Talk:Cossacks/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Old talk

The original article here simply said "From an old encylcopedia". It is obviously from the 1911 EB article, available at http://63.1911encyclopedia.org/C/CO/COSSACKS.htm, so I am editing the remark accordingly. -- Jmabel 00:27, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Where did you found this bullshit? What about neutral point of view? Can you tell me some valuable sources (books or internet resources)? 62.138.55.46 18:20, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"where?" - the references are in the text.

"NPOV?"

• if you have something to contibute, you are welcome.
• if you know or suspect that something specific is wrong, you are welcome to correct or raise doubt.
• if you think it is bullshit and have nothing more to say, GFY. Mikkalai 20:17, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have found that in this article (there are also other) Cossack (in meaning warrior on ukrainian territory, Zaporizhzhya) and Kazak (rusified offsprings of Cossack in Imperial Russia. They lived in Don, Kuban, Terek, Astrakhan, Ural, Orenburg, Siberian, Semiryechensk, Amur, and Ussuri voiskos) often used in the same meaning. It seems to me that some peoples means that Cossacks were nation. This is wrong! Today there are no Cossacks but there are Kazaks. My english is not good enought to write such a stuff but i will try to find some sources in Internet and will post here. 62.159.105.210 11:51, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

and Jews

I removed the following piece:

The Cossacks are known of of anti-Jewish pogroms, both in Poland (Chmielnicki Massacres) and in Imperial Russia.

It appears that this phrase mixes oranges and orangs here. While it is generally true, but it is not so easy. While the case of Chmielnicki is clear, in Imperial Russia the main History of cossacks article claims that Jews were not allowed to settle in the cossack territory, hence we can speak about anti-Semitism in this case, but not about pogroms. Mikkalai 18:44, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The pogroms by Chmelnytskyj and his cossacks (and the haidamakas) was largely a part of the Ukrainian-Polish war (1648–57) [1] where the jews were mainly on the side of the polish opressors. Read about it here: [2] Just to shed light on history. (Golly)

Cossacks were oppressing Jews in the twentieth century. An elderly Jewish WWI veteran of my acquaintance spent his childhood years in constant fear of the Cossacks. As a young man, he encountered a Cossack attempting to kill an elderly man. Such atrocities were commonplace during the period in which the Cossacks had political power. He killed the Cossack in question, then had to flee from the country in order to avoid charges of murder. I don't know if this was institutionalized, but this article practically ignores (and in fact discounts) the xenophobia the Cossacks showed toward Jews. --JesseBHolmes 16:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Strange. Ukranian cossackship has been disbanded by Catherine II in 18th century, and cossacks had a choice of relocation or becoming serfs. I wonder which Cossack was threatening the life of that Jewish WWI veteran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.183.180.38 (talk • contribs)

--- The sentence removed: Most present-day Cossacks live in or near the Ukraine.

As it stands, the sentence is meaningless and hardly verifiable. First of all, "cossacks" is not a nationality, therefore it is difficult to count them; no census data of today has an item "cossack". Second, the number of those who can consider themselves as descendants of cosacks in Russia vastly greater than in Ukraine, for various reasons. Mikkalai 01:10, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, I think it is fair comment however to say that the Cossacks evolved in the Ukraine despite the fact that they were employed by the Russian authorities to carry out almost all their invasions, raids, conquests and pogroms resulting in their dispersal throughout the former Soviet areas and even beyond.210.118.226.38 08:58, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There were also "neo-Cossack" movements in Ukraine during the chaos following the revolution. I don't know whether any particular ones necessarily had anything to do with real Kozachchyna, but it is likely that some of them were responsible for anti-semitic actions. I read a mention of this some time ago in either Subtelny's or Magocsi's big history book, but I can't remember any details at the moment. —Michael Z. 2006-08-01 06:10 Z

The pogroms of the post-WW1 time had little to do with Ukrainian cossacks as, at the time, there were practically none remaining of the authentic ones. First of all, several groups of Don Cossacks that initally fought on the red side switched to the Polish side during the 1920 Polish invasion of Ukraine and were especially notorious for pogroms. Especially bad was the band of Vadim Yakovlev. Similarly cruel was the band of Nikifor Grigoriev (it is hard to classify him by cossackdom or even ideology). Also, during the Bolshevik counter-offensive, the huge army of Kuban Cossacks fought on the red side. According to Isaac Babel's 1920 Diary, a stunning war documentary, jews suffered mostly from looting from the hands of "Red" Kuban Cossacks and an outright murder and pogroms from Yakovlev's, Grigoriev's Cossacks as well as from the Poles themselves. Of course one might imagine that when Red Cossacks "just" looted, people where also murdered. Hard to imagine a looting band of armed men somehow caring for the lives of those they loot. On the other hand, perhaps, the latter ones where indeed "less bad". --Irpen 06:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ataman

An anon added: or more likely derived from "ataman" in Turkish. What does in mean in Turkish, when did the word enter Turkish language; what is the relation with Hauptmann? Mikkalai 18:39, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jew hatred is not adequately refelected in the Cossak entry:

"Khmelnytsky told the people that the Poles had sold them as slaves "into the hands of the accursed Jews". With this as their battle-cry, the Cossacks killed a large number of Jews during the years 1648–1649. The precise number of dead may never be known, but the decrease of the Jewish population during that period is estimated at 50,000 to 200,000, which also includes deaths from diseases and Tatar imprisonment." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohdan_Chmielnicki

From: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/heritage/episode5/documents/documents_11.html

Report of a Massacre

Nathan Hannover's account of the Chmielnicki revolt in Poland and Ukraine (1648) was based on his own experiences and on eyewitness accounts. As evidenced by this excerpt, his chronicle included descriptions of the many atrocities that were perpetrated during the uprising. Many Jewish communities adopted the custom of reading from this account during the three-week mourning period preceding the Ninth of Av, the holiday commemorating the destruction of the Temple.

[Those] who could not flee . . . were slain and were martyred with unnaturally cruel and bitter deaths. Some of them had their skins flayed off them and their flesh was flung to the dogs. The hands and feet of others were cut off and they were flung unto the roadway where carts ran over them and they were trodden underfoot by horses. And some of them had many nonfatal wounds inflicted on them, and were flung out into the open so that they should not die swiftly but should suffer and bleed until they died, and many were buried alive. Children were slaughtered in their mothers' bosoms, and many children were torn apart like fish. They ripped up the bellies of pregnant women, took out the unborn children, and flung them in their faces. They tore open the bellies of some of them and placed a living cat within the belly and left them alive thus, first cutting off their hands so that they should not be able to take the living cat out of the belly . . . and there was never an unnatural death in the world that they did not inflict upon them.

Nathan Nata Hannover, Abyss of Despair, trans., Abraham J. Mesch (Bloch Publishing Co., 1950).

There's plenty more, of course. Additional context to show the context shows that this cruelty was not exceptional. http://www.aish.com/literacy/jewishhistory/Crash_Course_in_Jewish_History_Part_49_-_The_Jews_of_Poland.asp http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=808&letter=C

Even today, one can see their legacy linger. http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/23503/edition_id/467/format/html/displaystory.html

Sincerely, rmbraun@mac.com70.105.172.11 16:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Some thoughts

I'm reading Mikhail Sholokhov's 'And quiet flows the Don' and checked out this article to get some historical context. Would it be possible to add in the role of the Don Cossacks in WWI? That's the main focus of the book and it is almost entirely absent in this article.

Also -- could some info be added about the "mercenary" status of the Cossacks until WWI? That's the impression I get from Sholokhov, how true is it to reality?

I think the book itself should be mentioned in the article, along with Polish and Ukrainian works (unfortunately I'm not too familiar with them) It's quite a jumble with sorting out the Polish, Ukrainian, and Russian (not to mention Soviet) versions of history and trying to make everything mostly fair and impartial.

You're to be commended for your efforts! Matthias5 23:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Ukrainian Cossacks vs Russian Cossacks?

Can anyone advise the difference between these two difference Cossacks?

Do they only differ in living place?

User - Dm526 26 Jun 2005

Cossacks and their communities originated in the territory of Ukraine and came to live in many places throughout the Russian Empire. The earlier Zaporozhian Cossacks are associated with Ukraine and are a symbol of the Ukrainian Nation (see bulava, Coat of arms of Ukraine), but many later Cossacks are associated with different parts of the Russian Empire (e.g. Don Cossacks, Kuban Cossacks). Overall, they aren't strictly Russian or Ukrainian, but accepted members from many nations (including as far away as the British Isles, I believe). I guess they're not considered an ethnic group, but a sort of nation, or pseudo-nation (can anyone clarify?). —Michael Z. 2005-06-25 19:08 Z

That's not exactly so, the formation of the Don Cossack Voisko was independent of the Ukrainian Cossacks. Don Cossacks are somewhat younger than Zaporozhian, but they are not their offspring: they were all the disenchanted folks coming down from Muscovy, Novgorod and Tatar kahanates, runaway serfs and their likes. The bulk was Moscovites. The Don Voisko formed during 16-17 centuries. Most of later Russian Cossacks, like Terek, Orenburg, Baikal, Amur, Astrahan, Yaik Cossacks are the offspring of the Don Cossacks. As far as I know, the Kuban and the Black Sea Cossacks are the offspring of the Zaporoshians. Today, Ukrainian Cossack identify themselves as Ukrainians and Russian Cossack - almost exlusively as Russians. In the 16-18 centuries they really were like pseudo-nations. Gaidash 29 June 2005 22:03 (UTC)

I am not sure their "pseudonational" self-identification only lasted until the 18th century. I don't have a link handy, but I saw the article that states it was much longer. See my post below. -Irpen June 29, 2005 22:30 (UTC)

anyone except for jews can be a cossack. i have a chilean friend who works as a journalist in russia. after a long day and night of drinking with the cossacks, while on assignment, they declared him a cossack --GregLoutsenko 12:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You got it a bit wrong. Only a Christian could be a cossack. mikka (t) 16:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i am not so sure, i denfinetly remember my friend say that anyone except for jews can be a cossack, although they probably were just making it clear to my friend they dont like jews. never mind--GregLoutsenko 16:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jews could be cossacks, or rather, people with jewish ancestry could be cossacks. Cossack identy was strongly based on their slavic ancestry and christianity. Their antisemitism was not racial but religios and cultural. Jews who converted or were descendents of christian jews could settle with the cossacks. Of course they were not jews in a religious sense but by their ethnicity and were not regarded as jews. Also it should be mentioned that things changes through history and between places. Relations among people are not consistent through time and space. Have a look here for example [3](Dynamok)

Antisemitism was always strong among Cossacks, pretty much all of them. That rather than anything else explains the "except jews" remark. As for Cossacks being considered a separate ethnic group, many Cossacks do consider themselves as such. At least that's what I read. In pre-Revolution census to the question "nationality", which in Eastern Europe usually means ethnicity, Don Cossacks wrote "Cossack" rather than "Russian". -Irpen 03:59, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

In question about offspring of cossacks, most of us are of Zaporozhian descent. However in our records and songs there was not one time that we reffered to ourselves as Ukranian (in terms of nationality) but more as Rus'ian (i.e. Russian). This is also true relating to the conflicting Russian languange spelling of the word Казак or Козак. We have never reffered to ourselves as the latter version, especially when one takes into the account that the word was deliberately chosen to be read from left to right and from right to left equally. Moreover this might be completely irrelevent but have a look at this article concerning the gene pool of Russians. It turns out that in terms of Slavic blood we are the "purest" and almost identical to the Don Cossacks and others whilst the western Ukranians are in fact closer to Tatars (so that's one nationalist myth about our origin down the toilet) Kuban kazak 12:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Kuban kazak, please do not mix history and politics. This spoils the articles. If you would like to add some information, please cite sources.--AndriyK 21:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I did not mix history with politics, all I did was to give a reference about the genetic make up of our people, which proves contradictory to some other people's hypothesis on the topic. I can't be blamed for what I am - Russian, Cossack, descenedent of the Zaporozhians. The fact that in blood we are almost identical to our Don breathen only strengthens our version of history that both Don and Zaporozhia existed as different Cossack entities because the latter was at least formally under Polish control. Apart from that there are several accounts of history when we had combined raids against common foes, however none to saying that we ever went to war against each other. Also why did you remove my information about modern Cossack organisation?

Kuban kazak 14:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed it because it contained not neutral propaganda-like points.

How does the 1988 law a propaganda point? All I did was to continue the ancient history of the Cossack organisation and modern one. Убирай сколько хочешь все равно назад верну, это друг мой некрасиво и неумно. А раз уж о нетральности пошел разговор то учти Запорожская Сечь самоликвидировалась и мы ДОБРОВОЛЬНО переселились на Кубань, ненадо лжи о том что мол Матушка нас насильно уничтожила. Может вначале прежде чем о нас писать историю столо нас, Казаков, спросить?Kuban kazak 20:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I am a cossack as well, but not Kuban cossack. But I do not think that anyone should ask you or me when writing articles. Articles should be based upon reliable sources. The legend about "self-liquidation" of Zaporizhzhia Sich might be very popular among Kuban Cossacks, but it has nothing to do with the historical reality.

For once I agree with you, partly, the historical reality was that the Sich was compleately useless, no borders to guard, fertile land being abused, serb colonisers being slaughtered...certaintly not the most proudest chapter in our history... Вот [статья], кстати почитайте что там люди ниже написали очень интересно.Kuban kazak 21:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Во-первых начнем с причин разгона сечи. Первой и безусловно основной причиной разгона сечи было восстание Пугачева, поставившее государство на грань развала. В 1773-1774 годах сечевики толпами шли к Пугачеву. Когда проводивший дознание по делу Пугачева граф Никита Панин доложил Екатерине II, что самозванец намеревался из заволжских степей идти на Сечь, чтобы подымать казаков, императрица решила, что с приднепровской вольницей надо что то делать, пока какой-нибудь новый самозванец не взбунтовал Сечь. Второй причиной было заключение Кучук-Кайнарджийского мира 1774 года с турками, после которого надобность в казачьей защите южной границы от татарских набегов отпадала: крымский хан принял российское подданство. Третей причиной было само поведение казаков и их старшины. Земли Войска Запорожского были чрезвычайно обширны и плодородны, не освоив эти земли нельзя было заселить приазовские и причерноморские земли. Тому на запорожских землях стали селить сербских колонистов, что вызвало гнев казаков: многих колонистов просто убили, других обкладывали данью. Что безусловно не радовало русское правительство. Кроме того старшина обнаглела в край, воровство казенных денег высылаемых на содержание войска становилось систематическим. Это приводило к восстаниям сечевой бедноты. Кошевой атаман Калинишевский два раза вынужден был бежать из Сечи и подавлять восстания с помощью регулярных войск. Одного из зачинщиков восстания Калинешевский лично запорол насмерть. Многие из старшины сумели сколотить гигантские состояния, только лишь у писаря Глобы (далеко не самое главное лицо на Сечи) имелось 14 тыс. голов скота. Старшина жирела, боеспособность казаков падала, тут еще атаман Калинишевский вступил в тайные переговоры с турецким султаном. О чем не замедлил сообщить в Петербург полковой старшина Савицкий. Ясно что все это в конце концов переполнило чашу терпения русского правительства.

Кстати приказ о ликвидации Новой Сечи отдал… запорожский казак Грыцько Нечеса, более известный как светлейший князь Григорий Потемкин-Таврический (незадолго до этого запорожцы приняли светлейшего в свои ряды) В начале мая 1775 года генерал-поручик Петр Текелли, исполнявший обязанности командующего войсками в Новороссии, получил приказ занять войсками Запорожскую Новую Сечь и ликвидировать ее. Не мешкая, Текелли со всей пехотой и кавалерией выступил из крепости Св. Елизаветы и 5 июня подошел к Сечи которая располагалась на острове Чертомлык у современного села Покровское Никопольского района Днепропетровской области. Внезапное появление русских полков с артиллерией, быстро обложивших Чертомлык, ошеломило казаков. Текелли сумел сохранить в тайне приготовления к выступлению в поход и свалился на сечевиков как снег на голову. Из-за позиции старшины Сечь как военная организация сильно деградировала, тому казаки полностью прозевали подход целой армии. Внезапность и организованность действий регулярных войск, сразу же лишили запорожцев воли к сопротивлению.

From your text becomes clear that there were no "self-liquidation". There was a military operation. Your text reflects the POV of the gorenmend of the Imperial Russia, while Wikipedia should reflect the neutral point of view. --AndriyK 21:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Попрошу Вас вести себя прилично и прекратить тыкать.--AndriyK 20:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Одно другому не мешает, я вам лично не разу ни чего оскарбительного не выссказал, но даже если вы так считаете то извеняюсь. А вы какого Казачества член, если не секрет то можно звания и часть...Kuban kazak 21:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Я имею в виду не мой нынешний статус, а происхождение. Мои предки по отцовской линии - козаки Переяславського полку.--AndriyK 21:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Concerning "genetic make up", more reliable sources are needed. One Ukrainian newspaper contacted Elena Balanovskaya to check the information published in the newspaper "Власть". (You cited it above). The answer was (I hope you understand Ukrainian)

– Я обурена політичними інтерпретаціями та вигадками авторів “КоммерсантЪ-Власть” щодо близькості тих чи інших українських популяцій та інших етнічних груп.

З’ясували також, що надруковану карту насправді вигадали автори статті в “КоммерсантЪ-Власть” і не має жодного стосунку до праці “Російського генофонду”.

– З однієї нашої карти взяли лінії, які мають суто технічне значення (на різних картах вони зовсім різні, задаються параметрами під час створення карт), – пояснила пані Балановская, – і приписали їм те значення, яке вигадали автори “КоммерсантЪ-Власть”. Таким чином, карта, наведена в “КоммерсантЪ-Власть”, не має жодного стосунку ні до науки, ні до отриманих нами результатів.

