Talk:Zaporozhian Cossacks

message: By 1615 and 1625, Cossacks had managed to raze townships on the outskirts of Constantinople, forcing the Ottoman Sultan Murad IV to flee his palace.[7]</br>
Are there any reliable sources referencing it? I have not found mentions of it anywhere else. Currently, the source used is an exotic Web1.0 site from 2009. A complete joke.--Adûnâi (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. The Cossacks got to Feodosia and twice raided Constantinople, see Cossack_raid_on_Istanbul_(1615) and Cossack_raid_on_Istanbul_(1620) although the latter sourcing is um ifffy.--FeralOink (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof of a Cossack raid on Constantinople? 

message: This edit is not an improvement. It needs to be put into narrative form and properly fleshed out. There are numerous grammatical and coherence problems. The article now begins "Cossacks is a local condition..." What? They arose due to policy of the then government. What policy and government? "The first one was written..." The first what? Whose theories are these? There are incomplete sentences and much of it is incoherent. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: what is the difference between a theory and a hypothesis in the above? Toddy1 (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

text: the difference is that the theory has more scientific weight, while the hypothesis is very unlikely or/and has been refuted. SirLustitia (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

text: I will try to improve my edits. I translate the text of Ukrainian and Russian authors into English, and I make mistakes, because my level of English is not so great. I will try to improve the text, but I will be glad if someone rewrite my edits to normal English. SirLustitia (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins rewrite revert 

message: This page is one of many fallen the target of chauvinistic and revisionist behaviour seeking to alter the page to suit an agenda, enabling historical distortion in the process. 
The Zaporizhian Cossacks undeniable and non-negotiable connection to Ukrainian history and the Ukrainian nation seek to be ameliorated and negated by those with misplaced and negative interests in the page.
As well as wiping factual informtion that those relevant disagree with, the adopted nomencalture of today "Zaporizhian" is being intentionally removed in place of a word more comfortable for those with a more suitable page in mind-'Zaporozhians'.
There is not a Wikipedia rule or guideline I have come across that stipulates that one uniform spelling must be used and that all other mentions of another spelling even if sourced directly from a book must be wiped. Yet here we are, where accounts exhaust themselves removing spellings they find disagreeable but coincidentally are a Russian spelling.
It appears some accounts struggle to understand that Wikipedia like most encylopedias are heavily rooted in citation and corroboration, as these are the only forms that create reliability and help improve the site and its information. 
Opinion or something you disagree with doesn't trump cited fact.DanielLerish (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring subjectivity to the page, inhibiting detrimental interests and the removal of the the undoutable notional mentions of the Zaporizhian Cossacks as a people. 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion