Talk:Zaporozhian Cossacks

Archives
April 2007

Passage deleting

I deleted the following passage: "Cossack society was semi-militarized. Their territory was organized into regimental districts (polky), further subdivided into company districts (sotnias) and villages (stanitsas). Senior officers were the starshyna." Such division was used for Kuban or Don Cossacks. Ukrainian Cossacks, by ukrainian sources had kurens, not stanitsas or polky. Ans-mo 13:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You might be right, but I think they did have Polks, and from there Polkovnyks. --Kuban Cossack 14:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in military campaigns the cossacks were divided in polks. One polk - 3 or 4 kurens. Ans-mo 14:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What is this?

According to Ukrainian sources, ruining of Zaporizhian Sich became a huge tragedy for local cossacks and Ukrainian people in general. There remained many peoples songs about these events, where Russian Empress Catherine potrayed as hostile and unmerciful woman, "hungry she-wolf", who destroyed the stronghold of Ukrainian independence and self-defence - Zaporizhian Sich.

• 1. Not all Ukrainian sources agree
  2. Not all Cossacks agree
  3. It was not really a tragedy as it was completely bloodless
  4. Zaporozhian Sich was not independent of the Russian Empire and it was a Russian stronghold not Ukrainian upon its destruction

This material violates WP:NPOV and WP:POINT. Also it is unreferenced. To the author make a proper heading about the Zaporozhian legacy and go in full about the dances, dresses, whatever...but not like this. --Kuban Cossack 14:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all I said about Ukrainian point of view. Or you think, that Ukrainian point of view can not be presented in article about Ukrainian Cossacks? Second, most of of Ukrainian sources agree in such estimation. You can read articles in External Links section. OK. I will give you sources. Let us not make it historical propaganda. Ans-mo 15:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point, it is not about presenting different POVs or opinions, but about making the facts encyclopedic. Having a proper legacy heading is what is needed, yes the Zaporozhian Cossacks did leave a lot of legacy behind, and it does differ strikingly, for some Ukrainians they are progenitors of Ukrainian nation, independence etc, for others, and for Russians, they are a symbol of unity, patriotism, russophilia and so on... There are chapters in their history which support/contradict both theories. This should be presented in a correct encyclopedic manner, not in a propagandistic statement that you wrote. --Kuban Cossack 15:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Guys, please, let's cool it off. The two positions are not at all mutually exclusive and can be presented not even along with each other but together as these do not contradict but complement each other. That the Z.C.'s legacy is connected with the rich tradition of the Russian Cossackdom is not ever doubted. As the same time, the view that the modern Ukrainian nation is rooted in the Dnieper Cossackdom is also a mainstream view. Let's try to reconcile these points. --Irpen 18:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hence my proposal, but that passage above is way too POVed to be even included, I am very busy right now, but on friday I will attempt to draft a proper Legacy section. --Kuban Cossack 20:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The present article content for Zaporizhian - Muscovites relations is absolutely one-sided and presents just well known propaganda. The vast majority of Ukrainian sources tells about negative attitude in Ukraine to the Sich ruining. Besides plenty of peoples songs (the Ukrainians did not have opportunity to express their POV through official historical science due to well-known reasons) there is a poetry of T.Shevchenko, where "ruining the Sich" topic is described as negative event, and accusations to Muscovites (Moskali) including Empress Catherine are common. There are works of historians D.Yavornitskiy and A.Kaschenko with close to the mentioned POV. Manipulating Wiki rules for distubuting one-sided propaganda is not appropriate. Ans-mo 06:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is direct passage from Encyclopedia of Ukraine [1], which present example close to objectivity:

In the second half of the 18th century the Zaporozhian Cossacks were forced to struggle constantly against the encroachments of the mainly Serbian and Romanian colonists sponsored by the Russian government. The tsarist state increasingly limited the Zaporozhians' rights, freedoms, and self-government, particularly after the abolition of the Hetman state in 1764. On 15–16 June 1775, on orders from Catherine II, the Russian army under Gen P. Tekeli razed the New Sich. In her manifesto of 14 August 1775 Catherine officially abolished the Zaporozhian Host, calling it a ‘political monstrosity.’ Many of the Zaporozhians were forced into military settlements, and later became state peasants. Some 10,000 fled to Ottoman territory and founded the Danubian Sich there. From among those who remained under Russian rule the Boh Cossack Army and, later, the Black Sea Cossacks were formed. The lands of the Zaporizhia were incorporated into New Russia gubernia and Azov gubernia and distributed among the Russian and Ukrainian landowners.

It differs from one sided POV on Russian role in Zaporozhia events, presented in this article, where negative side of Russian participation carefuly omitted. Ans-mo 07:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well the source is already wrong as the number of Cossacks fleeing to the Danube was half of 10 thousand, something confirmed by Orest Subletny and other contemporary Ukrainian historians. The Bug Cossack Army was formed not out of Zaporozhians, but mostly out of Moldavians and Greeks. Diverge on your references. --Kuban Cossack 09:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You think that one possible unprovable mistake, which doesnot touch the essential meaning of the subject makes the whole source wrong? I dont think it is necessary to manipulate and present one-sided view.

Here are two respected Ukrainian sources with negative view on Sich ruining, which was erased by somebody from history of discussion.

• Adrian Kaschenko [2]
• Olena Apanovich [3]

Ans-mo 10:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The view is neutral, not one-sided, perhaps you are not familiar with WP:NPOV? --Kuban Cossack 11:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of erasing this passage with clearly stated sources?

"By evidence of other sources [4], the leading class (starshyna) of the Zaporizhian Host was brought to the trial and punished by Russian Government. The last Koshovyi Otaman Petro Kalnyshevsky was exiled to Solovki monastery, where he spent more than 26 years as a prisoner in small cell (1 X 2 m). Kalnyshevsky was only 3 times ayear allowed to quit his "stony bag" for open air and by the time of Emperor Alexander I pardon was already blind." Ans-mo 11:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It is relevant to his article, it is not relevant to the article on the Host of Zaporozhia. Remember Don't use Wikipedia to make a point! --Kuban Cossack 11:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

So you think this passage is more appropriate for Zaporizhian Sich article? OK.

As for making a point, are there stated in rules that Wikipedia should be the media for one-sided propaganda? Ans-mo 12:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what is this BS about Moskals, Muscovite government, (officially Saint Petersburg was the capital in the period you are describing) Stop Vandalising the text with your propaganda. --Kuban Cossack 22:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ans-mno, I tried to work what I could from your passage into the article. The point here is indeed the undue weight. The article needs so much material that adding some narrow aspects to it dear to someone's heart is not the most productive edit. If your goal is improvement of this article, please help develop it by adding crucial material. There is a huge gap with the entire time of Polish subjugation almost omitted. Similarly, the article mentions a small fraction of the events that took place after the Peter's time. I added a little on the Ivan Skoropadsky's rule but none of post-Skoropadsky Hetmans are even mentioned. And while article is in such state, you, by selectively adding the juicy details of the tragic events, perhaps on the issues that are most dear to your heart, move it away from encyclopedic shape and closer to an essay. Kuban would have been better off doing some partial incorporation of the material added by you and developing the article overall instead of reverting you. But people are sometimes too busy to do all the required work on the spot. The question the editor has to ask is does this edit improve the article overall? If not, the best thing to do is to spend more time and make a truly improving edit.

Some editors come to Wikipedia with the narrow goal to push their favorite political agenda. That may be a change in terminology usage or airing the grievances one has against the Russians, Ukrainians, Jews or Poles. After a little time you will learn to easily spot such users by their editing pattern. Let's not fall into their footsteps and concentrate on what we can do to make this article better rather than what we can do to give more prominence to the evilness of (put some nation here.)

On the side note, one experienced editor joined the revert war here, perhapsm based on the enemy of my enemy principle. The editor speaks much about the undue weight at the talk page of the Time of Troubles article and persistently removes the material under this excuse. It did not prevent him from joining reverting to the version here where the undue weight is given to a different issue. I can't explain this behavior but please do not get encouraged by such unexpected help.

Finally, I am somewhat concerned about the separation and interaction of several related articles. This one, the Zaporizhian Sich, the Cossacks, the History of Cossacks, the Cossack Hetmanate. Any suggestions on what material belongs were, consistency, avoidance of duplication and forking? Where do we discuss this. At the notice board? All are welcome to make suggestions. --Irpen 05:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Erasing of passages with clearly stated sources usually called vandalism. Maybe such passages need some editing, but the facts mentioned are important to be presented to express the full picture of events. If we are talking about the necessity of providing true facts and explanations, presenting one politicaly engaged point of view is far from the aim of the open source media. Maybe the articles on Zaporizhian Cossacks need full rewriting, but taking into account most reliable Ukrainian (it seems strange for someone to use Ukrainian sources in the articles on Ukrainian Cossacks, and I suspect that some people dont recognize the existence of Ukrainian nation at all) sources (A.Kaschenko, O.Apanovich, V.Antonovich, folklore) instead of erasing everything that does not fit in the picture of Empire loving one sided interpretations. The problem of emerging Russo-Soviet one sided mythology propaganda is well known and needs to be also discussed and sometimes be corrected. Ans-mo 06:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism to make sure what constitutes vandalism. Note that sourcing is not the single requirement for the encyclopedic article. Sourced info which is irrelevant, biased, tendentious or whatever should often be removed, moved or rewritten. Your ideas on who does and who does not recognize the UA nation belong to the Internet fora, and not article's talk pages. Please avoid inflammatory rhetoric as well. Take a second look on the advises I gave above. Thanks, --Irpen 06:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What sources are biased: Encyclopedia of Ukraine, historians A.Kaschenko or V.Antonovich? Or maybe peoples songs? In general I am enough of this dispute. From my side, I just added information, not erased (without reason) even seemed other side prejudiced POV. 06:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Ans-mo 07:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Your information is in the article. Now, would you like to add a little about what happened to Sulyma and Vereshchaka and why? Or, better yet, why not start the article Hermanivka Rada? --Irpen 07:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

As for Hermanivka, maybe it is necessary just to add "Hermanivka" article depicting this village and historical events connected with it? Such article even does not exist in Ukrainian Wikipedia.Ans-mo 07:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Erased passages with clearly stated sources

Here I post the erased passages, with reliable sources, with facts that may (and should, imho) be used in presenting this topic:

At the time of the Russian Tsar Peter, Ukrainian cossacks were compulsively used for channel and fortification lines construction by Moscow Government. About 20 - 30 thousands of them were transfered each year to Nothern Russia for channels building at Ladoga Lake. Such a hard labour in cold and unfamiliar climate caused a large level of mortality among cossacks. Only about 40% of them were able to come back home from these "missions".[5].

The abolishment of the Zaporizhian Sich remained a tragic event in the Ukrainian folklore and peoples memory, where frequently expressed negative attitude towards Empress Catherine and Moscovites (moskal), who ruined the stronghold of the Ukrainian dignity and independence. Ukrainian historian A.Kaschenko [6]states, that "Ukrainian people, which for several centuries had a powerfull defender of its rights and reliable asylum, bitterly mourned the abolishment of Sich: + + "Not yet a light, not yet a light, too early for a sunrise, But Moscovite is already surrounding Zaporizhia...", "Moscovites did not sleep, but took all the reserves. Moscovites seniors robbed the Church. They took silver, they took gold, wax candles. Oh, there cried koshovyi with starshyna in Sich." (excerpts of peoples songs)

I would like to ask not to erase these passages (as some of my prevoius) from discussion page for example for the future.Ans-mo 06:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Haven't you noticed that I incorporated this info in a less dramatic form into the article in my edit? Please help expanding the article rather than argue that the info be phrased in some particular way. --Irpen 07:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Next example of political erasing by the same user. By the way, the erased passage was not made by me.

Historian Adrian Kashchenko (1858-1921) notes noted that the final abolishment of the Zaporizhian Sich, the Cossack historic stronghold perceived as the bastion of protection of the Ukrainians and their ways of life, had such a strong symbolic effect that the memories of the event remained for the long time in the local folklore.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ans-mo (talk • contribs) 06:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC). Ans-mo 06:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Some new examples

Here is estimation on Zaporizhian Sich ruining by "Encyclopedia of Ukrainian Cossackdom":

By the Government order general Tekely ruined Zaporizhian Sich, in 1781 administrative (polk and sotnia) regime was abolished. Cossacks were made state peasants and serves, cossack starshyna was given right of nobility. These events are presented in Encyclopedia as yet another tragedy of the Ukrainian people. Second time in its history it lost its statehood and national elite.

All Zaporizhians were deprived of weapons. Part of starshyna, and all the highest of them, were repressed. Koshovy Otaman Kalnishevsky was exiled to Solovki monastery, military judge Pavel Golovaty - to Tobolski monastery, military record clerk - to Turuhanski monastery. All of them had not come back. [7]

Having not possibility of express this point in article itself because of one sided censorship I post this sourced opinion to discussion page. Please dont erase it. The problem is that the point of view on Ukrainian Cossakdom from Ukranian side almost not presented. Ans-mo 08:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

NO that is YOUR problem. This is a historical article, on an INTERNATIONAL wikipedia, we give FACTS not opinions. If you are going to use words like Moskal in the article space I WILL revert you! --Kuban Cossack 11:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

We give all the FACTS without omitting facts, which seem to be inconvenient to some one-sided point of view. The fate of Zaporizhian Cossacks highest starshyna is not a fact? Or further making dependable peasant serves from free cossacks (mentioned earlier) is not a fact? Or using of Cossacks for channel building in nothern Russia, which brought high level of mortality, is not a fact?

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view...

Ans-mo 12:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

And I incorporated ALL of the facts that you gave, channel building is there, its impact on Ukrainian nationalism is there, the peasants from Cossacks is there. The only thing is not there is the pro-Ukrainian svidomy nationalist tone, which is prohibited (just like it would be if it was a Ruspat nationalist one). Directly quoting historians is also best avoided if you can incorporate their opinion (in a nutshell) into the article. In the end it has to be neutral, adding words like Moskal into articles have totally discredited you. --Kuban Cossack 12:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

adding words like Moskal into articles have totally discredited you

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Have you read the rules on personal attacks? Ans-mo 12:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you know about the article Khokhol? No censored, instead of [m.....l].Ans-mo 12:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Extend that rationale to yourself when calling a whole nationality with derogative words... Would you call a black man a nigger in the article space? Would collective refer to black people as niggers. And the content is without doubt nothing but a nationalist POV shared only by SOME Ukrainians, not even the majority, read #1 of WP:SOAP.

For me, I would never allow myself to use the word Khokhol to refer to a Ukrainian in the talk page OR THE ARTICLE SPACE! (Considering that my wife is Ukrainian, and from Western Ukraine btw)... Just because there is an article on nigger that does allow us to collectively refer to black people as such and not being a racist that is something I will NEVER do. For us Kuban Cossacks (descendants of the Zaporozhians) a direct racist insult is something that can get you stripped of rank and expelled from the host. А вы (в единном числе, т.е. только лично вы Ans-mo, а не все Украинцы ;) уже облажались. Поздно. --Kuban Cossack 12:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Word "moscal" can be found in Dal dictionary without too offensive meaning. At that time, it was just the name of modern inhabitants of European Russia. It is often used by T.Shevchenko.Ans-mo 11:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments

In between the reverts, there has actually been a good deal of missing information added. Most of it will have to be copy edited because of language and such, but on the whole both of you should be thanked for your input. I have some comments about where the article is now [8]:

• The history section has absolutely nothing about the beginnings of the Zaporozhtsi.
• There are no links to any battles they took part in.
• The Pereiaslav rada: it is my understanding that the rada was an agreement of 2 equally powerful forces, and only after Khmelnytskyi's death did the empire gain the dominant position. This does not come across in reading the article, and may not give the reader an idea of the complicated nature of the relationship between Ukrainians, Russians, and their Cossack history.
• The "host": this is one of only 2 Cossack articles entitled "host". What should the standard be? I would think that the name should be Zaporozhian Cossacks, like all of the other articles. In thinking upon this, I asked myself were the Zaporozhtsi a host prior to uniting with the Tsar? And when rebellious factions emerged, were those Cossacks still a host, or rather an enemy of the state? Perhaps the whole section about The Russian Empire should be entitle The Host, as if it were a period in the Cossack's history; I am not disputing that it was the majority of their history.

Again, thank you for contributing to the article. I will try to help by copy editing when I can.--tufkaa 16:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that the information (which I incorporated into the legacy section) is bad or good. It is useful given that it is presented properly. However what made me angry was the tone that the user was taking in adding that. That I aside, I would support the renaming to Zaporozhian Cossacks, also because of this there is a mass confusion between this article and the one titled Zaporizhian Sich. I support the move, should we do a WP:RM for this? --Kuban Cossack 17:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd support the move, given that Cossack host lists 11 hosts, but specifically not the Zaphorozian one. I'd also suggest creating at least tiny stubs on all administrative hosts, and noting in the relevant Cossack articles that host is a term for administrative division. A map would be very useful. On that note, History of the administrative division of Russia desperatly needs expansion beyond 1764...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much about WP:RM; the only moves I've made were of stubbed articles. I don't think that this would be a move that would illicit any great dispute, especially since all other Cossack pages redirect "Host" titles to "Cossacks" (e.g., Terek Cossack Host redirects to Terek Cossacks.) If you feel that WP:RM is the best way to move it, please go ahead. I will support.--tufkaa 17:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

As long as nobody opposes in a day or two, we can move it without an RM. If sb oppose, we should have a RM.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I might have jumped the gun, but if there are opposition, please revert and bring it to WP:RM for all I care. --Kuban Cossack 18:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Example of manipulation

In passege made by me with clear reference someone wholy changed content inserting own opinion with trying to link it to my reference. What was initialy:

Significant part of ordinary cossacks were made state peasants and serves.

What was made from it later

Later on, the new nobility from ex-Cossack officers would ensure that their men would become their enserfed peasants.

If you change the meaning please indicate your own source and reference, instead of just using existing reference, which dont content proposed statement.Ans-mo 11:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I read your sentence 4 times Significant part of ordinary cossacks were made state peasants and serves. I still could not understand what you meant to say. Bandurist 11:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It is an old discussion. In May I inserted the referenced fact, that "Significant part of ordinary cossacks were made state peasants and serves" after the ruining of the Sich. But other user took my source of reference and tied it with his own sentence, that "new nobility from ex-Cossack officers would ensure that their men would become their enserfed peasants". That discussion is over, but the immediate fate of cossacks after the ruining of Sich possible should have more detailed presentation. In general the discussion was around meaning of the Sich ruining. Prorussian sources try to diminish the significance of the events and say, that it was just ordinary operation, and cossacks were nearly glad to step under the Moscovites. Ukrainian sources describe the Sich ruining as a huge tragedy of the Ukrainian people and cossacks. Ans-mo 13:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Poster Dispute

Could you please explain your parade of reverts to my corrections and improvements? --Kuban Cossack 19:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Gladly. I hoped you would ask, since your unilateral and controvercial changes are definitely lacking in good faith. Substituting destroyed with absorbed for example. Try to insert that stuff about the Ottoman Empire absorbing Constantinople. WP:WEASEL As well, this is hardly the place to insert the Pereyaslav commie poster. Read the title of the article. --Hillock65 (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:WEASEL. Fact is that the Sich (base) itself was indeed destroyed, but the Sich (Cossack unit) was dissolved. Now a base (an island) cannot make alliances as to what the article is reffering to, and yes it was indeed de jure part of Russia prior to its destruction, so the Constantinople analogy is not fit here. As for the Poster, its a commemoration one on the 300 anniverssary, which had quite a rocky celebration, including Ukraine being awarded with Crimea for start. It certainly fits the description of the Soviet times in the legacy. --Kuban Cossack 20:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The Zaporozhian sich was destroyed, not absorbed. The intro was about Zaporozhian sich, not about some, who for some strange reason still believe themselves the descendents of the Zaporozhian Cossacks. Read carefully. It is supported by scholarly sources and imperialist revisionism won't fly here. The same goes for that disgusting commie poster. It is hardly the appropriate place for it. This article and its subject matter has nothing to do with Pereyaslav or Crimea. Please move it to appropriate place if you are fond of that kind of stuff. --Hillock65 (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The empty Zaporozhian base camp was indeed destroyed, however the lands that they owned, the actual population was absorbed. That is the scholarly position and petty Nationalistic revisionism won't fly. There is a destinct article called Zaporozhian Sich which is specific to the base and the unit it housed. Fact is that after 1775 all of Zaporozhia (region) was fully intergrated into Russia. Do you challenge that? You find the poster disguisting, that's your POV, which we have long established is not neutral. I for one don't even see one refrence to communism on it. Also please don't modify the heading title it is you who is reverting, not me. I am adding you are reverting my additions.--Kuban Cossack 20:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I almost laughed about the empty Zaporozhian base camp, except I remembered a few other places "emptied" by the Russians and I also remembered that however tragic this may be, you indeed believe in it. The point of discussion is the Zaporozhian Sich, it was not emptied, it was destroyed, a few decided to collaborate with the enemy, other would not. Both groups settled one in Kuban the others set up their own Sich. Don't invent things. In regards to picture I haven't seen any valid reasons for its inlusion. If anything goes, can we include the one with Kuban Cossacks meeting Goebbels? This one. It is also very relevant, it shows that those Cossacks that thought it was OK to empty and absorb the Sich and serve the empress, served someone else too. The Germans. --Hillock65 (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Cunning you are, just like Goebbels himself. However the historial literature speaks against you, the actual operation was carried out bloodless. As for the Danubians, 1828 was the year they were pardoned by Nicholas I and returned to form the Azov Cossack Host. Noone is inventing anything. Now then I don't know who is your enemy, but the relevance of the poster, is that it shows the legacy that the Zaporozhian Cossacks were considered to be a unifying factor of Ukraine and Russia. It shows that they were not tabooed but on the contrary their image was promoted. That is an important factor in describing the legacy these people left. --Kuban Cossack 20:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Notwithstanding your personal attacks, what does this poster have to do with Zaporozhians, even with Cossacks? It is propaganda, and a commie one at that. This article is about Zaporozhian Cossacks not about Pereyaslav or anything else. Thre is no relation. I will have to tag the article, if this doesn't get resolved. --Hillock65 (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You will need to prove that its "commie" because I am still yet to find a refrence to communism on it. There is relation, and it is that Zaporozhian Cossacks, came to symbolise the Ukrainian people's past and that their union with Russia, that's how the USSR viewed the Zaporozhians. That is important to the Legacy part of the article. --Kuban Cossack 21:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a 1954 Soviet poster, spilling beans about "friendship" and re-unification rubbish - it is as red commie as it gets. Moreover the poster depicts stylized Ukrainian and Russian, not a Cossack. It has nothing to do with Cossacks, it doesn't even mention them not in picture, nor in text. For your information, Zaporozhians refused to swear allegiance to the Moscovite czar, so their inclusion in fables about "eternal friendship" is preposterous. Please remove it. --Hillock65 (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

For your information it does not actually mention the tsar at all (as it does not mention communism, so please stop the errant tagging commie), and by the way in 1654 he was the Tsar of Russia (correct title). In fact the name Moscow only applies to pre-Ivan III times. Anyway as spitting as you are, the poster does what it says, it stylizes the Zaporozhians as Ukrainians, and celebrates the 300 anniversary of Treaty of Pereyaslav (where, for your information, they did swear eternal allegiance) as Ukraine being part of Russia. This kind of analogy is important for the legacy section. --Kuban Cossack 13:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

With respect to Pereyaslav, the original does not exist so its exact content is unknown. From the Encyclopedia of Ukraine:

The treaty's limitations and formal character led to differing interpretations of it on both sides. The Ukrainian government, particularly under Bohdan Khmelnytsky, considered it to be a temporary political and military alliance. Muscovy, however, particularly after Khmelnytsky's death, used it to justify its increasing interference in Ukraine's internal affairs, whereby it limited Ukraine's sovereignty and eventually nullified the treaty's provisions. Soon after the treaty was concluded, Muscovite officials visited 117 Ukrainian towns, and over 127,300 Ukrainian men swore an oath of loyalty to the tsar.

Historians and legal specialists have not been unanimous in their evaluation of the treaty, particularly its legal aspects and the relations it established between Ukraine and Russia. Some (mostly Russian) scholars believe that it formalized the voluntary incorporation of Ukraine into Russia, either in full or in part (D. Odinets, I. Rozenfeld, Venedikt Miakotin) or Ukraine's autonomy within the Muscovite tsardom and later the Russian Empire (B. Nolde and others). Other historians, both Russian and Ukrainian, considered it to be an act of real union of the two states (N. Diakonov, A. Filippov, A. Popov); or a personal union with the tsar as sovereign of both countries (Rostyslav Lashchenko, Vasilii Sergeevich); or the formalization of Ukraine's vassalage (Mykhailo Hrushevsky, N. Korkunov, Ivan Krypiakevych, Miakotin, Lev Okinshevych, Mikhail Pokrovsky, Mykhailo Slabchenko, Andrii Yakovliv in his early works) or its status as a protectorate (Hrushevsky, Dmytro Doroshenko, Borys Krupnytsky, Krypiakevych, Yakovliv in his later works) or pseudo- or quasi-protectorate (Bohdan Halaichuk); or a temporary military alliance, solidified by the tsar's protection (V'iacheslav Lypynsky, Elie Borschak, Yakovliv in his later works, S. Ivanytsky). Modern Ukrainian historians have been divided: a minority have interpreted the treaty as the formalization of Ukraine's status as a vassal state or protectorate (Okinshevych, Yakovliv), whereas others have viewed it as a military and political alliance (Lypynsky, Oleksander Ohloblyn). Soviet historians generally disputed that it was a treaty at all, and described it as the culmination of the desire of two ‘fraternal peoples’ to unite in a unitary Russian state.

Whatever was in the actual text of the Treaty, the local Ukrainian political leaders at the time of the treaty's signing, including Khmelnytsky, viewed it as a military and political alliance, nothing more. Before his death Khmelnytsky, dissatisfied with the Russians, was already in negotiations with Sweden. His successor Vyhovsky allied with the Poles.

With respect to the poster, I agree that the poster belongs in the article. It is a good illustration of the Russian view of Pereyaslav, and this is quite important when considering the treaty's (and thus Zaporozhia's) historical legacy. Whether or not it is propaganda is irrelevent - the sentiments expressed in that poster are very historically important.Faustian (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I still fail to see the connection between Zaporizzhia and the Pereyaslav. There are no Cossacks in the picture, the Cossacks of Zaporizhia didn't participate in the Pereyaslav and didn't swear allegiance. Not to mention that it is clearly standing out, out of the subject matter of this article. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Khmelnytsky was Zaporozhian Hetman and according to the Encyclopedia of Ukraine the General Military Council (Holovna Viiskova Rada) also took part in the negotiations. The article is not about Zaporizhia but about the Zaporozhian COssacks. The poster represents a particular, and historically important, point of view and legacy of the Zaporozhian Cossacks. It does warrant a better label, however.Faustian (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The poster is a clear one-sided propaganda of empire thinking, which is far from neutral POV and real legacy of the Cossacks. It should be deleted or balanced by impartial assessment.Ans-mo (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This pcture has nothing to do here! It doesn't deal with something specific about Zaporozhian Cossacks. It should be put in Ukrainian RSS history as an exempleof the propaganda made by soviet authorities. It not necessary to put all images off Cossacks, existig in Ukraine nowaydays to illusutrate Zaporozhian Cossacks (Horilka, Cossacks with his varenyk, and so on, other propaganda...) Best Regards

Sorry please explain the relation between horilka and Soviet authorities?--Kuban Cossack 20:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda posters are the same as add posters ... Nothing historic on them! and nothing to do here: everything has it wright place : soviet propaganda poster in the Ukraine RSS article, and Horilka add in vodka article...

The poster is not an advertisment if that's the argument, please consult WP:IDONTLIKEIT prior to making further reverts. --Kuban Cossack 21:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It is ! No historic document prove that a strelets what carrying a 'bas relief' with Rus warriors on it ... It is propaganda, ant it is a political advertisement

It is not meant to be based on documents, its based on perception. A 17th century Strelets and a 17th century Zaporozhian, stand side-to-side, uniting under the banner of their historic ancestor. A key historic moment, which illustrates the passage about the pan-slavic movement that this event had. Whatever happened in reality is something neither you nor me witnessed, what we have is a legacy and mass perception of that event. It is an important poster and if people continue to remove it I will contact the admin to lock this article. --Kuban Cossack 15:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

A perception has nothing to do in an encyclopedic article ... coule be used in an article about the appropriate period it was created (SSR of Ukraine)

I second other editors' move to remove the propaganda picture from this article. I mentioned several times before - communist propaganda has nothing to do with Zaporozhian Cossacks. Keep it out of this article. --Hillock65 (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Section Break

Please consult WP:POINT prior to using the article as a historical propaganda machine, privitising history to one nation is not correct, otherwise a similar fate could be with Kievan Rus right? --Kuban Cossack 12:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Let us not privatise history to one sided Russian propaganda, which is much more common in some topics. Sorry, I am not a Bandurist, but if you posted the message here for public, everyone seems to have right to reply. Ans-mo (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The poster has nothing to do with the Sich. It could be placed in the Article on the Pereyaslav articles in a section about the manner in which the celebrations were used to celebrate their signing in recent times, but here it has no direct associating with the Sich. Many of your weasel phrases also not direct association with the Sich article either.Bandurist (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have noticed this article is not about the Zaporozhian Sich, but about the whole Zaporozhian Cossacks, and any material that is relevant to them should be in the article. If you have some pictures that are relevant to the modern Ukrainian perception of the Cossacks, then please add them. Otherwise we remove the whole legacy section altogether. You Ans-mo yourself said either balance or remove, but not revert to one-sided. If you have specific issues then please adress them, but mass scale deletions will be reported, and relevant procedures filed if this persists. --Kuban Cossack 15:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Kuban, there seems to be a consensus of three editors against inclusion of that biased propaganda picture in this article. Yet, you continue to persist. This is counterproductive. --Hillock65 (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Make that four editors. Ostap 02:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the poster belongs, although it needs to be clearly labelled. Pereyaslav involved Zaporozhians (their Hetman and their council were responsible) and the union of Ukraine and Russia was an extremely important aspect of their historical legacy, not only for Ukraine but for all of eastern Europe. The idea (or myth) of Pereyaslav as being a brotherly reunion was dominant in 300 years of Russian and Soviet history. The poster is a good example of that idea (another would be the "yoke" monument is Kiev), so it is relevant. Whether it was true or not is irrelevent - it was a widely held and very important idea. Perhaps some quotes by Shevchenko can balance that part of the article if you feel that inclusion of the poster implies an endorsement of that ideology.Faustian (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that this poster is amazing, but it has nothing to do with the Zaporizhian Cossacks, and therefore nothing to do with this article, and therefore doesn't belong here. Maybe this was discussed before, but the poster is in Russian, while the Zaporozhtsi were Ukrainian.

It would make a great addition to how the Pereyaslav treaty has been manipulated and misinterpreted throughout the years. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Three things. Number one: Zaporozhian Cossacks didn't participate in Pereyaslav. Number two: They refused to swear allegiance to Moscow tsar. Number three: The Communist propaganda poster shows a stylized Ukrainian and a stylized Russian - not Cossack and not Zaporozhian. All three points have nothing to do with the subject of this article. --Hillock65 (talk) 09:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You said what I wanted to say, only better. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like three strikes - out - for the poster. Horlo (talk) 07:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

According tot ghe Encyclopedia of Ukraine [9]: Number One: "Negotiations began in January 1654 in Pereiaslav between Khmelnytsky and his General Military Council on one side and Muscovite envoys led by Vasilii Buturlin on the other". According tot he Enyclopedia ofUkraine, the General Military Council [10] "assumed the functions of the Cossack Council, the ruling body of the Zaporozhian Sich..." and "During the Cossack-Polish War, the council was the supreme legislative body. By a show of hands, it sanctioned the alliance with Muscovy in Pereiaslav (see Pereiaslav Treaty of 1654), with Sweden in Korsun in 1657, and with Turkey in Korsun in 1669". So, yes, Zaporozhian cossacks did participate at Pereyaslav. Number two. Do you have citations of the Zaporozhians refusing allegiance to the Moscow tsar? The Encyclopedia of Ukraine article doesn't say it - it states however "Soon after the treaty was concluded, Muscovite officials visited 117 Ukrainian towns, and over 127,300 Ukrainian men swore an oath of loyalty to the tsar." These may or may not have been Zaporozhians cossacks. Number three Claiming that the figure does not represent a Zaporozhian cossack is your interpretation and thus original research (this is also true of claims that it is a Zaporozhian cossack, although given the topic of the poster - Pereyaslav - such an interpretation is probably more realistic than yours). Whomever it represents, it is irrelevent for the purposes of putting the image in the article. The poster celebrates the Russian/Soviet interpretation of Pereyaslav, which as shown above was clearly a legacy of the Zaporozhian cossacks.Faustian (talk) 03:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you mentioned Original Research, it might be nice to see any sources supporting the claim that one of the stylized men in the Soviet poster actually represents a Zaporozhian Cossack. I don't see evidence of that. It doesn't look like a Cossack at all. Moreover, even if it did, it would give disproportional prominence to one aspect of Zaporozhians' legacy. One of many (WP:UNDUE). There is no obvious connection between the subject matter of the article and the poster, all insinuations and suppositions amount to original research. Until it is proved unequivocally the connection between the two, the poster should be kept in appropriate article, not here. Moreover, its inclusion and disproportionate prominence of this particular aspect of history is clearly designed to disrupt this article and its benefit is by far outweighed by the controversy it created. There are other important issues to be covered in this article apart from a Communist propaganda poster. --Hillock65 (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've already stated, above, that there is no evidence for it being or not being a cossack, and I explained why that it is irrelevent. Since you wrote no objections to points one and two should I assume you agree that the Zaporozhians were indeed involved at Pereyaslav as the Encyclopedia of Ukraine stated and that there is a good chance that many of them (along with their hetman) did swear allegience to the tsar? The connection from the poster to the subject matter is Pereyaslav. Pereyaslav is one of the most important events in Ukrainian and Eastern European history. The Soviet propaganda view shown on the poster is very historically and politically important and the poster is a good illustration of that view. I agree that wiki shouldn't endorse that view (the label that I added for the poster hopefully prevents that from happening), but it should present it.Faustian (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

My statement in regards to Zaporozhian Cossacks was refferring to Cossacks stationed in Zaporizhia proper. They indeed, refused to swear allegiance to the tsar. I don't have time to look for sources and if those thousands that joined the rebellion are labelled as Zaporozhian Cossacks, be it as it may. In regards to the poster, you neglected citing sources to prove there is indeed a Zaporozhian Cossack on it. It does not look like one, and represents a stylyzed Ukrainian rather than someone definite. If that is a Cossack, then who is the Russian figure? While the poster is historiographically important, it has nothing to do with the subject matter of this article and there are far more important issues to settle than one propaganda picture. --Hillock65 (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for my long delay in answering, but I would like to point out Khmelnytsky Uprising does implicitly label the combatants as Zaporozhian Cossacks, now it is indeed impossible to prove that the person on the poster is a Zaporozhian, just like it would be impossible to prove on Repin's painting that the people depicted there are actually Zaporozhians... See my point? The two certainly look alike, and the Russian figure does look like a 16th century Streletz, both are stylized. Now the subject of this article, is that it covers the whole history of Cossackdom in Ukraine. Now that Cossackdom left quite a massive legacy, and I explained already that it is an important poster in interest of having the article be as broad as possible, that is the point of wikipedia after all? --Kuban Cossack 14:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for all your information, I have removed this dispute from third opinion where it was listed. 3O is only appropriate for disputes between two editors -- this dispute clearly encompasses several, and so a third opinion would not be particularly helpful. If you would like outside comment, you might consider request for comment. Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 23:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC:Is the poster relevant?

File:Naveki.jpg

Poster in question

Summary of the dispute: The above section deals with the issue, but to summarise there is a disagreement weather the poster is actually relevant or not. (feel free to add more) --Kuban Cossack 12:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Pro poster arguments:
  1. It shows a stylized 17th century Ukrainian and Russian, as conceived by mid-20th century perceptions
  2. It was published for the 300th anniversary of the Pereyaslav Rada, which was historically valued as an act of union that led Ukraine to join Russia
  3. It shows that Soviet Union saw the Ukrainian Cossacks, who signed the Rada, as Russophilic people who willingly joined the Russia, and thus justified the historical correctness of Ukraine being part of the Soviet Union.
  4. The shield shows images of another stylized image, the warriors of the ancient Kievan Rus which was a common ancestor to both Ukrainians and Russians, and thus the event of 1654 was seen as an act of RE-unification.
  5. The poster is thus relevant to the legacy section's passage which illustrates how the Soviet Union viewed these people, and how important they were for the Soviet historiography.

• Anti poster arguments:
  1. This poster has nothing to do with the subject matter of the article, which is Zaporozhian Cossacks, not Pereyaslav Rada. There is no reference to Zaporozhian Cossacks in the picture neither in text nor in image.
  2. That the poster does not necessarily show a Zaporozhian Cossack, but only a stylized 20th century perception of a 17 century Ukrainian
  3. That the poster was published as piece of [Communist] propaganda
  4. Moreover that the poster, and the Soviet historiography ignored other moments of history including after 1654 that would directly challenge both the Pereyaslav Rada (annul it in effect) and contradict the Russophilic image of the Ukrainian Cossacks it tries to carry across.
  5. Pereyaslav Rada depicted on the poster represents one aspect of Cossack history unfairly putting too much prominence on it (WP:UNDUE). One could argue that this event is even less dramatic than the destruction of the Zaporozhian Sich by the Russians later.

Hello, I think that the final two points in the pro-poster argument are very telling in the confusion regarding this poster. The article is about the Zaporizhian cossacks. This has nothing to do with Kyivan-Rus (which is also an ancestor of Belarus, and the source of all slavic languages, including Polish), or how the Soviet Union viewed these people (how, exactly, does a Union view people?). The whole idea of re-unification also sounds a bit Vulcan-Romulan.

This is a painting of a two stylized individuals, and in my opinion has merits in that it is a great example of a) Soviet art; and b) Soviet propaganda.

As, however, this is an article about the Zaporozhian Cossacks, I think that the first "anti-poster" argument wins: the poster has nothing to do with them, in text or image. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

As you said, it's a good example of Soviet propaganda. What you neglected to mention is that the propaganda on the poster is specifically about Pereyaslav. And Pereyaslav is one of the most important legacies of the Zaporozhian Cossacks. The Russian and Soviet view of Pereyaslav dominated Ukrainian-Russian relations for 300 years, it is important and the poster is an excellent depiction of that important view. Rather than remove it, it might make sense to put an image showing the contrary view, of Pereyaslav as the harbinger of domination and misery (there is a good cartoon in Andrew Wilson's Ukraine: Unexpeted Nation book). But here is another Soviet propaganda depiction of Pereyaslav - this one depicting Khmelnytsky himself [11]. And here is the monument erected by the Soviets: [12].Faustian (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're absolutely right that Pereyaslav is a very important issue in the history of Ukrainian-Russian relations. However, as this discussion alone illustrates, it is very easy to digress from the topic at hand - which is the Zaporozhtsi, not the Pereyaslav treaty. The Pereyaslav Treaty was initiated and signed by Khmelnytsky, in Pereyaslav - not the Zaporozhtsi. The treaty is a legacy of Khmelnytsky, not the Zaporozhtsi.

The issue is what is being discussed in the article. I think that this poster would give undue weight to one part of the legacy of the Zaporozhtsi. In the same vein, I think it wouldn't be useful to put posters of Ukrainian dance, baggy red pants, or of Ukrainian haircuts (the "makitra" or "oseledets'" which were widespread in the Zaporozhtsi, and are symbols which are more widely associated with Kozaks than Pereyaslav) in this article. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Khmelnytski was the hetman of the Zaporozhtsi. According to the Encyclopedia of Ukraine [13], "Negotiations began in January 1654 in Pereiaslav between Khmelnytsky and his General Military Council on one side and Muscovite envoys led by Vasilii Buturlin on the other". According tot he Enyclopedia of Ukraine, the General Military Council [14] "assumed the functions of the Cossack Council, the ruling body of the Zaporozhian Sich..." and "During the Cossack-Polish War, the council was the supreme legislative body. By a show of hands, it sanctioned the alliance with Muscovy in Pereiaslav (see Pereiaslav Treaty of 1654), with Sweden in Korsun in 1657, and with Turkey in Korsun in 1669".

So, saying that Pereyaslav was about Khmelytsky and not the Zaporozhtsi is like saying that World War II was about Hitler, not Germany. Or the American Revolution was about Washington, not America, etc.

As for your second point, you seem to believe that baggy red pants are more important than a treaty that shifted the balance of power in Eastern Europe from Poland to Russia, and that led to 300 years of Russian domination over Ukraine. IMO that is simply ridoculous and undermines your credibility.Faustian (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks and bad faith assumptions aside, the propoganda poster has nothing to do with this article. Perhaps in the Pereyaslav article, but not here. Ostap 20:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The poster depicts Pereyalsav, which as we have seen was the work of the Zaporozhian leader and the Zaporozhian rada. Its importance is well known. Do you have a reason for stating that the poster has "nothing to do" with this article about the Zaporozhian cossacks given the above-mentioned facts? Should we instead include the paintings whose images I linked? As for personal attacks, I apologize for the lack of patience I have with someone whose opinions seem to be stronger than the use of facts (and this point is meant to be descriptive, not pejorative), a pattern unfortunately that I've also shown with some Polish and Russian patriots who behave similarly.Faustian (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The poster depicts Pereyalsav, then by all means use it to illustrate the Pereyalsav article (of course labelling that it is communist propoganda). But in this article, lets make the illustrations useful to the readers, and use an image that illustrates the kozaks. Ostap 20:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I added the label to the poster, clearly stating that it was an example of Communist propaganda, before someone removed the poster.Faustian (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no evident connection between the picture and the subject matter of the article. It depicts a stylized Russian and a stylized Ukrainian and with this we are asking a reader to imagine that this is a Zaporozhian Cossack because Zaporozhian Cossacks took part in the Pereyaslav Rada, which by the way is also not mentioned on the propaganda poster and has to be assumed too. Aren't we asking of the reader to imagine and picture too many things that are not there? --Hillock65 (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

We have discussed this all to well, I would wait for a third party to reply from the RfC. Let's have someone read the topic and have someone read the article, see the poster, and judge it. --Kuban Cossack 19:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually here is an idea, Ans-mo said and I quote: ... or balanced by impartial assessment, well am I not right, but the Greater Coat of Arms of Ukraine, has a Galician lion and a Zaporozhian Cossack on the flanks. Why not add that to balance the article, and for one that is an equal importance to the legacy section. --Kuban Cossack 19:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel that it's a good compromise. The Zaporozhians have a twofold legacy. On the one hand, they served a critical role in the formation of the Ukrainian nation. On the other hand, they also brought the Ukrainian people under Moscow through the Treaty of Pereyaslav. Both images capture those two aspects of the Zaporozhian legacy. I await a third party's opinions.Faustian (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Except what I unclear about was when the Greater Coat of Arms first appeared? --Kuban Cossack 20:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not a compromise at all. That is a ruse to weasel in an imperialist poster. It does not belong here - it's has been discussed at length. As for the picture of a "Greater Coat of Arms", I suggest you look up what the state symbols of Ukraine are. That picture you inserted, even though it is widely used is not an official coat of arms and doesn't represent anything. Besides, what indication is there that it is a Zaporozhian Cossack pictured there not a different kind? It seems that some will employ all kind of tricks to sneak in their POV images. I suggest you stop inserting irrelevant pictures and wait for impartial people to pass their judgement on the issue. --Hillock65 (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Not relevant per above. MilesAgain (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be against inclusion of the poster. Perhaps another image would be better.Faustian (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ, all we had was a sockpuppet as a third opinion. Everyone else on this discussion is by no means a "third" party. --Kuban Cossack 17:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Not relevant. On closer examination of the poster, there is absolutely nothing connecting this poster to the Zaporozhtsi. The poster does not mention them, nor does the poster mention Pereyaslav, or even the 300th anniversary thereof. It's two guys hugging while holding a shield. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead

This is an article about the Zaporizhian Cossacks, not the Sich. The lead should explain that, rather than the history of the "host". Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Dishonesty

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

There is no source to support that. Some didn't go to Kuban, some disbanded, some moved somewhere else, you cannot state with certainty that all of them became lackeys to the Russian czar. --Hillock65 (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Destruction vs absorption. The fortress was indeed destroyed, but the article does clearly state it is about the Cossacks, not about the Sich. Also Horlo changed the heading to be "absorbed", why have contradictions? Also why make revert my shortening of the heading? Headings do not need to be more than a few words, and certainly not to WP:POINT as the one here does. --Kuban Cossack 20:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It is even funny to discuss this. Read the sentence again. Carefully. The Host was not absorbed, it was destroyed. There is a difference. A big one, as you again trying to hide the truth that the Zaporozhian host was destroyed by the Russians. Be honest. --Hillock65 (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems accurate that the Host was destroyed. The dictionary says [15], of the word "destroy":

1. to reduce (an object) to useless fragments, a useless form, or remains, as by rending, burning, or dissolving; injure beyond repair or renewal; demolish; ruin; annihilate.

2. to put an end to; extinguish.

3. to kill; slay.

4. to render ineffective or useless; nullify; neutralize; invalidate.

5. to defeat completely.

Definitions 1, 2 and 5 apply to what happened to the Host in 1775. On the other hand, if that word seems extreme (most Zaporozhians weren't killed or slain) would disbanded be a more nuetral one?Faustian (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The point of discussioni is indeed the Host, which was destroyed. --Hillock65 (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

While the host was ended, it was re-created within a decade and a half. Moreover the individual units and regalia of the old Zaporozhian host were carried through to the next one. What changed was that the new Host of the Loyal Zaporozhians, later the Black Sea Cossacks, were under a different legal frame, and with much clearer responsibilities. So absorbed is much more correct to describe what actually happened to the Cossacks.

Also remember definition one applies to an object. An organisation cannot be an object. Also it was not defeated as no war took place. The Cossacks were released from the Sich and then their base was pulled down. There was no armed resistance, thereby definition 5 is also not correct.

This leaves us with definition 2, now there are a lot less POV alternatives than destroyed. --Kuban Cossack 18:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

One can be defeated without armed resistence, so definition 2 and 5 apply. I agree that destroy while correct may be needlessly strong/POV and support changing the word to disband for the sake of consensus. IMO absorb is at least as POV as destroy. "The Host was disbanded and the Sich destroyed by Catherine II..."Faustian (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Correction a "host" cannot be razed to the ground, because it is not a physical object...:) It can be disbanded, it can be merged but it cannot be destroyed. Only a physical object such as a base of operations can be destroyed, but such detail for the lead is not necessary per WP:UNDUE. Moreover fyi the base of Zaporozhian operations constantly changed, and the old ones were pulled down. So why make something special out of an event which does not stand out of the pattern? Since you are so concerned on national feelings, maybe that is the reason why you wish to include it? --Kuban Cossack 15:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The Zaporozhian Cossacks are an integral part of how Hrushevskyist Greater Galician nationalists conceive their history. It's important for them to see themselves as victims of Russian imperialism ... so anything as neutral as "dissolved" or "incorporated" will be unacceptable. WP:NPOV is irrelevant, so it's not surprising that such an ordinarily non-controversial NPOV edit would get reverted. Sad day. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks and offensive labels aside, please consult the primary sources in this question, Catherine II's manifesto — if you find there any mentioning of dissolution, absorption or disbandment, you are free to change it that way. So far, the original historic reference to this event is destruction (Высочайший манифест об уничтожении Сечи Запорожской), nothing else. By the same token, lest you should be accused of pushing Russian imperialist revisionism, stay true to historical record and primary sources. --Hillock65 (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to use primary sources like this as the basis for modern attempts at objective summary, we can call the people around Kiev as the "Russians of Kiev", right? Or would that be unacceptable to you? Why stop there ... why not label the conquest of the Aztecs "holy" and "righteous" or the Soviet defeat of Germany in 1945 the "victory of Jewry"? Oh, that's right ... we have WP:NPOV for these things. Well, we're supposed to at least. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, taking into account User:Ezhiki's suggestion, can we focus on issue at hand instead of going all over the board? Do you have any objection to the terminology used by the Russian tsarina in relation to the destruction of the Zaporozhian Sich? I would like to point out that she uses a far stronger language than that in her manifesto, and in this case you cannot blame it on evil "Greater Galician nationalists" (sic) as it was the contemporary of the events describing her own actions. If you wish, I can cite a couple more less prominent references to the fact, I am sorry to say, it is not going to sound any more flattering than now. Sincerely, --Hillock65 (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If two other users say it's POV, then you should pause and raise your eyebrows. I don't think cherry-picking words from primary sources will get wikipedia anywhere because, really, everyone can do it. I do not see what from a neutral perspective is added by using "destroy" rather than "dissolved". Whether or not they were victims of Russian imperialism readers can tell for themselves by the events. Let readers make up their own mind ... wiki editors don't need to add spins unless they're POV-pushing! Anyways, that wasn't the only point of this edit-conflict. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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

I think we can find a compromise here. The host may refer to the organization or to its base. There is no disagreement that the base on the Khortytsia island was indeed destroyed. So, if we use the term but make it clear that we are referring to the physical base, I don't think anyone would oppose that. --Irpen 21:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, in this case destroyed refers to both: the fortress was razed to the ground and the host itelf was destroyed and its leaders imprisoned, Zapoporozhian Sich was no more after that — it ceased to exist as an entity, both as a community of people and as a base. The very first sentence in Catherine's manifesto states unequivically that it was destroyed, not dissolved or disbanded, she even went as far as fobidding the name of Cossacks mentioned. (Please see the link to original document above). The article explains quite well what happened to the Cossacks and their leaders. I don't see why we need to bend backwards to suit one's POV. That is the case of a spade being called a spade. Nothing more. --Hillock65 (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Destruction of Zaporozhian Sich, again

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

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

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

The statement that Zaporozhian Sich was destroyed is accurate and supported both by historical documents of the time and by references to historiographic literature. I suggest you stop disturbing the article by cherry-picking and hair-splitting — you haven't succeeded with underhand, sneaky edits with misleading edit summaries [16][17], now you wanto to continue the discussion of the obvious ad neuseum. It is what it is, a destruction, plain and simple. Give it a rest, finally. Please. --Hillock65 (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What about was "brought to an end" rather than "destroyed"? You've said nothing to convince me I was wrong when I said the Zaporozhian Cossacks are an integral part of how Hrushevskyist Greater Galician nationalists conceive their history. It's important for them to see themselves as victims of Russian imperialism. So why not just get rid of the editorial spin and let the events stand for themselves? You'd only be preaching to the converted in any case! Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Why would it be "brought to an end"? Was Byzantium brought to an end? Was the Aztec empire brought to an end? I am lost for words here... --Hillock65 (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

How about forcibly disbanded?Faustian (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Or disbanded by the Russian Empire? --Kuban Cossack 15:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

I will ignore the preceding and the following rants of Kuban Cossack and will only remind that the word destroyed is neutral as it is. Moreover it is mentioned in numerous documents, as both the fortress and the host were destroyed per WP:V, WP:SOURCE. There was no other Zaporozhian Host after that. It was finished. There were other hosts but not a Zaporozhian Host. Some are trying to appease a known edit worrior and a POV pusher with a history of sneaky tricks to smuggle in his changes into the article (see refs above). It is a matter of fairness and principle. A destruction should be called that no matter how much whining we get from those who try to revise history and push POV. If it wasn't a big deal, Kuban Cossack would not have tried sneaky tricks and would have openly stated his position from the very beginning. Instead this circus over one measly word goes on. Question is, what is so disastrous and unfathomable in the word destruction used in numerous sources to justify all this!? --Hillock65 (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen, particularly those who just arrived from WP:CANVASSing efforts by Hillock, the big issue is not what actually happened, as the sources say that the end of Zaporozhian Host was a string of events, as described in the relevant passage of the article, but to find one sentence description to describe the final 70 years of the Host's history. My proposal is that it should read (if we are to keep the generalised line in the rest of the article) ...before being absrobed into the Russian Empire and finally dissolved in 1775. Here, the fact that the vacated base was destroyed two months after the Host was formally disbanded is a mere detail, that needs not be amplified to the lead per WP:UNDUE. User:Hillock65 seems to take a no compromise (WP:FAITH, WP:EQ and WP:POINT as well as WP:DICK come to mind) and insists that this POV verb - destroyed be kept. (BTW five users have already stated that they do not mind it being substituted for something less POV, that's a higher majority than you had on the poster above, yet you still seem to refuse to accept the consensus between everyone else that destroyed can be replaced, and this will neither compromise the factual correction of the article, nor the string of events. Sorry to say this, but seems to be you are outnumbered.) --Kuban Cossack 17:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Davies, Europe, a well-known historian with mild Russophobic tendencies, says that the state "was suppressed". Not sure I can make up my mind if that's more POV than "destroyed". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Was Zaporozhian Sich destroyed?

Was the Zaporozhian Sich destroyed?