(see [4]) Brief translation: the superwiser of the project Elena Balanovskaya is outraged by pilitical interpretations and inventions of the authors of the newspaper “КоммерсантЪ-Власть”.

The published by “КоммерсантЪ-Власть” map was invented by the journalists and has nothing to do with the work of the scientists.
I would not refer to this map in a WP article.--AndriyK 18:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

You missed my point, all I was saying that the Kuban region in ethnicity is almost identical to the Don region, which means that all Cossacks are of Russian origin regardless of which group they belong to. I could not care less about what blood mixes flow in Galichians or in Novgorodians for that fact.Kuban kazak 20:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not confirmed by any reliable sources yet. Moreover the historical sources said the opposite (see the discussion above).--AndriyK 20:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I tried to retain all neutral and factural information from your edits.--AndriyK 19:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, guys! I'm Slav, so I partialy understand Your discussion, but remember, not all users can do that! This is English-language Wikipedia - use English! Thank's! Radomil talk 21:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I translated the most important points of my messages. Thanks for your interest.--AndriyK 22:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

THis article is heavily Russified,particularly in Popular images of cossacks, and cossacks in religion. This does not coincide with the WIkipedia policy of neutrality. mindgoneawol

No it is not, the article is fully neutral in its approach to the myth of "catholic Cossacks". The whole Khmelnitsky uprising was centred on Polish persecution of Cossacks. Then Khmelnitsky makes an eternal union with Russia, to defend Orthodox Ruthenia, fast forward three and half centuries, and you have that all of the Cossacks and their descendants are Russian, are Russian Orthodox and thier direct descendants, us the Kuban Cossacks are still loyal to the Pereyaslavl rada. --Kuban Cossack 13:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This should be an introduction! History belongs in History of the Cossacks.

This article is hard to follow, unclear, and repetitive. It needs to start by clearly stating some of the different meanings of the word "Cossack," and refer us to other pages for more detailed information. Almost all the history in this article is duplicated in History of the Cossacks, which is also much better written. It would seem best to have a short informative page here linking to the other pages about Cossacks, and make sure all the history that needs to be covered is in the separate article, with maybe a summary here.

About the Cossacks' role regarding the Jews: were the Cossacks any better or worse than others in the Russian empire? Why not cover this in History of the Jews in Russia and the Soviet Union? Ewjw 09:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

the specific term Ruthenia

It is impossible to apply the term Ruthenia recklessly.

Ruthenia is a specific English term which was applied only to the western Russian princedoms of the ancient Rus', since the Tatar-Mongolian invasion (later western Ukraine). It is impossible to apply this term in relation to east Ukraine, northern and northeast Russian princedoms, to the Moscow state.

The Name of the Ancient Russia is Rus'. (Adjective is Russian). Rus' is medieval state. All Russians named own country "Rus" until 17 centuries. Muscovy was named by Russians as Rus' too. Russia (Rossija) is the name of Russian State from the 18th century only. Modern Russia is the successor of medieval Rus', as well as Ukraine. (The modern England is the successor of medieval Anglo-Saxon kingdom too :) Modern Russian language and Russian culture is successors of the language and culture of medieval Russia. The Tsar dynasty of Russia began in medieval Rus (Rurik of Novgorod). The medieval epos of Rus (bylinas of the Kiev cycle) was kept only in northern territories of Russia. The most part of territory of medieval Rus is territory of modern Russia. Novgorod, Vladimir, Ryazan, Suzdal, Tver were the big cities of medieval Rus' and cities of modern Russia also.

Ben-Velvel 22:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree but AFAIK Ruthenia (latin name for Rus') has different meanings (it is mentioned in article about Ruthenia) - in wideness all lands inhabited by Eastern Slavs. On other hand term Russian is strongly connected with country with rods in Moscow state. That's why IMO adjective derrived from latin name "Ruthenian" is much better than derrived from orginal "Rus'" adjective "Russian" Radomil talk 23:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

"Ruthenian" is a romanization of Rusyn/Русин (also German: Ruthenen), which is essentially a synonym for Russkiy/Русский. Rusyn was used in the East, and so Ruthenian is politely used to refer to an East Slav in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, a Ukrainian in the Austrian Empire, or a modern-day Rusyn of Transcarpathia. Russkiy was used by Russians, so it is politely used to refer to a Russian—it was also cognate of the Russian Empire terms Bielorusskiy 'White Russian' for Belarusian, and Malorusskiy 'Little Russian' for Ukrainian. Both Rusyn and Russkiy come directly from the noun Rus’. Of course there exist different ideas about the oneness of the East Slavs, so some people may apply these terms differently. —Michael Z. 2005-12-6 02:24 Z

Well as for Polish-Lithuanian Commonwelth, in Polish we use term Rusin (adj. rusiński) in historical context as Eastern Slav, Today rather are used specific terms like Ukrainiec (adj. ukraiński), Białorusin (adj. białoruski), Łemko (adj. łemkowski) and so on. For inhabitants of Russia we use term Rosjanin (adj. rosyjski), and for general East Slav is rather used Słowianie Wschodni (adj. wschodniosłowiański) or a little bit old-fashion Rusin. Radomil talk 11:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

For us Cossacks the following nomenclature exists:

• Russians (Russkie)

-Eastern Slavs consisting of

• • Great Russians (Velikorusy, Velikorossiyani)
  • Small Russians (Malorosy, Malorossiayani)
  • White Russians (Belorusy, Belorossiayani)
  • Pomorians (Pomory)
  • Transcarpathian Ruthenians (Zakarpatskie Rusiny)
  • Cossacks (Kazaki)
• Russians (Rossiyani)

-citizens of the Russian Federation

• Ukrainians (Ukraintsy)

-citizens of Ukraine

Now this is how in 1918 and afterwards Bolsheviks screwed up this nomenclature Velikorossy became Russkie. Malorosy became Ukraintsy; Transcarpathian Ruthenians too became Ukraintsy. Cossacks were officialy not even counted as destinct people. In Ukrainian the term Veliko- was dropped from the name for Great Russians. Also the only place where Cossacks were mentioned was in Ukrainian history, and my Zaporozhian ancestors too became Ukraintsy (although manuscripts from 18th century show they never used that term for themselves). --Kuban kazak 18:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Plz see talk:History of the Cossacks#Merge proposal. mikka (t) 01:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

America

I think this article could use some mention of Cossacks in America. I'll try to see what I can do about it, but I'll likely need help. If anyone is willing to help me write a segment on this, please leave a message in my Talk Page. Gorovich 17:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Alliance is a POV

As KK asked, I'll elaborate on my NPOV tag. To say that Cossacks were allied with Muscovy implies a degree of equality, which they were not awarded to by Muscovy (nor by PLC, by that matter). From the mid-17th century Cossacks became subjects of the Muscovite Russia. Why do you insist on reverting me?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of eqaulity in an alliance, I happen to remember some calling the treaty of Petliura with Pilsudski an "alliance". The former had only two divisions under his command and was exiled from the country he claimed to be a legitimate ruler, while in fact he came to power through a coupe defeating Skoropadsky (who also came to power through a coup), while Pisludski had a real state and a strong army and a huge popular support behind him. I suggest we avoid double standards.

Besides here it is easy to check facts. The text of Treaty of Pereyaslav is well known. The issue there was protection promissed by the Russian Tzar two his new Orthodox subjects, recognition of the Cossack nobilty, their traditions and the guarantees of the autonomy (the latter promise was later broken). The way to sort this out is obvious: in the paragraph about the treaty, stick to facts and say what treaty was about. Further down in history say how Ukraine autonomy was gradually abolished. I made sure the the article now just says so. --Irpen 05:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I think the current version is sufficiently NPOVed now. You may want to update the History of Cossacks subarticle, too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 06:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not an "update". Someone just needs to merge the history parts if the articles aren't going to be merged. This article, although far from perfect, has by far a better review of Cossack history than a designated History of Cossacks article. Someone has to merge those two History texts into one for the History of C article, then write a brief summary of it and paste it to the Cossack article. This is a huge work and some editor or a team has to make a dedicated project to do it. We've done it for Kiev and History of Kiev articles. Doing the same for a totally messy History of Ukraine and the History-section of the Ukraine articles is on top of my agenda. For this one, we better get some editors to it, preferably with better then mine knowledge of the issue. How about the Cossack himself or anyone else? I will try to help and promise to do my best with cleanup and in checking for vandalous or otherwise disruptive edits. --Irpen

when to tag something as "citation needed" or "dubious"

I would also call the editors not to disrupt the colleagues with throwing tags ("fact" or "dubious" at least for now) for the easily checkable and commonly known info. I mean, we should rigorously reference everything when we are anywhere close to FAC but for now, please don't do it. It's easy to tie down the hands of anyone by permanently demanding refs. Recently, I had to spend a better time of the day for satisfying some calls for the references to support a very well known info at Kievan Rus'.[5] If I didn't have to do it, I would have been able to do some more important work in merging the histories of UA. Please, don't get me wrong! I totally agree that referencing is important but there must be some common sense when to demand it. Tagging of common knowledge info in the rather raw articles is over the top.

This article is not yet at stage of stylising and we should improve the content with good-faith info. I do not deny that truly dubious info can be tagged, but please bother to do a 5 minute research at google books, home library, or at least Britannica and Columbia before claiming that something is "dubious". --Irpen 07:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to strongly disagree about not tagging 'common knowledge'. Besides the question what is common knowledge (and remember that 99% of people using Wiki probably know almost nothing about Cossacks, PLC, Kievan Rus' and such things) our eventual goal is to have every single fact referenced. Yes, proper referencing is a significant time drain, but I view the recent developments at Kievan Rus' or Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as very beneficial. Standards change, and although it took me much longer to finish work on my latest FA (Katyn Massacre) then on the previous ones, mostly due to time I had to spend referencing the article, I think it is much better than any of my others FA. Referencing, IMHO, is as important as content creation. It is a good rule of thumb to give a reference (inline) for any info you add to Wiki. This is today's standard - we are moving from quantity to quality. Please help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world, not only the largest.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

All I am saying is that there must be some common sense. Tagging can be a perfect tool to have an edit conflict opponent's hands tied down for as long as one one wants.[6] Any number of "fact" tags can be thrown into any article at any time.[7],[8] Common courtesy should be to run a simple google test and for this article to check at least Pereyaslav's own EB or Columbia article (at least) before tagging the info of autonomy guarantees. If you have to spend more than 5-10 minutes to confirm something, go ahead and tag it.

Same thing recently happened[9],[10], in Kievan Rus' article and it continues to this very moments.[11] Using tagging as a tool in edit disputes is wrong. Tagging is fine, though, when there is a real doubt in the factual accuracy of smth that cannot be checked by a 5 minutes worth of googling or a simple look up in Britannica or the Oxford dictionary. When we get to FA's and FAC's the standards get stricter but even then, some common sense is helpful as well an in anything in life.

I don't totally oppose tagging. I am just saying that there is somewhere a line that separates good faith request to confirm information one doubts and pestering for the references of a very well-known info. Tagging the autonomy guarantees at Pereyaslav should have been done after a simple check performed by the one who doubts this otherwise very well known information. --Irpen 22:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If it is an article I know little about I am much more likely to tag it, hoping that it's authors will provide the ref, than to go over the relevant literature and spent time learning what the author presumably knows. I never use the tags to 'pester', but I believe that every fact should be referenced. Of course tagging every fact in the article would definetly be 'uglyfing', but when I stumble upon something interesting - something that makes me say 'wow, really?' - I want to both double check it and make it easier for others to know it has been double checked.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, being aware of your knowledge in the European history from your contributions and especially in your interest in the Cossack topics it was hard for me to think that you were not aware that the essence of the treaty of Pereyaslav was the protection, autonomy and recognition of privileges in exchange for loyalty and military service. In any case Britannica has a dedicated article on the treaty.

Similarly, writing elsewhere that the Pilsudski with Petliura treaty was an "alliance" but tagging the same word "alliance" for Khmelnytsky with Tsar treaty as "dubious" seemed to me a double standard.

Finally, filling in one shot a single paragraph in the Kievan Rus' article with 7(!) "fact" tags[12] on things that anyone who went to schools in Ukraine and/or Russia knows really ticked me off. I don't consider my time I spent to satisfy these request as wasted but I could spend it more productively, that's all.

Apparently, these things are not so commonly known in Poland if even such a knowledgeable editor as yourself was "wowed" by that. But still, I expect that 5-10 minutes at google and checking at least with the Britannica or something similar is not too much to expect from the colleagues before they choose to uglify the article with all sorts of tags. There are many things in many articles that wow me all the time. However, I was not tagging them all unless I find it doubtful and can't find a confirmation myself. Of course when we are about to FA the article or if it was alreade FAed, that's a different story. Please give it a thought. --Irpen 23:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

As for Pereyaslav, I didn't had a reference at hand with that exact wording, and I though it POVed. Now that you have provided Britannica reference, I have revised my own perception of this and accept your argumentation at that point. As for 7 tags in that paragrah, I can't help it that it had so many interesting facts - I tagged all of them which deserved a specific citation (assuming we could not fina single source for more than one). As you point out, things that may be common knowledge in Russia or Ukraine are not that well known in Poland, and let's now even guess what people further West (or East, or South) may know (from my personal experience few people at the US University even heard of PLC...). I really don't understand what ticked you off so much: the paragraph was making rather suprising (to a relative layman like me) claims. Now that it has been referenced, we are all better off.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I stick to the {{fact}} tag for two reasons. Firstly, I believe that such a vague statement (no other dynasty was a well-connected as Rurikids needs reference and seems dubious. I could think of dozens of other dynasties as intermaried as theirs. Guelfos, Staufen, Carolingians, Capetians, de Valois... Secondly, I doubt placing the tag is pestering as Irpen kindly described my actions. Contrary to what I. assumes, I'd really want to see that piece of info properly referenced rather than removed. Halibutt 07:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Is denial the best medicine?

It is obvious from the removal of anything with a negative connotation in this article, that the original posters would like to romanticize the Cossacks. While this is common from a psychological point of view (who wants to admit when their own people are wrong?), it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry which is supposed to summarize the whole of a topic.

Like those who deny the Holocaust, Rwandan genocide, and other atrocities committed by one people upon another, the continued deletion of information regarding negative aspects of Cossack life borders on (if not sometimes oversteps) the boundaries of truth.

For example, you continue to delete information regarding the fact that the Russian Cossacks murdered hundreds of thousands of religious minorities (Jews, gypsies, etc...) between the 16th-19th centuries in the name of "guarding" the Orthodox church and "expanding" Russia’s borders.

Another example, you also continue to use the word "oppressors" to describe anyone who opposed the Cossacks. This makes no sense as many times those you describe as "oppressors" were actually just fighting to keep their land from being stolen by the Cossacks. The Cossacks were oppressed because other people wouldn't give them everything they wanted?

If you'd like to romanticize the Cossacks in your mind, that's your choice, but it does not belong in an encyclopedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demandthetruth (talk • contribs)

The language of the passage is to strong and unencyclopedic. The behavior of almost all armies in the pre-19th century period was criminal by the current standards. With the minimal rewriting the passage could be pasted to the almost any general article about any people. Cossacks were probably slightly worse then contemporaries but even this "fact" should be attributed and sourced. It is much better to talk about the individual massacres on the article about the correspondent events. abakharev 22:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's try a different tone

Since you so insist on utilising talk pages I would have expected you to do this first, but I think national pride (although I don't remember any Cossacks in Minneapolis) prevents one from following the WP:Assume good faith policy.

So anon 134.84.5.xx do explain this revert [13] Trolling with no good cause? Hmmm Well let's think about it. Does Ukraine have Cossack hosts? Yes in the far corner of Lugansk Oblast there is a Don Cossack regiment but they are loyal to the All-Mighty Don Cossack host, and wear Russian banners and slogans and are thus de facto Russian military. That leaves a few romantics which like to dress up and parade through Kiev. (We jokelly reffer to them as Kozel-ks). But what about those that will defend Ukrainian sovereignty, as you trying to persist? Does the Ukrainian army even recognise the Kozaks as a military group? As opposed to the 100,000 Russian Kazaks who fought in every single conflict since the late 1980s, who have several armoured and VDV parachute regiments, all consisting of Cossacks, what is there in Ukraine? In that case my revert had basis for it and was anything but trolling that you so frequentely show --Kuban Cossack 23:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

First, you (not me!) blanked Ukrainian Cossacks from the sentence without any summary. Second, I am not questioning what Russian Cossacks mean for Russia, but you blanked Ukrainian Cossacks out so the question is here about Ukrainian Cossacks. And what I know that after the collapse of the Soviet Union the Cossack movements in Ukraine are on the raise (and don't limit it to Don Cossacks). Zaporizzya is restoring Hortytsya island, and cossack traditions, and culture, and those who are cossacks in Zaporizzya, they stand to defend the sovereignty of Ukraine.

Building a museum and equiping men with arms are different things. I mean there are Bogatyr recreations in Russia as well. They too stand of Russian sovereignity. However are the Cossacks in Zaporozh'ye even enlisted by Ukrainian Ministry of Defence as military? Cultural impact is one thing, military is another. Comparing some horse-riding romantics to combatants that fough in Transdniester, Abkhazia and Chechnya (where I took part in) as defending sovereignty is of very different scale. --Kuban Cossack 00:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

as the country didn't suffer from internal military conflicts; Well it did, and UNSO did manage to make quite a name... however point is in Ukraine we left in late 18th century. In Russia Cossacks continued to exist throughout the Soviet times, hence why they are even registered separately on the census now. In Ukraine Cossacks were re-created not by their descendents but by passionate and romantic people, as a hobby. That's why I blanked the comment.--Kuban Cossack 01:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with passionate and romantic people? Restoring traditional culture is as important as restoring military. Look at Salo in Space :-) I think it is just as great. `'mikka (t) 02:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Mikka and anon, Kuban kazak in correct. In Ukraine, the Cossackdom is the part of historical and cultural heritage only. There is no real continuous Cossack tradition surviving in Ukraine to our times. In this respect, there are no Ukrainian Cossacks in a true sense. Some people with Cossack heritage (or without it) try to recreate the images of Ukrainian Cossacks, that survived through Soviet times only in Folk Music and Dance ensembles. But you can't call them Cossacks.

Exactly the Amish people are also far from being defenders of American independence...when compared to the Jewish settlers in the West Bank. Think Terek Cossacks, and you have an almost identical comparison between the latter. --Kuban Cossack 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Anon, you are free to edit anonymously, but if you want to revert war, you have to register. Otherwise, you cut the option for others to talk to you and unfairly excempt yourself from 3RR since you use a dynamic IP. I don't think that's your intention anyway, but please understand that anonymous revert warriors create much more annoyance with other editors than the registered ones (of course it would be best if even registered editors wouldn't revert war as well, but that's a wishful thinking only). --Irpen 03:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Name "Cossack" in English

On the basis of phonology alone, I would think that it is clear that our English word Cossack is derived from either the Polish word "Kozak" or the Ukrainian word "Kozak" rather than the Russian word "Kazak". But since our friend Kuban Kazak has questioned this, I checked it out in Skeat's famous Etymological Dictionary of the English Language, first published, I belive, at the end of the nineteenth century. He states that it comes from "Russian" "kozak" or "kazak", ultimately from Turkic "quzzaq", a vagabond or predatory horseman. Since in the nineteenth century Ukrainians were still largely known in western Europe as a species of Russians, this explains his lumping of the two together.

I would not go that far as to say species but if you insist Ukrainians, like Russians are Eastern Slavic peoples. However we must remember that Cossacks be they ko- or ka- were anything but belonging to an ethnic group, although their spirit is a different issue. Finally many of our Cossack encyclopedias publis a different theory which would unquestionably decide which one was the orginal. Think about it medaeval times, Remnants of Ruthenian state to the north, Poland to the west, Islam from the south and east. Surrounded they are, living in the open steppes they choose a word which when spelled is read left to right as right to left to show their independence to everybody.--Kuban Cossack 15:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thereafter, I also checked the Oxford English Dictionary on line, which tries to cite first usages. Their oldest is 1558, Haklyut's Voyages, I, 388: "The Cassacke bears his felt, to force away the rain." Then 1687, Rycaut, History of the Turks, II, 231: "The Piracies and Depredations of the Cossacks in the Black Sea..." Thereafter, of course, use of the spelling Cossack becomes very widespread, but not universal, as late as 1822, Byron writing "The Kozacks, or if you please, Cossacques...".

Anterior to most of these, of course, is Beauplan, Description of Ukraine, first appearing in Frencn in 1651 and in English in 1704. I happen to have reprints of both of these in my personal library and Beauplan uses "Cosaques" in French "..ayant parlé de la vaillance des Cosaques..." and in English "Cossacks" "...that brave people, known at present by the name of Zaporousky Cossacks..."

Similarly, Pierre Chevalier writes in 1663 the "Histoire de la guerre des Cosaques contre la Pologne", translated into English and first published in 1672. Chevalier and Beauplan were widely read at the time because of the great interest generated throught Europe by the Cossack-Polish war (remember, Khmelnytsky was still alive when Beauplan was first published) and these two authors seem to have been primarily responsible for the establishment of the English spelling "Cossack". Beauplan in particular, was reprinted three times in English in the eighthteenth century. Hence English "Cossack" from Ukrainian "Kozak" and not Russian "Kazak." Best wishes...Mike Stoyik 14:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Clothing/Uniform

We have at least one prejudice about the cossacs's clothing, the fur cap, and looking at old images you can see other special parts of their uniform. Where is the uniform from? How old is it? What are the differences beetween the several groups? I'd like to read something about that here.--Hun2 16:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hope you can read Russian [14]. The word you are looking for is Cherkesska, which is a long robe with special holders of ammunition on the breast area. Even today it is worn, although in combat time we just wear normal army uniform. --Kuban Cossack 16:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can read Cyrillic, but unfortunately not understand any language written in it. Can you write something about the uniform, its history (they did not always wear the Cherkesska, did they?) and its origins?--Hun2de Correct me! 07:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Second the request. Cherkesska is notable, just as, let's say, żupan or kontusz.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ruthenian vs. Russian

This is from my talk with Kuban kazak:

Ruthenian means historic term for a dweller of the Kievan Rus. Russian means dweller of the Russian empire and has been wrongly accredited to Great Ruthenians in the start of the 20th century. Cossacks are Russian, Ruthenian but neither Great Ruthenian (Russian) nor Little Ruthenian (Ukrainian). Also no need to put censos figures for the Kuban. In 2002 Cossacks appear as a destinct subgroup of Russians on it (along with Great Ruthenians and Pomorians). So the Ukrainian population that you quote is not even Cossack descent. --Kuban Cossack 15:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Russians (Russian: Русские - Russkiye) are an East Slavic ethnic group, primarily living in Russia and neighboring countries. Russian is not a dweller of the Russian Empire. Even if it is, the Russian Empire at the moment does not include Ukraine and Pereyaslavl as it part. So to disambiguate I offer to put "Cossacks in the Russian Empire" or just "cossacks" or "Ruthenian Cossacks". Regarding censuses, I think we need to mention these figures because it is said that Kuban Cossacks "do not identify themselves as Ukrainians". So I think it is proper to add "due to Russification policy of Imperial Russia and USSR (in mid XIX century Ukrainians accounted to 44% of the Kuban area population, according to 1926 census only to 30,5%, whereas in 1989 only to 2.5%)." or at least "However it must be noticed here that in mid XIX century Ukrainians accounted to 44% of the Kuban area population, according to 1926 census only to 30,5%, whereas in 1989 only to 2.5%)."--KKonstantin 20:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Cossacks in Russian Empire were all Russians because the Dnieper Cossacks, our ancestors, Zaporozhians never called themselves Ukrainians nor Great Russians. The mid (actually 1897) census that you quote did not distinguish nationalities but rather languages. And our Kuban dialect, balachka can be seen related to Ukrainian. 1926 census decided to split 50:50 simply because they did not know how to distinguish since it obvious that the dialect was related to Ukrainian, however none (and I repeat NONE) chose to identify themselves as Ukrainians. From the 1930s all Cossack descendents were listed under Russians. (The Ukrainian population would normally come from the minority of non-Cossack migrants and from the 1930s you can see clearely on censuses that the percentage of Ukrainians in the Kuban is not greater than other areas of Russia from Karelia to Yakutia) Finally after 1994 the Cossacks were seen as separate Russian subgooup. As for Russification...how can someone make us Cossacks more Russian? --Kuban Cossack 16:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

1. I did not try to persuade you that Kuban Cossacks are Ukrainians.

I only asked that you agree to put ‘Ruthenian’ instead of ‘Russian’ in subtopic ‘Russian Cossacks’.

You say “Cossacks are Russian, Ruthenian but neither Great Ruthenian (Russian) nor Little Ruthenian (Ukrainian)”. O.K., but if ‘Russian’ and ‘Ruthenian’ are interchangeable for you (you use Ruthenian several times above in the same manner as I mean), then why you do not agree to put “Ruthenian Cossacks” or just “Cossacks” at least in the first three paragraphs of the sub-article “Russian Cossacks” where it is said about those times when Russian Empire did not exist or did not include Zaporozhian Host and Don Host and therefore you cannot call these Cossacks Russian on the basis of being “dweller of the Russian empire” as you say? They were not dwellers of the Russian empire at that time.

Regarding the name of sub-article “Russian Cossacks”. If you wish to emphasize that this part is saying mostly about Russian Empire, then why you do not agree to name this sub-article “Cossacks in the Russian Empire” instead of “Russian Cossacks”?

Only you and I understand the difference between Great Ruthenians (Russains) and Little Ruthenians (Ukrainians), and only you and I know that term ‘Russian’ “has been wrongly accredited to Great Ruthenians in the start of the 20th century” as you say above and I agree absolutely. But when someone from Poland or USA reads the article ‘Russian Cossacks’, he certainly thinks of “Great Russian” Cossacks which is not fair because as you say Great Russians have nothing to do with Cossacks.

So I ask you to agree to amend the article as I offer.

You contradict yourself, its fact that for most Americans and Polish see the dwellers of Russia as Russians. In that case the topic on Russian Cossacks is translated as Rossiyskiye Kazaki not Russkiye Kazaki.

2. As for Kuban Cossacks being not Ukrainians (this offtop certainly, but we talk about it if you wish).

It is no wonder that Kuban Cossacks did not identify themselves as Ukrainian since the Ukrainians living in the modern-day Ukraine identified themselves as Ukrainians only starting from 1830s (see article “Name of Ukraine” on Wikipedia). And the Western part of Ukraine identified themselves as Ukrainians only in 1920s. Before that Ukrainians called themselves Rus’ki. And even now in the most western part of Ukraine people call themselves Rus’ki and Rusyn.

Therefore calling themselves Rus’ki for a Ukrainian is normal thing. Rus’ki and Ukrainian are interchangeable, especially in the remote (from the center) parts of Ukrainian ethnos where people did not know that Mykola Kostomarov offerred (and the rest agreed) to call themselves Ukrainians to differentiate from Great Russians.

Kuban is the most remote part of Ukrainian ethnos which was separated from the rest of Ukraine for a longest time (first due to geographical reasons and then due to non-inclusion in the Ukrainian SSR).

You can find a lot of examples when some Empire supports that part of a suppressed nation does not identify itself with the rest of it. For instance Valencians do not identify themselves to be Catalonians however the rest of the world does view them as part of Catalonian nation (there is no difference between Valancian and Catalan language).

Also it does not matter whether some of Ukrainian population is or is not of Cossack descent. This is a racial question, not ethnographic. Each nation is formed by assimilation of some previous population. Remnants of Scythians, Sarmatians, Goths etc. were assimilated by the Slavic tribes leading to formation of Ukrainians (see article “Ukrainians” on the Wikipedia). So if you go to the West of Ukraine, you will see that people are shorter there compared to people in the Center of Ukraine, where they are taller because in the West they almost purely Slavic, while in the east they had a lot of blood blending with different nations. It does not make some of them non-Ukrainians.

By the way term Ukraine (Ukrajina) is “an old word for the Cossack motherland” as you can read from article “Ukrainian language” on Wikipedia.KKonstantin 15:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

We are Cossacks, but we are still Russikiye. To us Ukrainets = citizen of Ukraine. Ethnically the East Slavic ethnos consist of Ruthenians: Great, Small, White and Carpathian Rusins, Pomorians (live in the North mostely Arkhangelsk and Karelia) and Cossacks.

As for Cossacks, nationality we are Russkiye. Ok, we are not Ukraintsy (I know its painful to svidomy ears, but that is truth). Ethnically we are a big Kasha - In my blood there is Circassian, Greek, Serb, Bulgarian probably Turkish and who knows what else from all the war brides that my great grandfathers brought back during the Imperial times. Have a read of this article. It clearely shows that on the Kuban there is no higher abundancy of people with Ukrainian surnames than elsewhere in Russia. (In our whole stanitsa there is not a single -enko or -chuk). What it does not say that practically everybody will have Kuban Cossack lineage amongst the Rural population, and that right now about 25 000 of them are in active Cossack service, none of whom call themselves Ukrainians. As for our political stand. Well, Galicia (Spanish Galicia that is) will swear eternal loyalty to Moscow before we do to Kiev.:) Finally not being 100% slavic means NOTHING to me, Pushkin was a Russian poet for that fact.

The only last thing that remains of our Zaporozhian heritage is our balachka dialect. However there are Ukrainians in Ukraine that speak Russian (or Surzhik) as their native language, so why can't there be a mirror situation? Conclusion - Kuban was NEVER part of the Ukrainian ethnos altogether. As for the origin of the word then actually you will find that it dates much much older back to ancient Kievan Rus chronicles, calling the southern borderland. Cossacks would only come a few centuries later.

As for western Ukrainians - my wife is from Rivne, and what she lacks in height she makes up with gossiping (t.e. baltlivaya...uzhas, no ya vse ravno ee lyublyu). :) --Kuban Cossack 18:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. If ethnic Ukrainian lives in Russia (like areas of compact dwelling of Ukranians in Rostov or Volgograd oblast) he’s still Ukrainian, be he a Russian citizen. Same applies to ethnic Russians living in Ukraine, just like in any other country.

And, to the other point, about Cossack nationality. On the banner of Don Cossack Republic (1917-1921) there are three stripes. Blue stripe symbolizes Cossacks, gold stripe symbolizes Kalmyks, and red stripe symbolizes Russians. Interestingly, now these colours are used on the flag of Rostov Oblast, with white vertical stripe on the left, which I’ve heard symbolizes unity under the helm of Russian federal authority.

As for Ukrainians in Kuban, according to Russian Wikipedia, that’s where Catherine resettled some of the Zaporozhians after quelling Khmelnitsky rebellion. File:Rostov Oblast.svg theUg 02:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have looked into the article you give. First, it is again mostly racial, not ethno study: blood etc. I do not think that you consider yourselves a close relative of Mariytsy, etc., at least before you read this article. Be honest. (Also when you say about “big Kasha - In my blood there is Circassian, Greek, Serb, Bulgarian” it is also racial, not ethno). According to this article there is a big difference between western Ukrainians and eastern ones (much bigger than between estern Ukrainians and Russians). But both western and eastern consider themselves Ukrainians because ethno and racial are different things!

But what matters in ethno is language. (when you say about Russain language in Ukraine it is a different thing: all former colonies use the language of the former Empire for some time after the collapse of the Empire).

Second, this study says that there is almost no difference between eastern Ukrainian and Russains. So Kuban Cossack can be just eastern Ukrainians. And they are according to my opinion.

As for the surnames. This does not matter anything as surnames in the western and in the eastern Ukraine are different, but this does not make us different nation. Surnames depend on the country people live: western Ukrainians were living in Austria-Hungary for a long time, eastern - in Poland and Russia, Kuban Cossacks always in Russia and close to Caucasus. That’s why there are differences.

Last, this study was done by Russian scientists. Unfortunately in Russia there is always politically right interpretation (even if the study itself is good) of each thing (it is called “propaganda” – for normal non-Russian people it is disgusting to watch biased Russian TV news).

You consider yourselves Russian for political reasons as when growing up, you have never heard another opinion on Russian TV, radio etc. So you were MADE Russian. Have you ever seen anyone on Russian TV giving interview on "balachka"? Why not? Because it is politically not good.

Read these articles from “Ukrainians” references of Wikipedia

http://www.zerkalo-nedeli.com/ie/show/555/50610 http://www.zerkalo-nedeli.com/nn/show/328/29376 http://www.zerkalo-nedeli.com/nn/show/543/49862

where you can see that Ukrainians were called Rusyn etc. in the beginning. Kuban Cossacks name for itself was easily transformed by Soviet and Russian propaganda from Rusyn / Rus’ki to Russkiy.

Anyway we went to far from the topic I guess. Regarding “Russian Cossacks”. What about the first three paragraphs of the “Russian Cossacks” where it is said not about the dwellers of the Russian Empire. “Russian” should be deleted there. Do you agree?KKonstantin 00:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

1. But both western and eastern consider themselves Ukrainians because ethno and racial are different things!Yes, and based on some sources, it can be well said that Novorossiyans and Donbasians were MADE into Ukrainians in the 1920s Ukrainisation period. :)
2. all former colonies use the language of the former Empire for some time after the collapse of the Empire Russian Empire never had colonies in the western view of the word, also recentely Lugansk and Kharkov miska rada just raised Russian to official level...:)
3. So Kuban Cossack can be just eastern Ukrainians.;This does not matter anything as surnames in the western and in the eastern Ukraine are different However you will agree that most people in Eastern Ukraine are oddly enough -enko and -vicha and -chuk. Whilst in Kuban the dominant names are -ov and -in (and no -enkov twists mind you!)
4. Have you ever seen anyone on Russian TV giving interview on "balachka"? Yes, on Local Krasnodar TV is pretty much anchored in balachka, all nationwide channels use Muscovite dialect for consistency, however their reporters in Krasnodar Krai - always in local dialect. Have you seen BBC airing in Scottish accent?
5. Kuban Cossacks name for itself was easily transformed by Soviet and Russian propaganda from Rusyn / Rus’ki to Russkiy.;So you were MADE Russian.. Now that is just amusing and dowright silly. Well I am as much Russian as Pushkin was, even if I am not 100% ethnic Russian (which I will not deny) as the old saying goes one could only be more Russian if he is Obrussevshiy. Make it like that, but that is a theory. Finally I do not decide for eastern and southern Ukrainians to be "victims" of Ukrainisation, so please leave us Cossacks alone, if that makes you grieve I am sorry. Regardless of the case in Russia you can see so many examples like us that it is really amusing to assume who is who. I believe Gumelyov that it is irrelevant of your background, but who you are in reallity that makes the difference. Imagine this case Belarusian father, Tatar mother, born in Moscow lived his whole life there, never cared about his nationality, his children when asked who they are will answer what quarter this or quarter that...no they will say...RUSSIAN, Russkiye. That is what is important. I am proud to be Russian, and that we are still loyal to the Pereyaslav agreement made by our ancestors 352 years ago, and I thank Matushka for allowing us to settle on this beutiful land 200 years ago, and to keep it forever as part of our massive country. Now that bolno for a svidomy to hear. --Kuban Cossack 01:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

O.K. No more attempts to pursuade each other regarding Kuban Cossacks.

