Talk:Cossacks/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Cossacks and Kazakhs as free people of the Steppe

Cossacks (Ukrainian: Козаки́, Kozaky, Russian: Казаки́, Kazaki, Polish: Kozacy) are an ancient community of free people (freemen) in the Great Steppe, tracing there roots to the time of Great Horde. The ancient term "cossack" in the meaning "freeman" or "freelancer" is known from the XI-XII centuries. In XIII-XIV centuries it became very popular, many people of different language and belief used it to identify that they are free and independent people. Later the two main groups of cossacks were formed - russian-speaking cossacks of pravoslav faith and turkic-speaking cossacks of muslim faith, the first later became splited in two groups - first forming modern Ukrainian nation and second - forming subgroup of modern Russian nation, and the last - forming modern Kazakh nation (kazakh - another spelling of the word cossack in some languages of the Steppe). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hodzha (talk • contribs) 16:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Привіт, старий друже! Може годі? =) --Юе Артеміс (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete table

Hey, what about the Zaporizhian Host, Danube Host? Shouldn't they be included in the table as well? Or is the table only assigned for the Cossaks settlements of Russia? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

members of militaristic communities

Recent changes [1] supported by a source such as Britannica were reverted [2] with description "the origins of Cossacks are disputed in academia (See Holobutskyi, Nalyvaiko). No need to stress only on one theory". I haven't found Holobutskyi or Nalyvaiko theories disputing added info here in article. With the revert, sourced info was changed to an unsourced one. Please don't remove sourced info. If you have some information about disputes to add, add it properly, don't remove what is already there. --windyhead (talk) 09:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

See Holobutskyi in library, not the article (Голобуцький Володимир. Запорозьке козацтво. — К.: Вища шк., 1994.). There is no consensus about Cossack origins in academia (see ГЕНЕЗА І СТАНОВЛЕННЯ КОЗАЦТВА В УКРАЇНІ or Историография вопроса происхождения казачества), so there is no need to strees only on old "peasants' theory". The definiton of the article should not have POVs. Therefore the neutral " members of militaristic communities" is beter than biased "peasants who had fled from serfdom".--124.209.221.36 (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Origins

Dear Galassi, you edits in the definition of the first sentences are wrong. Let me explain why. You wrote:

Cossacks were originally members of military communities (similar to the Byzantine Akrites) in the uninhabited borderland areas in the steppe that lies North of Black Sea (in present day Ukraine and southern Russia)[1]. Their origin of these communities is unclear and is a source of considerable scholarly dispute.

• 1) How do you know that Cossacks were "originally members of military communities"? "Originally" clarifies nothing. Its better to delete this word.
• 2) similar to the Byzantine Akrites - so what? This article is about Cossacks, isnt it? Not about Byzantine. Even if Cossacks were similar to early Samurais of Japan or Mamluks of Egypt, there is no need to paste such information in the first sentence of the definition of the Cossacks' article. Your plays with similarities lead reader nowhere.
• 3)uninhabited borderland - a) You are looking at Cossacks only from the side of their neighbors. No need to say that such a view is biased. "Wild fields", which stretched from Dniester to Terek, were the "boderland" for Poland, Russia and Crimea, but not for Cossacks who lived in this "boderland". "Wild fields" were "nobody's land", rather than boderland. One hardly can say that Switzerland or Mongolia were "boderlands" only because they were badly populated and neighboring nations were unable to control them...I think the easiest way to unneutralize your biased statement is to cut off the "borderland" from the text.
• 4)the steppe that lies North of Black Sea - Cossack lived not only in the "North of Black Sea" and "steppes". There were "towns Cossacks" of Ukraine or "Cossacks of Siberia" who lived in forest regions. Don, Terek and Yaik Cossacks lived far from Black Sea. Thus you definition is unacceptable.
• 5)in present day Ukraine and southern Russia - the name "Ukraine" was already known in the times of Cossacks. In many Polish chronicles and Cossacks songs Ukraine is referred as motherland of Cossackhood. So, there is no need to write "present day Ukraine".
• 5) The idea that Their origin of these communities is unclear is explained in the following sentence "is a source of considerable scholarly dispute". No need to repeat the same statement twice. Besides, disputes have "subjects" rather then "sources". Therefore, "Their origin is a subject of scholarly dispute" is optimal.--124.209.221.65 (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

1.The material in the lede is expounded on later in the article, including the theories how cossacks came into being, and how they developed into more familiar branches, sourced.

2. The Dnieper Circassians, AKA Cassogs served the Alrite function for the Ruthenians. 3. What cossacks thought of themselves would be ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Wild Field stretched from Kobylyaky all the way to China, and was mostly uninhabited. 4.ORIGINALLY they lived at the edge of or in the steppe. Common and sourced info. 5.This is an encyclopedia, and it is customary to mention where things occur in relation to modern geography. The article talks about ALL cossacks, not only Ukrainian ones.Galassi (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Useful source - http://www.haidamaka.org.ua/0146.html Galassi (talk) 09:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• 1 No, my dear. The first sentence of the article should make a clear explanation of the subject in general without any useless words. The following abstracts may explain the subject in detail, but not the first sentences.
• 2.Please keep off "Cassogs theories" and other quasi-academic fables. There is no place for such hypothesis in the article, especially in the definition that should bee free of any controversial material.
• 3. a) What Cossacks thought of themselves is an "ORIGINAL RESEARCH" made by prominent scholars like Yavornytskyi, Holobutski and other. Hope you have time to read the classics and revise your understanding of "boderland". At least, the mentioning of "boderland" in the article:s definition without clarifying the historical context of this "boderland" is unacceptable. b) The Steppes had really stretched from Bulgaria to China. But the "Wild Field" was only a small "Western" part of these Steppes. You may find further information about it in in Yavornytski's book [3].
• 4.Again, ORIGINALLY. Firstly, How do you know that "they lived at the edge of or in the steppe". I:ve already gave you examples of Cossacks who lived in the forests. Do you have a reliable sources that classify Cossacks into "original" and "non-original"? Secondly, the definition of Cossacks should be general, so we can apply it to all Cossacks, not only those who were "original" one. We should write the definition in the way you:ve stated: "The article talks about ALL cossacks, not only Ukrainian ones".
• 5 Thank you for reminding me that wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If it is an encyclopedia, than it should have a general definition of the article:s subject (Cossacks) without any "originals", "Cassogs", and "chinese Wild Fields". Just shot, clear, readable definition. Dont you think so? --124.209.221.65 (talk) 10:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for "source". I know Smoliy personally and have read almost all of his books :)--124.209.221.65 (talk) 10:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

the most of the scolars posit that Cossacks has Turkic origins in addition to their Slavic backrounds.--Huckillberry (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Cossacks have been proven to be 100% Slavic genetically (yDNA and mtDNA), as well as culturally. If you wish to make drastic changes to the article, and especially the article header, you need to provide several reliable sources, and then make sure that most other editors agree on a consensus.

Personal opinions, blogs, personal websites, and occasional news articles are not considered to be reliable sources. For more information on reputable sources used in Wikipedia, check the RS guidelines.--Therexbanner (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Turkic people are people who speak Turkic languages, including nations as diverse as Turks, Yakuts, Kazakhs, and many more. It is not an ethnic designation.--Therexbanner (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Star Trek Reference of Cossacks

The following material has been removed twice from the article:

"Cossacks have also been mentioned in several episodes of Star Trek: The Original Series where the name of the Cossacks is often spoken by Pavel Chekov, usually with great contempt. Chekov often compares vicious or evil aliens (such as the Klingons) with the Cossacks. In the episode "The Gamesters of Triskelion", Chekov spits on the ground while cursing the word "Cossacks!" and, in "Spectre of the Gun", refers to American cowboys as "Western Cossacks"."

Concerning sourcing, the episode titles are directly mentioned in the text and it can also be found in the Star Trek Compendium. Concerning removal of trivia, the mention of Cossacks (several times) in a major science fiction series such as Star Trek more than warrants some reference in this article. Unless a more valid reason can be given for keeping this out of the article, it should be added in. I've asked for other editor inputs on the Star Trek portal since I have no plans to edit war. -OberRanks (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

As per the Star Trek Wikiproject talk page, this is a trivial mention. Notability is not inherited, just because something is mentioned in Star Trek does not automatically make it worthy of mention. It is a mild character trait, which might not make it into the character article itself.

With reference to this article, the burden rests on the editor adding, not removing, material. If you can provide a mention by cite of a reliable third party source mentioning this, then certainly we can go back and add it. We don't doubt that the mention was made, just that it may not be notable. Alastairward (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The Star Trek Compendium speaks on the subject, i.e. Chekov's common cursing of the Cossacks - I'll go ahead and add a formal reference to the article if that would happen. I have always wondered WHY Chekov didnt like the Cossacks. That is something the book doesnt speak upon. -OberRanks (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you've answered yourself there; "That is something the book doesnt speak upon". Indeed, the fact that Cossacks are mentioned in Star Trek isn't in doubt. What has been questioned is the notability of the mention, which isn't established. Since you are now pushing for an edit war, I suggest you seek a third opinion here. Alastairward (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've said several times I have no wish for an edit war. The user above was actually fine with keeping this material in. You then asked for a reference (which I added) and you removed it again. Also, based on your very argument here, if this stays out we would have to remove the references to computer games having Cossacks in them as well as Cossacks being a school mascot. As far as this "edit war" stuff (see below), I have never edit warred or violated 3RR on this page. I've brought matters up on the talk page, discussed them with other editors, and asked for opinions. Since there is still an objection, the material can stay out (for now) until we get other editors to chime in.

Here is the reference link [4]. Cossacks are directly mentioned in the Star Trek Compendium as frequently being spoken of by Pavel Chekov as a plot device to express hatred. The Compendium states that they are referenced in at least four episodes: "Day of the Dove", "Gamsters of Trisekelion", "Spectre of the Gun", "Trouble with Tribbles". I have asked for other opinions on this matter, but the material is clearly sourced. See below for my suggestion on a "appearances in media section". -OberRanks (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Moved from talk page

Moved from my talk page since it has a direct bearing on the article

Both another user and I removed the reference. Instead of simply readding the material again and again, please remember that there is a burden on you to explain why you believe the material should be added. Not doing so is a sign of edit warring, even if you don't break 3RR.

If you think that you may be in the right, please seek a third opinion. If you make continued additions of this material against objections and other edits, I will report you for edit warring myself. Alastairward (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about? It was brought up on the talk page, the other editor agreed to keep it in, you then asked for a reference and I added one. There was absolutely no edit warring. Lets also keep it civil on the single article talk page. -OberRanks (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It should have stayed on your talk page because it has a direct bearing on your own editing, not just on this one particular article. The other editor didn't agree to kepe it outright, they just gave you a chance to source a cite for the inclusion of your edit. Alastairward (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Further Trivia Removal

The below items I feel fall in the same group as the Star Trek reference. We should not set a double standard, so until this is resolved, info is placed here. I think a "Appearances in Media and Culture" section would do the trick. -OberRanks (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Because of their long military history, Cossacks feature as prominent special military units in various strategy games, including Age of Empires III, Medieval II: Total War, Civilization III, and most notably Ukrainian GSC Game World's Cossacks: European Wars and its expansions.

Cossacks are also a popular school mascot, including the International Academy of St. Petersburg, Russia, for example

Third Opinion

Hi! I have come here off of the Third Opinion page. I have no history of involvement with this article, and frankly, had never heard of the Cossacks before coming to this page.

My understanding of the dispute is over whether cultural references to the Cossacks should be included in the article. This include references to the Cossacks made in Star Trek, Age of Empires, Civilization, among others. It is also my understanding that the accuracy of these statements is not in dispute, but only their appropriateness for being included in the article. If I am mistaken in this understanding of the dispute, please do correct me.

In evaluating content for inclusion in an article, Notability is not a requirement, as notability is only required for articles. That said, WP:IINFO states "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". This issue is discussed at length in WP:POPCULTURE. While clear from being divisive, consensus seems to be that a secondary source needs to establish the importance of a cultural reference. While I do not have access to the Star Trek source that was cited in the article, based on the discussion above, it is my understanding that it does not attribute any particular importance to these references. Without a reliable source indicating that these references should be included, it is my opinion that they are not appropriate for the article.

That said, I do not think this is a clear case for either inclusion or exclusion. Should there be other references to these statements as being important, or if there is consensus that they are significant, then, at that time, the statements should be reinserted. Please let me know if you think this is a fair evaluation of the situation. meamemg (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. And the removal of all trivia like itemsis a good solution. This way it does not appear that the removals are to spite any particular editor but merely remove all trivia based data. I don't plan to put it back in the article. Thanks! -OberRanks (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Mind if I ask, where was the suggesiton that the removals were to spite anyone? I simply agreed to look in on the material you added, when you did a trawl for support. I notice you have been taken up for this on your talk page too. Don't complain if those who respond don't agree with you. Alastairward (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's complaining that I see. I'm quite happy with the resolution. The comments from the talk page have been copied above. If everyone is fine with the removal of the material, I suggest we consider the dispute closed. -OberRanks (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, nobody complained, but you still mentioned it, which was a bit peculiar. Alastairward (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

300,000 to 500,000 Cossacks killed in Civil War

This is a highly disputed allegation that is not supported by a scholarly consensus. This is confirmed by Professor Y. Futoryanksy of Orenburg State University, who points out the allegations of hundreds of thousands of millions of people killed have no documentary evidence and are "fantastic". Futoryanksy says that the White regimes themselves alleged that in 1918-19, the Bolsheviks supposedly executed 5,598 people on the Don, 3,442 in the Kuban, and 2,142 people in Stavropol. Futoryansky notes that these figures are exaggerated and that during the preceding White Terror of Krasnov's regime, between 25-40 thousand people were killed. The claim that hundreds of thousands were killed is a rather fringe, revisionist piece of history that has no place in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.230.178 (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

First Carlist War (1833-1840) in Spain

The Carlists from eastern and central Spain raised with sense of humour some irregular cavalry units under the name of cossacks: "Cosacos del Tajo" (Tagus Cossacks), "Cosacos del Ebro" (Ebro Cossacks), etc. Needless to say that they were cossacks in name only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.98.118 (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

HMS Cossack

Famous British destroyer, Tribal Class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.98.118 (talk) 12:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Link to Pogroms

There should be a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev_Pogroms_(1919) since Cossacks were involved in them but I was not sure where to place it. Jerryfern (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

To the nameless one

124.209.221.138, whoever you are, you need to stop wrecking my work. It took me a long time to collect all those images, and more to post them here. I do not do that so you could then screw it all up with your nationalist bullshit. No, my friend, Cossacks are NOT Ukrainians. We are NOT Russians either. We ARE, period. We DO still exist, despite your constant moronic claims to the contrary, there are millions of people in Russia who are proud to call themselves kazaki; and many in Ukraine and Kazakhstan too. We are NOT some extinct group that were killed off after the Revolution. Suffered, yes, extinct, NO. If you want to argue on thsi with me, feel free to respond. But, at least, be man enough to show your name. I like to face my opposition. Get an account. --SergeiXXX (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree. Don't mind the IPs, just revert, no need to discuss things with someone who didn't even bother to create an account. Cossacks and their descendants easily number 7 million + , in Russia alone, that's a sourced and proven fact. In fact, Cossacks would be by far the largest ethnic group in Russia, if they were counted separately. One thing is sure, Cossacks are East Slavs. Good pictues, keep up the good work! Regards, --Therexbanner (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

clumsy-needs clarifying

"This caused them to form a stereotypical portrayal of 19th century Russian Empire abroad and her government domestically." Grammatically, this doesn't make much sense. The word "them" needs to be identified, for starters. This needs to be cited, too. 98.67.190.113 (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan