Jump to content

Talk:Cossacks/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Capitalization

Is there a reason why Cossack is often not capitalized in this article and in other articles? As the name of a people, I'd think it should be capitalized, but I often see it lower case. Thanks, SchreiberBike talk 02:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

My guess there is a confusion here related to conversion of Cossacks as an ethnic people to a military estate. So there is a mixup concerning the ethnic vs. military use. I am not sure what capitalization rules are appropriate in this case.173.76.253.77 (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by a "military estate" or "military use". I couldn't find cossack used as a military unit or anything like that. There is the article Registered Cossacks which sometimes capitalized Cossacks and sometimes doesn't. SchreiberBike talk 02:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I guess "cossacks" might designate irregular cavalry units serving the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Muscovy. In contrast, Cossacks designates a people, ethnicity. The problem is that it is hard to separate the two. In medieval Latin a similar problem existed with respect to the pair of words "slave" and "Slav"; the first term designates a slave, and the second term designates a person of Slavic ethnicity (a stereotypical slave back then was a Slav). http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=slave — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.253.77 (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Orthodox Catholic

I know that "Orthodox Catholic Church" is an official and accepted name of the Eastern Orthodox Church, but used repeatedly in this article it merely engenders a lot of confusion. Perhaps we should change it to read "Eastern Orthodox Church" or "Russian Orthodox Church" or whatever appropriate name for the context. Unless a preponderance of reliable secondary sources are using the term Orthodox Catholic Church, which I sincerely doubt. Elizium23 (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, your edit makes perfect sense.173.76.253.77 (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Contemporary vs. Historical Cossacks

The reputation of the Cossacks is legendary, as were the Samurai and as are the Gurkhas. However, I (along with a great many other people) was stunned to learn that Cossacks were part of the security detail at the Sochi Olympics. In the past week or so, I have been engaged in various discussions about the current Olympics games in Russia and I must say, that everyone (and I mean everyone) I have met has been quite surprised to learn that there are Cossacks at the games. It is "common knowledge" (if incorrect or incomplete) that the Cossacks were routed by the Bolsheviks.

As is, this article has an excessively long lede, which dwells predominately on the historical record. It requires great patience to wade through and, even then, it is not clear what the legacy of the pre-Bolshevik Cossacks is today, and/or what legitimate lineage contemporary Cossacks have to their precursors. While I feel strongly that the article as is, is awkward, with an excessively long lede, and little or no description of the current title of Cossack and how that class or position was restored since the Bolshevik revolution. I would respectfully submit that much of the lede could, and probably should, be merged into the main body of the article; and that the lede could and should be condensed to a more concise contemporary and historical summary.

I freely admit that I am not knowledgeable nor qualified to make such edits. I therefore recuse myself and hope that others more qualified can help to make the article more informative from a NPoV.
Enquire (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


Dear Wikipedian Enquire,
Firstly, "Cossacks" that beat up "Pussy Riots" are a part of a fringe effort by the President Putin and Kuban Governor Tkachev to "restore" what they thought the pre-revolutionary Cossack forces were -- "defenders" of the Empire and its cruel ways; in fact, they were not, as the lead of the article nicely summarizes. There are many people of Cossack descent who consider Cossacks to be an ethnicity, an Eastern Slavic people. As the Russian Population Censuses of 2010 and 2002 show, indeed, there are roughly 150,000 people in Russia who list their ethnicity as Cossack. This is in fact reflected in the lead, at the very end of it. These people do not dress up in the uniforms, they don't beat up girls, they are ordinary people: farmers, students, teachers, medical doctors, professors, engineers, etc. Many of these people do object to the use of the term "Cossack" as a name for the quasi-police force organized by Tkachev; and many were deeply embarrassed by the actions of these quasi-policemen. Moreover, to the best of my knowledge, most people in the quasi-police force are not of Cossack descent and have no relation to historical Cossacks. There is no "title" Cossack in modern day Russia; according to the Russian law (which is vague on this point), the term "Cossack" simply means a member of a Cossack community.
Secondly, I am surprised that you have "strong views", while admitting to be "not knowledgeable". Yes, the article is long, but, if you are not knowledgeable, perhaps you could reserve your judgment for a while. You may be bored from a long lead, because you may think Cossack is a "title" and the article should nicely summarize the term as such. Well, Cossacks is not a title and the article provides a summary of what Cossack people were and are. The article is very far from ideal, but it takes so much effort to keep it from falling apart completely, defending it from various random editors who happen to have "strong views". The article is similar to other articles, e.g. Ukrainians, Russians, Jews, Armenians, etc. It is hard to argue that those articles are overly long.
Finally, I apologize for being a straight shooter. I am just trying to make our life efficient here. All of the best wishes and with best regards. ViktorC (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate that the Cossacks have been somewhat resurrected in part for political optics at the Sochi Olympics, but as far as I can see from reading this page, the process of restoration of the Cossacks goes back even before the break-up of the Soviet Union. I have also learned that there is dispute between different editors as to whether Cossacks are restricted to a specific ethnic group or not, etc.. I do not have "strong views" on this subject because, as I freely admit, I am a lay-person on this subject. I merely visited the page because I was seeking to understand what a Cossack means, particularly in the contemporary context, not only at the Sochi Olympics. However, I do feel strongly that the article as is could benefit from NPoV editing, taking into account the various strongly held opinions on this subject. I am sure that with good will on all sides, it should be possible to craft a concise lede (lead) paragraph or two that is considerably shorter that what we have now, and which lucidly and concisely outlines both the historical context as well as the contemporary understanding of "Cossack" today ... for the benefit of lay persons like myself; the detail of the differing opinions can (and should) be left in there, but more thoroughly debated within the main sections.
Enquire (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I am a bit puzzled here. If you are "not knowledgeable" on the topic, how can you "strongly believe" that the article can benefit from NPOV editing? For instance, I don't edit the Wiki article on the quantum entanglement, as I have no knowledge of the topic, and therefore I really have no idea whether the current lead of the article is NPOV or not. Also, it does not matter what POVs the editors have. What matters is the systematic, encyclopedic sourcing of the key facts pertaining to the topic. For example, Russian Censuses 2002 and 2010 list Cossacks as one of the ethnic groups. This is a fact. Whether editors agree on this or disagree is a matter of POV. Kind regards. ViktorC (talk) 04:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, ViktorC, for your response. I have already discussed the topic with Enquire, resulting in mutual agreement on the fact that the area is best left for those who have specialised knowledge of the complexity and diversity of the subject. I think it has been understood that there is no linear narrative (ethnic group 'Cossacks' originated in region 'A' and have now become the regiment which have been given the title of 'Cossack' in the military infrastructure in the contemporary Russian Federation).

P.S. Enquire, I'm sorry if you have formed a disparaging view of who the cossacks were and are. Bear in mind that this article brings in a lot of less-than-neutral traffic. Editors who are normally civil, co-operative and genuinely excellent contributors start to get a little curt when the same issues are brought up week in, week out, year in, year out. Best regards. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Iryna Harpy. I never represented myself as an expert on this topic, nor expressed any "strong" PoV. I simply visited this page (as I am sure many have recently) in light of the recent and well publicized and spectacular whipping of the Pussy Riot by "Cossacks" at the Sochi Olympics. If you search "cossacks sochi olympics" on Google (for example) then you will see about 70 million hits. My only comment is that, as is, this article does not shed much light on the perceived legitimacy of contemporary "Cossacks" viz-a-viz the historical (pre-Bolshevik) Cossacks.
For the record, I certainly do not "strongly believe" any particular point of view and never represented any "strong" beliefs on this subject, period. I just (simply) visited this page to try to understand what relationship (if any) contemporary "Cossacks" have to the historical "Cossacks". Period. I have no input to this, I simply comment as a reader of the page seeking guidance and understanding of how contemporary "Cossacks" fit in (or not). There are a couple of lines at the end of the article lead mentioning that many ethnic Cossacks have returned to Russia in recent years, but not about the apparent restoration of their role as adjuncts to security. Just to be clear, I have no interest or intention to edit this page at all ... but would hope that in due course, that the page would be more helpful in describing the apparent resurrection and restoration of Cossacks in recent decades and what role that Cossacks would play in Russia post Sochi.
I wish ViktorC, Iryna Harpy, and all the other devoted editors my best wishes on maintaining this article, especially now that I do understand that it is a challenging and, at times, vexatious subject matter.
Sincerely, Enquire (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Post script. Here are a couple of citations that others may find helpful, they certainly helped me to better understand the controversy over the so called "Cossacks" at Sochi:
I trust these citations are helpful.
All the best, and good luck, Enquire (talk) 09:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Map?

It would be very nice if some knowledgeable person added a (clear, in English,) map of modern and/or historical distributions of where the Cossacks live/lived. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.71.172 (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Colonel Lobo (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


Yes please this article badly needs a map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:5E94:400:EC80:1086:9E1F:73F7 (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Mess/Analogy

This article reminds me of a halfway-decent house, which started small and was added to and remodeled numerous times, almost always without a permit. It's ramshackle, disorganized, and has no narrative thrust. It requires several knowledgeable editors with no agenda to pursue. I am not such a person. Let's hope at least one or two show up and do some good work. Tapered (talk) 05:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Cossack involvement in eastern Ukraine war

I strongly oppose the revert of my edit today. 2 sentences were my edit and both were taken out, incorrectly, I will maintain, and should be put back in. The first sentence discussed Cossack involvement on the rebel/Russian side. This has been noted and reported for months by almost every major news agency and newspaper. It was taken out under the pretense of "Recentism" and "Wiki is not a newspaper". The subject is not recent and has been discussed by multiple reliable sources; its notability meets all notability criteria, and should be retained. My second sentence discussed the reprisals against those Cossacks that do not belong to regular units. Recentism and "what Wiki is not" were used. I disagree. In the guidelines used to delete my edit it clearly states: "Recentism is a symptom of Wikipedia's dynamic and immediate editorial process, and has positive aspects as well—up-to-date information on breaking news events, vetted and counter-vetted by enthusiastic volunteer editors, is something that no other encyclopedia can offer." I maintain that I have a good faith edit that is allowed; the edit is not "created on flimsy, transient merits." The article is not overburdened with documenting controversy; and, there is no "muddling or diffusion of the timeless facets..." As far as not being a newspaper, guidelines clearly state that: "information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate..." Hence, there is no absolute prohibition on using recent newspaper article. Noted is that this not an entirely new story; multiple accounts of the assassination of Cossack leader Aleksei Mozgovoi have alluded to the same internecine battle I discussed. I recognize there are devoted editors of this page, and I await their replies.Mwinog2777 (talk) 02:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I agree that mentioning of participating of Cossacks in the War in Donbass is significant and added this to the article. Whether some Cossacks were reprimanded or not for their participation is IMHO not important enough for this high level article. We might need Cossack formations in modern Russia to explain convoluted relations between different Cossack organizations, Russian government, criminal underground and their involvements in international affairs including War in Donbass. Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Interestingly, the 2 references of your edit was a backdoor way to get in the same information I had discussed. Agree with you that there should somewhere be a discussion on the convoluted entanglements you describe; these have been noted in both of your references, and a few words in the article would likely suffice. Their involvement in the Donbass affair opens a window to much more. This is not just another simple military exercise on the Cossacks part, it is not comparable to the others listed with it, as pointed out in the 2 references and in many other articles. This is what I felicitously tried to add in my second sentence. Thanx for at least putting some back, and adding to the discussion.Mwinog2777 (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
My understanding is that Cossacks fight on both sides. The Azov batallion in Ukrainian army has Cossack and Russian nationalist volunteers, while Cossacks lead by Kozytsin took part in the war on the side of the Lugansk People's Republic, but were purged/subjugated/disarmed, once they tried to assert a creation of Lugansk Cossack Republic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.4.249.66 (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Genocide of Ukrainians?

In the (I agree, much too long!) lead, it is stated that: "This uprising, which had been preceded by genocide, enslavement, and major depredation of the Ukrainian population, culminated in purging and pogroms against Polish and Jewish communities." I am not an expert on Ukrainian history, but isn't "genocide" a little over the top? Wikipedia's definition of "genocide" is: "the intent to systematically eliminate a racial, ethnic, religious, linguistic, cultural or national group. Well-known examples of genocide include the Armenian Genocide, the Holodomor, the Holocaust, the 1971 Bangladesh Genocide, the Cambodian Genocide, and more recently the Rwandan Genocide and the Bosnian Genocide." Was this what happened in the Ukrainian population in 1648–1657? I've tried searching for "Ukrainian genocide" on Wikipedia, and am redirected immediately to the Holodomor (an undoubted genocide). That's all I get when I google it too. Also "enslavement" - too vague for me: is it literally meant (captured by Tartars and sent south down the river) or is it perhaps a metaphor of serfdom, or just an indication that they had a hard time? Filursiax (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The phrase "had been preceded by genocide, enslavement, and major depredation of the Ukrainian population" is idiotic. Either enslavement (BTW by "Ukrainians" like Wiśniowiecki family) or genocide and "major" depredation - you don't murder your slaves, if you aren't Joseph Stalin. And there was no Ukrainian population in 1648. Orthodox or Ruthenian.Xx236 (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Jewish Encyclopedia anno 1906 as a source

I notice that the JE 1906 is often quoted in this and related articles. This source may be a good enough for some purposes, but it should be used with some caution. A lot has changed in history since 1906. Thus, the cited JE entry states: "According to the chronicles, the number of Jews who perished during this time (1648-58) exceeded half a million." This is the only discussion of the number of deaths the JE provides, so presumably it's at least approximately correct, though it comes with the caveat "according to the chronicles". What chronicles, the reader asks? And what are their status as historical sources? In this particular case, it's easy to see that they are outdated: just go to the Khmelnytsky Uprising entry, where it is stated that "[e]arly 20th-century estimates of Jewish deaths were based on the accounts of the Jewish chroniclers of the time, and tended to be high, ranging from 100,000 to 500,000 or more [...] From the 1960s to the 1980s historians still considered 100,000 a reasonable estimate of the Jews killed and, according to Edward Flannery, many considered it 'a minimum'. [...] Orest Subtelny concludes:

Between 1648 and 1656, tens of thousands of Jews—given the lack of reliable data, it is impossible to establish more accurate figures—were killed by the rebels, and to this day the Khmelnytsky uprising is considered by Jews to be one of the most traumatic events in their history."

Maybe some qualified person should take a look at the citations from JE 1906 and check if they are still in accordance with our present understanding of history? Otherwise, it is a fascinating article, and it would be great to get it in proper shape. Keep up the good work! Filursiax (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

poorlyritn:((

+far2long.. 81.11.218.194 (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

If you are going to make changes to article content, plus leave comments on an article's talk page as to perceived problems, please ensure that you leave a coherent comments. You are not SMSing a friend, or leaving comments on a blog or forum. You've already added multiple red links (here and on other articles) to articles that are not likely to ever exist, plus have created red links to articles that do exist in some form or another, but using different nomenclature and making it difficult to decipher which article you wished the wikilink to point to. Rather than make up names as you go along, please make the effort to find the relevant articles and learn how WP:MOSLINK works. Thanks for the effort, nevertheless, and feel free to ask for advice. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
1.ivRSS2.bUSRFRENDLY(nowondrthisart.SUX!81.11.218.194 (talk) 08:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

RONA weren'r cossacks

At the moment this article is missing information about "Modern-day Ukrainian Cossack identity"

I don't want to repeat a "Ukrainian Cossacks" discussion. But currently while there is a excellent section in the article about "Modern-day Russian Cossack identity" there is not one on Modern-day Ukrainian Cossack identity. I currently have no time to work on it but here is a (scholarly and lengthy!) source that I (or you) can use to expand the article on "Modern-day Ukrainian Cossack identity". It turns out that various Ukrainian governments since 1991 have tried to rebuild a Cossack identity in Ukraine. It is interesting for me why Cossacks stayed folklore in current Ukraine while in current Russia they do seem to have some real power and state duties. An answer to this question seems to be found in this Ukrainian newspaper article here (Cossack organisations in Ukraine are apparently always splintering). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

szlachta/schlahta

For no good reason that I can see, the article constantly alternates between the spellings "szlachta" and "schlahta". The link from the oddly spelled "schlahta" takes us to an article entitled "szlachta", which is the correct Polish spelling. But this spelling is repeatedly used for non-Polish szlachta, and "schlahta" (which looks half-German because of the "sch", but the "h" would be silent in German - SHLAH-ta) for Polish szlachta - which simply makes no sense. The Russian and Ukrainian spellings are both "шляхта", which should be transliterated as "shlyakhta" and rhymes perfectly with Polish "szlachta". Unless anyone can provide a justification for a mangled half-German spelling in an English article, I strongly suggest it be replaced everywhere by the Polish spelling. I'd make the changes myself, but at least one of the words is a link, which I'm afraid to damage.213.127.210.95 (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Specify Turkic people, not Turks

"descending from Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Turks, Tatars, and others who settled or passed through the vast Steppe."

Turkish people leads to a wiki page of Anatolian Turks, Anatolian Turks did not pass through or live in the steppes of Russia. Anatolian Turks are of Oghuz background and arrived during Seljuk. But Kipchak Turkic people (Khazars, Bulgars, Avars, Cumans, Pechenegs and others) have been in Russia for ages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiNutt (talk • contribs) 04:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Your quote does not state Turkish ... it says "Turks" - which by itself does not denote the Turkish people in modern-day Turkey. 50.111.49.173 (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
They were all remnants of the göktürk empire including ohguz tribes some of them took the caspian route over to the ukraine steppes :"
According to Soviet archaeologist and ethnographer Sergey Tolstov, part of the Kayi tribe moved in the Middle Ages from Central Asia to modern day Ukraine, they are known in the Old Russian Chronicles as kovuy and kaepichi as one of the tribes that formed the Turkic tribal confederation called Chorni Klobuky (or Karakalpaks) who were allies of the Rurikid khaganate of Kievan Rus. Although they are mentioned among the member tribes of Turkic Chorni Klobuky confederation together with other Turkic tribes such as Pechenegs, Berendei and Torks as “Kaepichi” or “Kovui” in the contemporary chronicles of their age and there is no other mention of a Mongolic or para-Mongolic tribe around Ukraine in the 12nd century, Golden however considers the Kaepichi to be descendants of the para-Mongolic Qay instead. According to the famous Soviet and Russian linguist and turkologist A. V. Superanskaya, the origin of the name of the city of Kiev is associated with the Kayı tribe:
"As ethnographers testify, ethnically “pure” peoples do not and cannot exist. On the contrary, new peoples arise from ethnic mixes of two or more peoples, usually assimilating the best features of each. There are many folk legends that the beginning of a nation was laid by two (or several) brothers ... Apparently, something similar lies behind the legend of Kiy, Schek, Horev and Lybed. The tribal name Kyy (Kiy) belonged to the ancient Turkic peoples. It is still present in the names of tribal structures of modern Turkic peoples ”. 46.114.170.35 (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Cossacks as ethnicity

This article must have a section that discusses the statement that Cossacks is a separate ethnicity. The sources must come from reputable ethnologists, not just from politicians and modern "Cossack revivalists", who often talk weird fantasies. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Given that the cossacks was originally a name for the slavic nomads of the pontic-caspian steppe, and then became a name of military units, it would seem that whoever is truly culturally descended from the cossacks would have assimulated into the ukrainian and russian people. However, I do agree that this article focusses too heavily on the romanticised image of these people and not the historical people who were given the name. 125.237.30.118 (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Unreferenced notes

The article text contains a huge amount of unreferenced notes (some of them are dubious). This significally differs form the style wikipedia article are written.

Next week I am going to move all of them here.

Please do not restore them without referencing. Also, I would strongly suggest to incorporate them into plain text, because "overfootnoting" greatly reduces readability on mobile devices. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Cossacks were Russian and Ukranian...

...it doesen't matter which language is first here on Wiki (; --88.70.148.187 (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

section 'popular image'

this sentence:

"The Russian military also took advantage of the patriotic feelings among the Cossacks and as the hosts become larger and more organised; it has in the past[when?] turned over some of its surplus technology to them."

seems like a translation perhaps from russian. the word 'technology' in this context seems to be a mechanical translation of the russian word "tehnika" meaning technical assets, that is weapons / military equipment /tecnical equipment for military use, eg: military vehicles, etc. since the word 'technology' does not corresond with this meaning and the english sentence makes no sense in its current form, i be bold and correct the word to 'military equipment'. feel free to further improve the wording if you find a better one. 89.134.199.32 (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC).

Genetics section

What is the point of having a section on genetics? Lets discuss..---- Work permit (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The restored section now makes the point clear. However, the conclusions and relevancy appear to be wp:or. Discuss? ---- Work permit (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

So, the only source cited [1] is a database of haplogroups of the Y chromosome by ethnic group. Per the website:

This section presents the frequencies of haplogroups of the Y chromosome in individual peoples. Frequencies in various regional populations of one nation are averaged in one record for the entire nation, which is why this section is called “average ethnic frequencies”. Of course, part of the information is lost during averaging, but the table becomes visible and understandable not only to geneticists, but also to colleagues from related fields. The development of a full version of the information system (with information on individual populations and on STR haplotypes) is planned for 2011-2012.

This is raw data from which a scientist could publish a paper on the question of cossack ethnicity. If such a source exists, we should cite it. Or else the entire section should be deleted, either as original research (if a conclusion is made), or irrelevant trivia (if a conclusion is not made). Thoughts?---- Work permit (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
The section in genetics was added by an IP in this 2016 edit. [2]. He tried his same armchair geneticist edits in the Hungary article [3] but it was reverted. ---- Work permit (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

For the reasons above, I've deleted the section. Discuss if you disagree.---- Work permit (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Multiple vandalism

This article has been vandalized multiple times since August 30. At least three users have largely disfigured the page. Vandalism has consisted mostly of altering parts of the text (including the introduction) in which likely ethnic origins of the Cossacks are described. These users have not provided any bibliographic reference to support the unlikely direct relationship between Cossacks and Crimean Goths. Edits from those users cannot be undone, if not manually. --Aihotz (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Aihotz, Yes, I already indicated the problem earlier ([4]) to a valuable member of our community (@Iryna Harpy:), it seems really it is the time to discuss this thorougly.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC))
There has been similar vandalism attempts at a less watched sister article, History of the Cossacks. In one case an editor actually added a citation to a jstor article. I happen to have had access to the reference, and found it did not back up the statement.---- Work permit (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, than all of these events have to be thorougly investigated and do the needful to keep only proper content of these articles.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC))
Looking through the types of changes being made, it seems that the primary area being targeted is DNA. Without reiterating copious arguments over the years as to the overabundant use of - and the WP:WEIGHT assigned to DNA in defining 'ethnicity' - I'm still dubious about the prolific use of DNA studies in ethnicity articles. It is a highly convoluted science still in its infancy, is easily misinterpreted (therefore is a breach of WP:NOR), and is even falsified (perhaps out of fantasy?) as has occurred both here and the articles mentioned. Anything unsourced regarding DNA should be removed without hesitation. If DNA is introduced into the article, it must be from top quality scientific publications (as with medical articles and other sciences in Wikipedia): even there, the proposed content tabled on the article's talk page in order that editors have the opportunity to discuss how compelling the new data is, and its significance within the context of the article. Is it truly groundbreaking information, or is it minor/controversial/WP:FRINGE? We may have limited say over what happens to other ethnic group articles, but local WP:CONSENSUS is still primary. To be honest, I'm not aware of any extensive or comprehensive DNA research into these areas. When/if they take place, I have no doubt that there will be plenty of reliable sources reporting on the findings. Until such a time, I would suggest we keep imaginary content/DNA out of the equation. Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Iryna. You are correct, there was alot of vandalism in a DNA section. After careful investigation, it turns out the entire section was wp:or. The section never even cited a study. It cited a database, and editor made their own conclusions. I believe @KIENGIR: was referring to edits such as this one [5]. Simple edits making unsupported claims of different ethnicities. There were a host of such edits at the history of cossacks article that can be seen here [6], [7], [8]. The last editors edits were pretty insidious, claiming in their edit summary a reference to a jstor article. I engaged the editor in the article talk page and his own. The one common theme amongst these edits is that they are made by different editors all signing up roughly at the end of august and making single purpose edits.---- Work permit (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
-- Work permit, yes, along my main concern as expressed more times as well to Iryina, the so-called Slavo-Germanic designation holds? For the details you may check Iryna's talk where I presented my concern more broadly.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC))
Having gone through various unsupported changes on articles surrounding the subject of Cossacks, I haven't actually found any research into DNA other than the worldwide Genographic Project, and the results are many years from coming in on that one. Outside of DNA research, the only historical information as to ethnicity remains unchanged: i.e., theoretically, the Cossacks were probably formed from remnant groups of the Golden Horde and attracted predominantly local (Eastern Slavic) runaway serfs, particularly during times of upheaval (which, given the geostrategic placement of traditional Cossack lands, happened very, very regularly). Other 'recruits' came in sporadically as the result of other events further afield (such as refuges from the Jacobite risings), and on a more regular basis from runaway slaves from the Ottoman Empire, recruits from other local tribes and ethnic groups. All in all, however, the Cossacks were made up predominantly of locals.
I don't know where this 'Germanic' designation comes from, but will make an educated guess that there's some sort of 'Viking' conflation happening here. I also work on Rus' people - and other articles surrounding the broad subject of Kievan Rus' - which have attracted confused attention from contributors mistakenly perceiving the Norse connection within the ruling elite during the inception of Rus' as somehow translating into Norse (Germanic) DNA in the broader Eastern European Slavic population. Now, there are DNA studies of Eastern Slavs, and the results place any 'Germanic' theory into the 'somebody is watching too much contemporary popular television programming, playing too many video games, and confusing pop culture with reality' bracket. The Vikings were an interesting lot, but they did not take over and rule the world in the manner implied by pop culture.
To the point, none of this 'Slavo-Germanic' business is attested to in any of the sources. Rather than tag-bombing the article for reliable sources to prove inserted content which which was falsified in the first place, we should simply remove the changes. The WP:BURDEN has always been on an editor who introduces content to prove it, and this burden of proof simply wasn't met. Readers are entitled to what is verifiably to be found in the sources. Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Agreed!(KIENGIR (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC))

Proposed deletion of Category:Slavic countries and territories

It is currently being proposed that Category:Slavic countries and territories be deleted. This article is related to that category. The relevant discussion is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 8#Countries and territories by language family. The discussion would benefit from input from editors with a knowledge of and interest in Cossacks. Krakkos (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits

DanielLerish,

CLCStudent, just reverted an edit, as I did. Not necessarily I'd have started a discussion, and no problem if you involve Iryna, whom I already worked together on other pages regarding the Cossacks. But as I see, you should as well discuss here with Nicoljaus. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC))

Does not belong in "popular image" section

I removed the following paragraph from the "popular image" section. If you want to reinstate the information, please find a more appropriate location:

Roman Catholics, especially Poles, could be Zaporozhian Cossacks up to 1635. A lot of landless Polish szlachta converted to Eastern Orthodoxy to divide the lands of Ruthenian szlachta together with Cossacks during the Khmelnitsky uprising. After this, Cossacks used to convert Poles, especially Polish children, to Eastern Orthodoxy to turn them into Cossacks.[citation needed] Many Polish, and Polish Jewish, children were adopted into Cossack families. All Poles captured by Russian forces in the 1812–1814 campaign were enlisted in Cossack hosts for 25 years, though without the obligation to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy. Those who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy, however, might escape Cossack service and other exile. Thus, "Polish Cossack" became synonymous with 1814 Polish Roman Catholic patriots.[1]

Helenlace (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bessonov, V. A.; B. P. Milovidov (2006). Польские военнопленные Великой армии в России в 1812–1814 гг. [Polish Prisoners of War of the Imperial Russian Army in Russia During 1812–1814] (in Russian). Archived from the original on 21 February 2014. Retrieved 20 July 2013.

I notice that books that portray Cossacks have been discussed in the section "Popular Image". I think it's perhaps more typical to have a short section by itself "In popular culture" or "In literature, film and radio" (Claudius), that focuses on fictional portrayals. Maybe this could be moved or there's room for both. Thoughts? AshSIreland (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Response to AshSIreland: Interesting suggestion. While I'm not entirely opposed to the change you suggest, I would like to mention some factors in favor of the current organization, which merges disparate kinds of information under the heading of "Popular image." For one thing, this allows the article to compare and contrast fictional, political, and historiographical portrayals. It also allows us to examine and interrogate the ways in which these categories can influence one another. In the case of the Cossacks, whose markers of identity are the topic of some debate (whether correctly or not), this is an important discussion to allow space for. I will admit that this section is not yet living up to its potential, however.

I'm interested in knowing more about which pages you would cite as having a more useful organizational principle, and why you prefer them. Helenlace (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cossacks/Archive_4&oldid=1264980083"