Talk:Cossacks/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  This should be an introduction! History belongs in [[History of the Cossacks]]. 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  America 

message: 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'. 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I stick to the  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)
thread_title: when to tag something as "citation needed" or "dubious"

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is denial the best medicine? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Name "Cossack" in English

message: 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)
replies: text: Hope you can read Russian . 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Clothing/Uniform