemption. If the article is written by an otherwise reputable scholar whose academic standing is independently established in a standard way (degrees, peer-reviews publications, etc.) he can be used whenever he chooses to publish himself, even at his personal site, provided the authenticity is not in doubt. So, I suggest this discussion is switched from the newspaper to its original author. What also matters is whether the info sourced to the newspaper is obvious and non-controversial or a fringe view that contradicts the mainstream. Does it? --Irpen 00:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, names of two historians are mentioned in the article: Viktor Horobets and Stanislav Tsalik, but the text attributed to them is centered mostly around modern interpretation of the battle, while the historical facts so abundant in the article seem to belong to the two Russian journalists, who wrote the article. The interpretation of events is clearly one-sided and biased and some of the facts, like the number of casualties cited, cannot be relied on, as this data is not attributed to any respectable historians or sources. What I most strongly object to is the assertion by the newspaper of this being the only battle between Russians and Ukrainians. I don't see why it matters and have even shown above that it is false; moreover, I think it is really childish to be inserting competition scores in historical articles. After all, it is just some journalist's POV, which doesn't make it any better then any one else's POV. I don't see any scores of Russian defeats in respect to Germans or French mentioned in any other articles. It is really out of place. Other than that, all other info can be corroborated from other academic sources.--Hillock65 (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's then get to business of detail. What exactly is disputed here. One claim added to the article is that "It was the only victory of Ukrainian Cossacks over Russia in history." Is this disputed? If not, is this an important fact? The problem with this phrasing, as I see it, is more with the misleading presentation of the battle as being between the Ukrainians and Russians. In fact, "Ukrainians" (an anachronism, btw, in this context) were in good numbers on both sides. Such trivial info should be agreed on regardless of this particular source.

Inserting the numbers from two journalists instead of the scholarly writing is indeed unacceptable.

Next, is the fact that Cossacks from Sloboda Ukraine took part disputed?

Same about the pillaging by Crimean Tatars. Is it in doubt? If not the argument should be about its importance, not where it is referenced to.

Finally, we should take a similarly critical look at all sources. One of them is the "Портал Українця". There needs to be an explanation on why this is an OK source. Same applies to whatever is referenced to "haidamaka.ua" or "webua", the latter domain is currently listed for sale. Since some editors used to use even livejournal blogs and WP user talk pages as "references" (are they removed from uk-wiki by now?), all sources should be studies just as critically. --Irpen 01:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, let's see.
  • "The only victory" part is certainly disputed as it contradicts the facts (see above) and it is POV of Russian journalists.
  • The part about Bezpaly Cossacks is certainly true, I don't object to this fact added.
  • Regarding the looting by Tatars I cannot say with certaintly one way or the other and would prefer scholarly and respected sources to support that assertion.

Finally, if there are other questions regarding the sources let's look at those too. --Hillock65 (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Why in the world Livny and Yelets should be an example of Cossack "victories"? They were ravaged without even a resistance, Yelets was taken "by subterfuge" (see the article). Nothing deserves the name "battle" here. The unprovoked pillaging within a country torn by the Time of Troubles by fellow East Slavs is one more chapter of Ukrainian history which one cannot be proud of. I revert your changes. Voyevoda (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Listen, you are inserting a newspaper aricle as a source for data in the article. Besides, even if the statement is false, the statement about only victory is POV. Also, because there were enough Ukrainians on both sides. Please stop the revert war. --Hillock65 (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This revert war over nothing is indeed silly. I suggest everyone cleans up his own act. Any controversial statement referenced exclusively to the work by a journalist gets removed by Voevoda. Hillock cleans up his sourcing to "Портал Українця", "haidamaka.ua" or "webua" (dealinked domain currently for sale). Alternatively, each side explains the use of such sources. "Izvestiya is a mainstream newspaper" is no adequate explanation because newspapers (mainstream or not) are not sources on historic subjects. They specialty is current events. "This article is a ref to an otherwise established scholar who chose to publish in Izvestiya for whatever reason" would be an OK explanation though or "these facts are non-controversial and not disputed so why not have them" is another amiable explanation. --Irpen 23:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Date Problem

Subtelny, 'Ukraine, a History', 2000, page 144 has 29 June 1658, 'even before the Treaty of Hadiach'. Magosci. 'A History of the Ukraine',1996, page 225 has 8 July 1659. These seem to be the two standard histories of the Ukraine in English.Benjamin Trovato (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

in the Turkish books

in the Turkish History Books Russians lost 100 000 men in this battle. Please check the data of strengths again.Thanks... Aydın ERGÜL aergul97@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.215.194.162 (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes to the article.