(Just last remark. The article you quoted says that Zaporozhians may have never been to Kuban. Do you agree? If not (you say "our ancestors Zaporozhians"), why do you agree with one part of this 'study' and not agree with the other? That's the way propaganda works: take what you like and do not see what you do not like)

No the article says Ukrainians never been to Kuban, which is true, but not Zaporozhians, which questions just how Ukrainian our ancestors were. --Kuban Cossack 14:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not true: "фамилий потомков запорожских казаков, выселенных сюда Екатериной II"KKonstantin 14:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, and everybody in our stanitsa can trace some of their roots to Zaporozhians. Bottom line Zaporozhians were only part of the people that over a 200 year period came to the Kuban. We modern Cossacks have only iherited their spirit and will, blood is irrelevant. As a matter of fact the Kuban has one of the highest rates of orphanage adoptions in Russia. Those people can be genetically anything, but what matters is the traditions in which they are rased. --Kuban Cossack 17:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's go back to the topic “Russian Cossacks”. "What about the first three paragraphs of the “Russian Cossacks” where it is said not about the dwellers of the Russian Empire. “Russian” should be deleted there. Do you agree?" You did not answer.KKonstantin 14:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No, because the word Russian, as explained above, is an umbrella, and for 19th century Imperial Cossack hosts - were Russian. So I do not understand why we should delete the term. --Kuban Cossack 14:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

But in the three first paragraphs of "Russian Cossacks" it is said about year 1444 and then "In the sixteenth century". So there was no Russian Empire or it did not include the lands of Cossacks in 1444 or in the sixteenth century or earlier. Therefore the word "Russian" must be deleted from the first three paragraphs of "Russian Cossacks".KKonstantin 14:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

True, but does that really matter, after all the umbrella word Russian can be used to reffer to either ethnically Ruthenian or nationaly. To be fair I am not too concerned. Maybe just leave it as Cossacks? --Kuban Cossack 17:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

O.K., just 'Cossacks' is fine for me.KKonstantin 15:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, feel free to change it then. --Kuban Cossack 15:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

213.130.24.237 15:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Cossacks, religion and boyars...

My dear anon, please note that every article has a talk page if you continue to add controversial information (like Cossacks defending Catholicism - which I as a descendent of Zaporozhian Cossacks find most amusing) then not only will it be reverted but it will also be eventually taken to the admin and submitted as Vandalism. If you have specific issues please discuss. Otherwise this is considered as Trolling and will hypotherically lead to your IP being blocked. You might consider registering an account however. --Kuban Cossack 16:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

i was wondering what languages the cossacks speak. and what nationality they are i.e are they slavs?—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Alexander S. (talk • contribs)

Today, and for the past 200 years - All Cossacks spoke Russian, nationality they claimed the same, but ethnically we are what is known in Russian as Kasha, ie a mix of just about anything possible. --Kuban Cossack 10:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

My dear Kuban kazak,

Please stop reverting passages about religious views of Cossacks and boyar history in the lands of Rus.

If you belive that Cossacks always were Orxodothes and had never defened states of Poland, Lithuania or Austria and its peolpe in the 16-17 century, then you have to read more books on the history of these countries and the Cossack history that were isssued not only in Russia but also in the West. If you have no access to the libraries of Warsaw,Vienna or Rome you can get information about Cossacks and their relations with Catholics on the e-net. You has written that you are a Cossack descendent, so you have to know the history of your ancestors beter. Do not narrow down the problem solely to Russia and Orthodoxy. Perhaps, modern Russian Cossacks are overwhelmingly Orxodoxes and your statements are partially correct. Cossacks, however, are not a private property of Russia and Russian Orthodox Church, they are a vivid pages of the history of many Eastern European countries and religious groups. Therefore, please be tolerant to the histories of other contries and write about Cossacks without nationalistic prejudice.

I do not understand your doubts about Boyars. Please refer to recent researchs in the field or just look at the Ukrainian version of the boyar article in Wikipedia. I hope as a Cossack descendent you can read the language of your ancestors.

Sincerely, 133.41.4.46 26 June 2006 A.D.

First of all Like it or not Cossacks were formed by Ruthenian people, Ruthenian people were Orthodox. It is as simple as that. And the Zaporozhian Cossacks were only one of the few Cossack groups on par with the Don Ural and Terek Cossacks. As for modern Ukrainian kozel-ks then really please do not mix circus with professional military. And yes I know well of my ancestors and we are still loyal to the Pereyaslavl treaty, which was signed to defend Orthodoxy.--Kuban Cossack 15:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kuban Kazak,

I will repeat my statements once more.

1. The history of Cossacks does not start with the Pereyaslav Treaty. Before the treaty was signed many Cossacks of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth fought Muscovite Orthodoxes several times. The period they supported Catholic states lasted for two centuries. As a Cossack you should know it. Do you think you can throw away this period from the history because of your Russian nationalistic beliefs?

Sure read Gogol's Taras Bulba, it explains excatly on the positon of Orthodox and Catholic relations.

2. Yes, many Ruthenian people were Orthodox. But where did you get that there were no Catholics or Protestants among them? You should read more books on the history of the Christian Church in the Eastern Europe.

Not many, absoloute majority. With the small exception of those that fell to the unia. As for Cossacks again Taras Bulba, and the Khmelnitsky uprising is excatly the result that came out of the attempted Catholicisation of Ruthenia.

Another point is following. Why do you suppose that all Orthodoxes in the Eastern Europe belonged to Russian Orthodox Church. Actually, till the end of the 18th century the vast lands of Belorussia and Ukraine were under the rule of the Constantinopole Patriarchy. And probably you ancestors were "Greek" Orxodoxes but not "Russian".

Actually it was the Kievan Metropolia not the Greek Orthodox Church. I very doubt that Pyotr Mogilla would have conducted liturgy in Greek. Don't be ridiculous.

3. You stress that the Zaporozhian Cossacks were only one of the few Cossack groups on par with the Don, Ural and Terek Cossacks. That is absolutelly true. But the problem is that you cannot describe all these groups as "Russian" and "Orthodxes". I would like to remind you that there were also Polish and Tatar Cossacks...

Sure, but read the article Nağaybäk, I think Orthodoxy still remains dominant

4. The last is your English. Please, use no slang and Russian-English mixed words. For example: " As for modern Ukrainian kozel-ks then really please do not mix circus with professional military"... 理解しかねます

In the ending, I would ask you to put back my corrections concerning the religion of Cossacks. If you would insist on your nationalistic interpritations I would be foreced to contact Wikipedia staff. Please do not violate the official policy on the English Wikipedia (NPOV, respect to other contribution etc.)

Read WP:POINT there is no nationalism going on here except what I can interpret as a mild form of Russophobia, and no I will not add this POV-pushing material until you make neccessary corrections. --Kuban Cossack 17:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Corrections: Cossacks and religion

"Although there was a small minority of Muslim Cossacks in Russia, the majority of Cossacks are of the Christian faith. The relationship between Cossacks and the Church runs very deep, and has had strong influences on both the history of the Cossacks and that of the Church. Traditionally, Cossacks are considered to be the protectors of the Church and Christians both Catholics (wars on Muslim Turks,Tatars and Orthodox Muscovy to defend the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 16-17th centuries) and Orxhodoxes (wars against Poland, Turks and Tatars in aliance with Muscovy since the middle of the 17th century).

Nowadays, in Russia and Ukraine the Cossacks are usually depicted only as the defenders of the Orthodox church. Such a depiction was constracted intentionally by nationalistic historians of the Russian Empire. This "Orthodox myth" still lives in the works of modern Russian and Ukrainian historians who try to show Cossacks as "national heroes" of one correct faith that is Orthodox. However this myth completely ignores facts from the early history of the Cossack movement and focuses only on the images of "Russian" Cossacks of the 19th century."

Sincerely, 133.41.4.46 26 June 2006 A.D.

Dear Kuban Kazak,

Your demand to make "neccessary corrections" in the matterial given above. Please tell me what kind of corrections do you mean? To write down that all Cossacks are Russian and Orthodox? Or deny the historical fact of cooperation of Catholics and Cossacks agains Orthodox Muscovy?

It looks that you just hide under tha label of "Russophobia" in order to promote nationalistic ideas, which reveal in aversion to non-Russian or non-Orthodox way of thinking. Your attempts to monopolize the Cossack history as the history of "Russian" military organizations and presentation of Cossack movement as uniquely "Ruthenian" or "Orthodox" phenomena prove that either you have big gaps in history or you intentionaly follow the stamps of Russain right-wing historiography. In fact, you matterials about religion of Cossacks are POV-pushing because they describe the vission of only one side - Russian Orthodox.

Thus, I repeat my request to add the material.

Sincerely, 133.41.4.46 27 June 2006 A.D.

1. 1 Watch the insults
2. 2 Watch the Original Research
3. 3 Finally in the article itself as in many historical literature (eg. Taras Bulba), apart from the bizzare svidomy bs, also do read Khmelnytsky Uprising and Registered Cossacks. Believing your opinion - all Russian has to go. Russian Orthodox Cossacks were nothing but a small historical detail. Zaporozhian Cossacks were actually Catholics... I am not going to add that bs into the artilce. Request or not, but I will ask other people to come here and share their viewpoint. --Kuban Cossack 19:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Side view to the discussion above

Genltemen, may I ask you both to format the discussion above, with dates, sigs, indents, etc. I assume that anon is user:KKonstantin. If so, please don't forget to always sign in, as it makes it easier to discuss things with you. Kuban, would you please format the discussion asap?

Now, the contention point: Cossacks vs the Orthodox Church. There is no denial that the registered Cossacks fought for the PLC as it was their duty in return to personal freedoms and regular payments. However, they fought for the state as regular military units, just as other units as well. However, the notion that Cossacks were ever protectors of Catholicism is rather novel, smells like OR and does not follow directly from the fact that they fought for the Polish king. OTOH, the notion that Cossacks were the protectors of the Orthodox Church is widespread and one can find that assertion, eg. in many historic books and in Britannica too. So, while one car rightly say about the service of the Registered Cossacks to the Catholic dominated Polish State (and not just against Turks but also against the Russia-leaning Cossack factions), in no way this implies that Cossacks were defenders of the Catholicism.

Anonymous, please log in before editing/discussing this further. KK, please format the discussion. It is unreadable. --Irpen 03:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

OK now I'm loggin in

Hi All contributors. I was contributing to this article for a quite a while as this is the integral part of my family history. My earlier anonymous contributions are references to Gen. Bogaevsky book, Cossack in advancement of Russian Empire to East and war of 1812 (guerilla warfare, raids), Cossack families and reference to Kaznakov's report to Tzar Alexander III, settlements founded by Russian Cossacks, etc.

Regards

Prairie Cossack

Suddgested Corrections:

"(particularly the Terek Cossacks, who were heavily influenced by the culture of North Caucasian tribes)" change to "for example, the Terek Cossacks, who were heavily influenced by the culture of North Caucasian tribes", since the same evidences of blending of cultures and habits can be found almost in every area where Cossacks interacted with natives (see my reference to Kaznakov's report).

"The Cossacks were not highly regarded by the Russian Army, who saw them as lacking the discipline and training of regular troops." Has to be removed, as this statement lacks of proof, and way too generalistic.

Currently working on

Siberian Cossacks article.

Taras Bulba?!

I'm curious as to why he isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. Wasn't he a hero of the Ukrainian Cossacks?

yeah! I was really surprised,wiki is pure in information about Ukrainian cossacks!!

Outrageous Claim

"According to Michael Kort, "During 1919 and 1920, out of a population of approximately 3 million, the Bolshevik regime killed or deported an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 Cossacks"

This is total bullshit. The number of deported Cossacks did not exceed 45,000. This book reveals deportations in the history of Soviet Russia:

http://www.memo.ru/history/deport/add1.htm

English translation:

http://www.online-translator.com/url/tran_url.asp?lang=en&direction=re&template=General&transliterate=&autotranslate=on&url=http://www.memo.ru/history/deport/add1.htm#_VPID_44

Nowhere will you find a figure there which exceeds 45,000 Cossacks.

• What was the total number of Cossacks (Don and Kuban) during 1917-1941?--Alex Kov 16:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

There are millions of people in the Don and Kuban regions who are of "Cossack" ancestry. There is no evidence that this sensational agitprop of "decossackization" ever happened in the scale suggested above. 40,000 Terek Cossacks were resettled to their ancestral homeland in Ukraine so that oppressed minorities Chechens, Ingush, and red Cossacks would form territorial units. The Cossacks unleashed aggression upon the soviet workers councils in the winter of 1917-18 and appropriately faced reprisals for their treasonous behavior. The Cossacks collaborated with the notorious mass murderer proto-Nazi Denikin. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that 250 to 450 thousand Cossacks were killed. In the civil war total, 1 million died from battle on both sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Peters (talk • contribs)

A Possible Workaround for the Ethnicity Issue

I would suggest reclassfying the Cossacks as a social class rather than trying to sort out what modern ethnic term is best fitted for the Cossacks (as KK pointed out - the meaning of the words "Russian", "Ukrainian" and Cossak" has changed drastically in the past century). I think the Samurai are a sound historical parallel, or at the very least a good comparison to use to explain the situation to Western readers who most likely can't follow the arguments on this page. 24.62.63.6 01:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)(Crocodilicus)

Russian spelling?

How is cossack spelled in Russian? Козак? Is this not the same word for those from Kazakhstan? --NEMT 14:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It is spelled as Казак and it has NO relationship to Kazakhs and Kazakhstanis. --Kuban Cossack 13:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Being a Turkic nation Kazakhs used word "Казак" to identify themselves much earlier than cossacks emerged as a social entity. There is no actual relationship between these two groups, except the fact that cossacks at some point of history "borrowed" Turkic word which was in use already. In order to distiguish two groups Russian and later Soveit authorities went as far as to distort the name of Turkic nation by adding soft "h" and changing qazaq/kazak to Kazakh, when spelling of word Cossack in Russian remained the same.

"Most-ness" of Cossacks

Please keep neutral manner of writing articles. The words "most prominent and famous were the Russian Cossacks" are unappropriated. For various periods and places in history the revalence of some social group is different. The same is with Cossacks. For example, in the 15-17 centuries "the West" first learned about Cossacks of nowadays Ukraine by their frequent wars with the Muslims, participation in the Thirty years war in France, and Chmelnicki uprising. Esspecially they became famous due to the book of French engeneer Beaplane. On the contrary, those military groups that are called nowadays Russain Cossacks became known in the late 18 c. and later thanks to the Napoleonic wars. My point is that writtings like "most prominent" or "most famous" are incorrect because there is no creterion of "mostness" in evaluating history but only in political propoganda. Thus please, use a neutral wording.--Alex Kov 19:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

However think about the prominance of the Don Cossacks in the Time of Troubles, or colonisation of Siberia. The impact they had on Russian history is rather prominant.--Kuban Cossack 12:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, the influence of Zaporozhian Cossacks on Ukrainian self-identity is critical.

It's not Wikipedia's place to pick a group of Cossacks as most important. The wording "most prominent and famous" sounds a bit like the result of a popularity contest, and doesn't really say anything of substance anyway. It's hardly a verifiable fact. —Michael Z. 2006-10-21 15:28 Z

National identity

Recent edit summary: there were no Russian or Ukrainian Cossacks before the emergence of national states.

I don't know about the historical national identity of the Don Cossacks, but I believe most Zaporozhian nobles were Orthodox Ruthenians or Polonized Catholic Ruthenians. They weren't called Ukrainians at the time, but Ukraïna was their poetic homeland, and this is the same nation that was called Ruski by the Poles and Malorossy by the Russians. Keeping in mind that the modern idea of national self-identity didn't exist anywhere at the time, calling them Ukrainian Cossacks today is appropriate. —Michael Z. 2006-10-22 17:06 Z

Disagree on one point, Muscouvy did not call Malorossy Zaporozhian Cossacks, but they called Malorussy non-Cossacks Ukrainians. I.e. dwellers of the Sloboda, Volyn Podolia...etc. Ethnically they still considered them to Ruthenians, just like the Don Cossacks. With Don, it was always the same Orthodox Ruthenians. So ethinically there are more similarities between the modern Kuban and Don Cossacks then there are between Don Cossacks and Velikorussians. The same can be said wrt to Malorussians (ethnic Ukrainians) and Kuban. In such a case I do agree with Michael about calling Zaporozhian Cossacks Ukrainian, and the same can be said about Ryzan and Don Cossacks being Russian. In this case I propose to keep the article the way it always was before the recent attacks, as there is no POV since Russian Cossack impact on history (and I am not saying European Asian or whatever, i am just generalising) is greater since the mid 13th century until present day. Whilst Ukrainian Cossack impact on history ends with the dissolution of the Zaporozhian Host. --Kuban Cossack 17:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Peasants...

Cossacks were not our usual peasants, of course, but I wonder if Category:Cossack uprisings should be a subcat of Category:Peasant revolts?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Most cossack uprisings were also peasant revolts, true. But was this true in all cases? --Irpen 05:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, szlachta did considered them 'peasants' :/ My goal here is not to force a definition, but to make browsing relevant categories easier.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

300 to 500 thousand Cossacks killed

According to Michael Kort, "During 1919 and 1920, out of a population of approximately 3 million, the Bolshevik regime killed or deported an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 Cossacks"

There is no basis to this. First, Kort is incorrect about the population of the Cossacks. In 1917, there were 4.5 million Cossacks of which a whopping 300 thousand served in the the Tsar's imperialist war. Next, Kort's claim that 300 to 500 Cossacks were killed or deported has no basis. Pavel Polyan's study on Soviet deportations shows that only 45 thousand Cossacks were deported in 1920. Since a large portion of the Cossacks brutally opposed the soviet workers' councils, they would of course endure casualties but there is no evidence that they endured 250 to 450 thousand losses since the White armies and Poles combined endured only some 200 thousand casualties. I'm afraid this will have to be removed since its lacks any factual basis in favour of Pavel Polyan's archival study. [15]

Furthermore, the Cossacks were oppressive, brutal, imperialist lackies. In the Don, Cossacks were only 42% of the population yet owned 65% of the land. In contrast, the oppressed Kalmyks owned only 4% of the land.[16] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.110.129.77 (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC).