Talk:De-Cossackization

message: Please, translate and rewrite, using Soviet act of 24.01.1919 (see Russian wiki) Alexanderwdark (talk)
This page refers to checka forces using flamethrowers against cossaks in 1919-1920. I find this highly doubtful, as they had just been invented. I have found no reference to russian or soviet troops having flamethrowers until much later. This was in the middle of a civil war, it would not make sense to issue high tech or rare weapons to the chekists. If any were at hand it would make far more sens to give these to front line troops. 
Ghbborse 06:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the main source for this article is The Black Book of Communism, a source I would not consider neutral.It has a tendency especially to always round up in their statistics detailing deaths they attribute to communism. I agree, it seems unlikely that the Russians had many flamethrowers. They could have gotten some from the Germans during WWI, but even they did not use a great amount themselves. I don't have any information supporting that they maid their own either... This whole article is fishy, if you ask me. Note that their is hardly a mention (I didn't catch one) of the Cossacks being essentially the Special Republican Guard of the Tsar's regime. --KobaVanDerLubbe 22:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This continues to be the case. If I could discern the meanings clearly enough I would repair the language, but as it stands I wouldn't be sure I wasn't introducing errors. Claudia (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Act for kossacks killing

message: The current version "Lenin's Bolsheviks' plan to exterminate the Cossacks" is not only highly biased, but is impossible to reconcile with the fact that large numbers of Cossacks served in the Red Army, including Budenny's cavalry forces. The allegation that "300 to 500 thousand were deported or killed" is not substantiated in the given reference. It is impossible to reconcile these claims with the fact that the Russian census shows some 2.5 million Cossacks in the Kuban area in 1926. From the sources I've seen, "decossackization" only spanned early 1919 when the Red Army was repelling aggression by the Cossack warlords.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadjin (talk • contribs) 17:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Get lost Jacob Peters. You have been permanently banned from Wikipedia for your vandalism and sockpuppetry. I'll make sure your edits NEVER stand.--C.J. Griffin 13:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Puppet or not, but these words is true. The Article, in the current condition, extremely breaks the neutrality rule WP:NPOV. At the middle 1918 in the Red Army was 14 cossack's regiments and in the White Army was 30 cossack's regiments - it was the Civil War. // Wilderr (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

text: And another point about flamethrowers.  They have tended to be used in trench warfare, attacking heavily fortified positions like bunkers.  While a few might have turned up anywhere, they would not have been much use to either side in the Russian Civil War, which was a fast-moving war over open country where cavalry played an important role, so were many around?. PatGallacher (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias and Errors

message: The "opinion" section is uneven and disjointed. It cites people who are not specialists of Russian history such as professor of literature Donald Rayfield. Figes' book does not belong here because his is a synthesis of a broad period in Russian history from the 1890s through the 1920s. He made just a peripheral remark about this conflict. He is not an authority on this conflict. Peter Holquist, by contrast, wrote a 1000 page dissertation on the Don region during 1917-21. He is the only English-speaking historian to have studied this conflict.Matvei Blanter (talk) 05:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: An "opinions" section is valid in the context of an encyclopedic article if it represents a complete spectrum of opinions. All the presented quotes have a view that decossackization was "genocide" and represent figures on the high-end of death toll estimates. While all opinions except the truly far-fetched carry validity, it is an undeniable fact that very many people hold opinions contradictory to the pro-white, pro-cossack ones given herein. Perhaps redundant quotes from less historically-significant sources ought to be removed, and ones taking neutral and pro-decossackization standpoints be introduced.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.163.215 (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias of "Opinions"

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved per request.  Favonian (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Decossackization →  – Capitalizes name of a people or national group (with the understanding that in sentence case the capitalization is de-Cossackization):
* An English-language convention preferred by some dictionaries and style guides, to hyphenate compounds when it’s necessary for capitalizing the name of a national group.
* For consistency in mixed usage, e.g., for equal treatment among other national groups mentioned in List of massacres in the Soviet Union, Template:Repression in the Soviet Union, :Category:Genocides in Europe, etcetera, as recommended in WP:PEOPLANG.
* WP:CONSISTENT with treatment of other national groups, e.g., de-Tatarization of Crimea (moved from “detatarization of Crimea” in March 2020), 1966 anti-Igbo pogrom, anti-Romani sentiment, 1984 anti-Sikh riots, Deportation of the Chechens and Ingush, and scores of articles about anti- isms and anti-national sentiment (antisemitism/anti-Semitism is a specific exception because its meaning is inconsistent with the definition of Semite).
* For consistent capitalization with name of the subject of the main article Cossacks 
Capitalization of names of national groups is in contrast to, e.g., dekulakization, the repression of a politically defined socioeconomic stratum, kulaks. 
Frequency of usage shows the current title spelling is most popular, but others are also very commonly used. In this case, WP:COMMONNAME shouldn’t be the only arbiter since it contradicts the five WP:CRITERIA that it’s meant to support, and we should reach a consensus that the WP:CRITERIA of naturalness and consistency take precedence, while also satisfying WP:PEOPLANG to overcome a WP:BIAS against a stateless people whose political status has not allowed them to write their own national history.  —Michael Z. 17:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 27 January 2022