Recent changes to the article represent one-sided and biased numbers of troops and characterization of those, who participated in the battle. I understand there are other sources as to what happened 350 years ago, but it cannot and will not discount modern Ukrainian research and assertions of such eminent Russian historian as Sergey Solovyov. Reverting pages will lead nowhere. Please start discussion. --Hillock65 (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The numbers of Solovyov are correct, but in the same time not referring on what is the direct topic of this article. Solovyov gave the numbers of the whole Russian army which was besieging Konotop. It wasn't involved in the battle, however. The only troops that were involved were units of Pozharsky and Lvov. Using the numbers of Solovyov is distorting the reality and often used by those who try to make this victory of Vyhovsky bigger than it was. I didn't remove anything that was sourced except the numbers of Solovyov for the reason just described. You, instead, removed my sourced numbers instead of add other sourced numbers which would be the right approach. Moreover, you removed important text information which you didn't disproved. Therefore I see myself as authorized to restore my version. --Voyevoda (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
If you look carefully, you will see that the article does not state that the whole army of Trubetskoy participates in the battle, only the 30,000-strong detachment. The numbers of the whole army are relevant, because the article explains the background and the siege of the Konotop fortress, where the whole army did participate. It states quite explicitly that the whole army did not participate, just one detachment that was lured in the trap and defeated. You also removed references to casualties provided by Solovyov, who you say is correct. I find it hard to understand. Let's discuss issue by issue, what you see wrong, because reverting pages is not a solution. --Hillock65 (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Please show me the position where 30,000 Russian losses are sourced. The Box which is the most prominent part suggests that all 150,000 took part which is distorting reality. And it's you who started reverting instead of to discuss. --Voyevoda (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, please explain why you are trying to remove the sourced information that it was Crimean Tatars who were the most numerous und the most decisive in the battle? --Voyevoda (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Soruces for the article

  • 1. Number of troops. The main source for the article is the eminent Russian historian Sergey Solovyov and the The cronicle of the Witness, which put the number of troops at 100,000 and 150,000 respectively. The sources can be checked here: Solovyov and The cronicle of the Witness.


The total number of troops by Konotop is very relevant as siege of the fortress is connected to the battle itself and the article clearly states that only 30,000 detachment took part in the battle by Sosnivka. I will also add a footnote to the effect.

  • 2. Casualties. The cronicle of the Witness, which is the primary source, puts the number of casualties at 20,000 or 30,000 men.


  • This data from the Chronicle differs drastically with what you and your friend have been inserting in the article. Not surprisingly the numbers favour Muscovite troops, diminishing them, whereas Cossack and Tatar troops remain the same. I don't know where you are getting these numbers and whether the sources can be trusted and who the historian is who contradicts the Chronicle of the Witness and Sergey Solovyov. I am prepared to make a compromise: since it is obviously a trend to re-write and invent history in Russia I will include the alternative numbers of troops and casualties in the footnote as modern research, but there is no way this unknown source can supercede a famous historian like Solovyov and The Chronicle. I am not even citing modern Ukrainian research, which offers the same data and am relying on famous and established sources.
  • I hope this will put this issue to rest, because revert warring is not going to lead anywhere, especially if you violate WP:3RR from your account and IP address. I will not involve admins at this point, but if the revert war contines I will file a complaint. I hope we can settle this issue amicably through discussion at talk. --Hillock65 (talk) 05:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • 1) The source of Samovidec (Eyewitness) was not given previously regarding losses. The information was unsourced. That's why my reverts were justified, yours not.
    • 2) If you don't trust modern Russian researchers, one can also claim that the Hetmanate Samovidec chronicle favours Ukrainian achievements, exaggerating Russian losses. There are plenty of examples of historical chronicles that exaggerate.
    • 3) The correct approach was to put these different numbers and sources beside each other and not to put one that you favour on the most prominent place while hiding the other in "References".
    • 4) I do not contradict the numbers of Solovyov. I already wrote that his numbers are correct but not really the topic of this article. If troops are not participating in the clash, they didn't lose anything in this article. Except the goal is to exaggerate the significance of this victory and the fighting skills of one side. Do you really not see that such approach is distorting reality? I suggest a compromise: to put the info about direct/indirect participants directly into the box.
    • 5) You still didn't answer why you are trying to delete the information about the role and the numbers of Tatar forces. This information is based on Tatyana Tairova-Yakovleva, a very prominent and respected researcher of Ukrainian history. You can google to learn more about her.
    • 6) Igor Babulin is a professional and faithful historian of the Russian Academy of Science who made a serious scientific work researching and reconstructing the events at Konotop for his book «Князь Семен Пожарский и Конотопская битва». --Voyevoda (talk) 08:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
So, why are you reverting? There are sources in Eywitness and in Solovyov's history regarding sources. They are between 20,000 and 30,000. In addition, here is the third source: modern Ukrainian historian Bulvynsky: His numbers are the same. [3][4]
Traditional, well trusted sources like Solovyov and Eyewitness chronicle cannot be compared to unknown Russian historians, who all of a sudden 350 years after the event "discovered" new numbers but only in relation to Muscovite troops. This is very suspicious. I included these numbers, however, in the footnote.
I have explained to you twice already that overall strength of the Muscovite army (100,000 - 150,000 men) is very relevant because the article describes the siege of the Konotop fortress, where all troops took part. I included an explanation in the footnote that only Pozharsky's detachment took part in the battle.
I don't know who those Russian historians are that you are citing. The article and the role of the Tatars in the battle is described based on Russian historian Sergey Solovyov's history, which are in agreement with testimonials of eyewitnesses and modern research. Read about him in this encyclopedia. You seem to insert sentences with poor grammar that try to minimise Muscovite troop losses and shift all attention to the Tatars. You are pushing your POV. This is not the way articles are written in Wikipedia. --Hillock65 (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
If you don't know Tairova-Yakovleva that's your own problem. She is very well-known in historical circles and can't be called pro-Russian. The sources of Babulin are original army lists of the 17th century. Why don't you just read his book? You didn't explain or answer anything, we are moving in a circle. Instead of a balanced version where the complete heterogenous information is briefly presented, you want two-classes information presentation: one in the box, one in the footnotes. This is POV and double standards. --Voyevoda (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't dispute their research, I included their data in the text. However, look what you are doing? You cannot call professor Solovyov's history Ukrainian sources! He is more Russian than you!!! You are trying to put the original source of the Eyewitness and the eminent Russian professor's history on one level with unknown writers. This would be the same if we changed WWII article because Victor Suvorov has a different view on who started it. You cannot equal chronicles of the time and eminent, world-renown historians with some, who nobody knows about. Their research is mentioned in the footnote and that is enough. --Hillock65 (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. Babulin's numbers are also based on historical documents, just like Solovyov is based on Samovidec. The parallels with Suvorov are wrong since he is not accepted among serious scientists, whereas Babulin is. Hiding information is not a solution. Why do you want to leave the readers without the possibility to decide on their own whom to trust and whom not? --Voyevoda (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I am not hiding anything, the numbers are there in the footnotes - have a look. As a compromise to end this revert war I can move them in the table but they should be called differently. They are not Ukrainian or Russian sources. The new figures is modern Russian research. That is it. --Hillock65 (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Zaporozhian cossacks

This is clearly wrong since Zaporozhian cossacks under the command of Ivan Sirko weren't loyal to Vyhovsky and ruined the fruits of his victory when attacking Crimean Khanate and thus forcing Mehmet Giray to leave Vyhovsky. Vyhovsky had the temporary title Hetman of Ukraine until Yuri Khnemlnytsky gets old enough, but his election was disputed from the very beginning on with much of the country rejecting obedience. So I recommend to be cautious with this naming, and to differenciate cossacks by their loyalty to avoid POV. --Voyevoda (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Please!!! Do not exhibit this kind of ignorance! Vyhovsky's was NEVER hetman of Ukraine, his title was: Hetman of the Zaporozhian Host. It was the same as Khmelnytsky's and he remained the leader of Zaporozhian Host until he abdicated later. Cossacks with Ivan Sirko were Sich Cossacks. Please do not confuse the two. Please read Solovyov on what the title of the hetman was:



--Hillock65 (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

My point was that one can't call somebody by some name if his legitimity is disputed and rejected by half of the country. This is again POV in favour of his supporters who at the end proved to be weaker and lesser. A more neutral approach is to separate the Cossacks by their political orientation since they had different opinions on who is the true Zaporozhian Hetman. And even if you don't agree with this point, this is still not a justification to revert EVERYTHING! --Voyevoda (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
You should familiarize yourself with WP:V. One calls somebody what the published, credible, academic sources say. And the sources call Vyhovsky and his troops Zaporozhian Cossacks. See above in bold type. We cannot chose and pick what we like to call what, we reflect the sources. If the sources say he is the Hetman of Zaporozhian Cossacks - that's the way he will be called in the article. There is no compromise on distorting sources, that violates Wikipedia policies. --Hillock65 (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
While for a part of Cossacks Vyhovsky was the legal Hetman, for the other part Bespalyi was.[5] This is undisputed historical fact. Solovyov is just one among many. One can call Vyhovsky Hetman but this is only half of the truth. I do not violate Wikipedia policies, on the contrary, I try to find a balanced and undisputable description and to avoid POV. One last appeal: Edit points of jour objection, stop reverting everything! --Voyevoda (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Vyhovsky will be called what eminent Russian historian Solovyov calls him in his academic research, not what some dubious modern writers like to call him. Exactly per WP:V. --Hillock65 (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
So you reverted again just as I was trying to add troop numbers as a compromise. Well, we are at an impasse. This is dead end. I am asking for other editors to voice their opinions on what is going on here. This is going nowhere. I will have to involve admins. --Hillock65 (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Please, read this: http://scepsis.ru/library/id_2155.html#a44 Everything is seriously sourced and researched. Arguably even more seriously than Samovidec or Solovyov who just copied Samovidec numbers. Solovyov, just like many historians of his epoch, didn't spent many efforts on researching of big amounts of documents, some of them even weren't in circulation in the 19th century. Списки Разрядного приказа are not a chronicle, they are intern working documents of the state. They were not for the masses but for administration issues, like accounting and treasury distribution. --Voyevoda (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Voyevoda

While you did address some of the issues on talk page, your reverts are much more substantial. For example changing the names of the participants. I see that you've now - after I undid your revert - began the discussion. It might be useful if you break up the differences and disputes into their constituent parts, rather than doing one massive revert of other editors' edits.radek (talk) 08:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what name changes of the participants you mean. I didn't change any names except the wrong "Zaporozhian cossacks". --Voyevoda (talk) 09:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Please see above about Zaporozian Cossacks. That's what Russian historian Solovyov calls Vyhovsky's troops, it is the same in other sources. --Hillock65 (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
How many times does a biased version of this article has to be imposed on the readers? The one, where eminent Russian historian Sergey Solovyov is listed as "Ukrainian sources"! This is just plain rediculous. --Hillock65 (talk) 05:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Solovyov cannot be taken seriously because he had no access to Списки Разрядного приказа in the XIX century. He just blindly follows pro-Vyhovsky chronist Samovidets. Here is a serious scientific article about Solovyov's inaccurate approach in the case of Konotop: http://scepsis.ru/library/id_2155.html#a44 --Voyevoda (talk) 06:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Gee, now, that I have reported you to the admins you changed your mind and decided to start a discussion! I was tired of waiting and impatient. Saying that an eminent Russian historian cannot be taken seriously is beyond laughable. It is ridiculous. And what is more important HE IS NOT A UKRAINIAN SOURCE. That shows that you're just reverting pages without any regard even for common sense! --Hillock65 (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I participated in the discussion on this page all the way, just open your eyes. And now I also didn't say anything new about Solovyov, I already expressed my skepticism about his relevance. Being a Russian historian doesn't make him pro-Russian, by the way. And it does not make the article balanced. Have you read what I linked, at all? I don't think so, judging by your timing. --Voyevoda (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I cannot even imagine reasons for listing a Russian historian under Ukrainian sources. You are just bent on forcing your version of the article, first with the help of your friends from Russian WP, now with reverting pages with such inexplicable edits as this. In short, I don't see the smallest effort to compromise. With you it is impossible. Because you were asking at Russian WP to help you here, I don't think you are interested in a compromise. Facts don't show that. --Hillock65 (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I cannot even imagine reasons for listing a Russian historian under Ukrainian sources. You are just bent on forcing your version of the article, first with the help of your friends from Russian WP, now with reverting pages with such inexplicable edits as this. In short, I don't see the smallest effort to compromise. With you it is impossible. Because you were asking at Russian WP to help you here, I don't think you are interested in a compromise. Facts don't show that. --Hillock65 (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
You are involved in a dubious anti-Russian mailing list scandal where one can olny guess about the amount of hidden agreements and intransparent manipulations together with your Polish and Baltic friends. So please stop telling me all that stuff. You are constantly removing sourced information, avoiding seriuous scientific discussion. I never called Solovyov a Ukrainian historian, but his numbers are Ukrainian - blindly copied from Samovidets. --Voyevoda (talk) 07:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And you surely now that only 3 of 10 Vyhovsky polks were from Left-bank Ukraine? Chernigovsky, Pereyaslavsky and Prilutsky. So it's ridiculous to claim him as a representant Zaporozhian cossacks. Real Zaporozhian Cossacks attacked the Crimean Khanate under Ivan Sirko while another significant part fought on the Russian side. In the article it is sourced by me that Bezpalyi also had Zaporozhian Cossacks under his leadership. --Voyevoda (talk) 07:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

How many times do we have to discuss that? There is a whole section above called Zaporozhian Cossacks. You may want to read it. This has been discussed before. This is supposed to be your way of discussing issues of the article: neglecting issues raised before and switching to other issues that have already been discussed? This is hard to explain. --Hillock65 (talk) 07:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Hehe, it was you who stopped discussing those part. Moreover it is your style of discussion to switch and to ignore facts. You still didn't read what I linked and didn't disprove or commented what is written there. Generally, your knowlegde in the modern researchers landscape seems to be very limited since you see yourself authorized to just remove the statements of Tairova-Yakovleva, for example, never speaking of them again. I suggest you leave the topic to users who are slightly more informed. All of your "competence" in the issue throughout the discussion can be summarized as "Solovyov is god". --Voyevoda (talk) 07:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Solovyov's reliability in Konotop issue

Even the book Hillock65 linked himself here sees the neccessity to strongly limit Solovyov's statements:

Although some writers repeat the claim the 30,000 Muscovites were killed or captured at Konotop, lists Trubetskoi submitted to the Ambassador's Chancellery report total losses of 4,789 men: 2,830 of L'vov and Pozharskii columnt sent across the Sosnovka and 1,896 during the attacks upon Trubetskoi's withdrawing wagenburg. Soloviev's judgement that "the flower of the Russian cavalry had perished in one day" is true only in the sense that at least 259 of those killed and captured were officers or men of Moscow rank (zhilets and above). (direct link) --Voyevoda (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Solovyov's claims is one set of the numbers presented in the article. I don't see the reasons to remove them. That doesn't make him a Ukrainian source, however. The version presented by this source is also presented in the article. What are you complaining about? --Hillock65 (talk) 08:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
His numbers are of Ukrainian origin. Still, nobody removes him although the reliability of those Ukrainian numbers is strongly doubtful. Please stop this Edit War. --Voyevoda (talk) 08:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
How do you know that? Which source points to this? He is an emminent historian and is Russian, not Ukrainian. --Hillock65 (talk) 08:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The source I already posted and that you still avoid to read if asking such questions. There are strong indications about his mistakes in the Konotop issue so stop your one and only mantra about him being emminent. Here, he is a secondary source, the primary ones are Списки разрядных полков on the Russian side and Самовидец on the Ukrainian side. That's why citing of Samovidec belongs to the Ukrainian side. --Voyevoda (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You ignored the question about sources above. What sources point out that Solovyov used Ukrainian sources. I am still waiting. I am not interested in Russian revisionist literature. --Hillock65 (talk) 08:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't ignore anything. In the 19th century there was basically only one primary source for Russian casualties at Konotop - the Samovidets chronicle. This is why Solovyov couldn't avoid using it. Since then, new direct documents were found in the archives (Списки разрядного полка) which are surely more reliable than poetic chronicles used throughout 19th century. Western historians like Davies (you linked it yourself) don't trust Samovidets numbers very much, Russian researchers do not also. You cannot try to disqualify everything as "revisionist literature" since I can say the same to new Ukrainian historians such as Mytsyk and Co. Rejecting each other's sources is leading nowhere and cann't be a basis for a discussion. --Voyevoda (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Voevoda is pushing the POV based largely on the Babulin pamphlet, which is not just revisionist, but slanderous.Galassi (talk) 09:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you have any factual objections against Babulin? If so, please present them. Yelling "He is bad because I don't like him" is surely not enough.Voyevoda (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Guys, Sergey Solovyov and Vasily Klyuchevsky are very prominent historians although they are 19th century people. In many cases they are more preferable to the Soviet and post-Soviet sources that are ideologically motivated. Obviously the history science made many discoveries since 19th century but I am not sure Nikolay Smirnov's works reposted on scepsis.ru are universally recognized as such. Smirnov's work was originally published in an academic source and does not seem to generate much of recognition since them. I think Smirnov deserves a passing reference in a couple of sentences as an alternative POV (Russian historian Nikolay Smirnov has challenged the number of Russian losses in the Batle of Konotop. According to him..." Still the mainstream views seem to be the ones of Solovyov and modern Ukrainian historians Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Historians of the 19th century worked almost only with poetic chronicles, not with archive documents while archives were not even requisitioned and completely categorized at that time. One can't even blame Solovyov for using exlusively Samovidets, he had no other choice at that time. And of course, I don't deny Solovyov being a respected historian as one of the founding fathers of Russian historiography. This is, however, not a reason to put him over modern scientists with their wider range of accessible documents and more professional working methods. This is like to put Galilei's statements over modern astronoms who are probably less known but surely more reliable. Even Western historians like Davies (as shown at the top) see the need to restrict Solovyov's (=Samovidets) statements based on newly discovered primary sources such as Списки разрядного полка. --Voyevoda (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, obviously 21st century mainstream scholarship trumps 19th century. But to prove that mainstream views is changed we need more than a single article from "Труды по русской истории. Сборник статей в память о 60-летии И.В. Дубова.", we need to prove that the view is present in university textbooks, respectable monographs or at least accepted by a number of academics (better unaffiliated with Ukraine or Russia). One article against classical workseven a good one only qualifies as an alternative view. Regarding the interpretation of the primary sources I am afraid that it is above abilities of the most Wiki editors and qualifies as WP:OR Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The topic (Russian casualties in the battle of Konotop) is very specific and works by authors who are unaffiliated with Ukraine or Russia are pretty rare. At the top of this discussion chapter I already presented a Western historian - Brian L. Davies - who openly distances himself from Solovyov. Besides him, there are several respected Russian historians who specialized themselves on Russian military history of the 17th century: Novoselsky, Smirnov, Malov and now Babulin. They all have a serious scientific reference apparatus what can not be claimed in the case of Solovyov and most of Ukrainian sources linked here. Since it was your claim I think it's up to you to prove that modern mainstream views correspond to Solovyov because essays of the 19th century are usually not regarded academic today (especially in the US) for not conforming requirements of modern scientific literature. Nevertheless my position is keeping all sources side by side instead of hiding the others somewhere in the footnotes, as my opponents demand... --Voyevoda (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Therefore it would be a good idea to base on the 2 most respected Western sources, Subtelny and Magosci.Galassi (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
In contrast to Davies, Subtelny can hardly be regarded as unaffiliated with Ukraine while in the case of Magosci I would like to see an exact reference where he writes about Russian losses. --Voyevoda (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference Solovyov was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Konotop_(1659)/Archive_1&oldid=1081044335"