Talk:Kuban Cossacks/Archive 1

message: In 2005 a genetic study was published and revealed even more astonishing details that the Kuban territories' gene pool was by far the purest of all the Russian samples. ... which proves that ethnically, Russians are of Ukrainian origin. I'm just joking - of course it's not true. ;-)--Lysy (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well actually specify what you mean by Ukrainian origin. If you mean Rus'ski as in origin of the great Rus then yes, if you mean the modern ethnic Ukrainians ie Malorossians (please let no one be insulted by this term, I just want to destinguish them from Ukarainians as in citizens of Ukraine) then there are quite several differences in the gene pool, particularly the Galician Ukrainians which the study shows are actually closer to...Tatars. Kuban kazak 23:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the text: http://www.newsru.com/russia/28sep2005/russians.html http://www.kommersant.ru/k-vlast/get_page.asp?page_id=20053854-16.htm
Indeed, I meant Rus'ski origin and I thought this was the origin of modern ethnic Ukrainians. Thanks for the pointers. --Lysy (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Well its an origin for Belarussians, Cossacks, Pomorians, Russians, Ruthenians and Ukrainians (in no particular order) Kuban kazak 01:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin

message: Dear Kazache, Huculs from Karpaty believe that Jesus was also a Hucul. I’m sure they can prove it using a couple of publications from “reputable” newspapers or by organizing voting in the region. Your favorite article or its  original and this type of citations of results of Kuban census: “in 2002 the Russian census finally allowed the Cossacks to be declared as a separate group, with an ability to specify it as ethnicity. The "Ukrainian" box received 0.0% ticks.” that you readily insert in all appropriate and not appropriate places all over WP have equal credibility. I do not want to analyze the “article” from professional point of view (though I am of appropriate qualification to make such analysis). I will just cite most “notable” phrases from the above named source that do not require special training to understand (Sorry, it will be in the original language):
“…с точки зрения повышения производительности труда выгоднее размещать тонкие высокотехнологичные сборочные производства на юге России, где пальцы населения наиболее приспособлены для сборки микропроцессоров, а горячие и не требующие тонкой моторики кистей рук производства (сталелитейные и подобного типа) -- на севере.” Till now I was convinced that microprocessors are assembled by robots.
“…после тысяч совмещений с полученных фотографий эталонных Жака и Марианны смотрели серые безликие овалы лиц. Такая картина даже у самых далеких от антропологии французов могла вызвать ненужный вопрос: а есть ли вообще французская нация?” Yes! French are not a nation! Vse kazly! Uraaa!! Za Rodinu!!!! And so do Ukrainians!
“…украинцы из левобережной Украины генетически так же близки к русским, как коми-зыряне, мордва и марийцы”. Ukrainians from Livoberezhzhya=Russians, Mordva=Russians -> Ukrainians from Livoberezhzhya=Mordva. And so on. We all are brothers after all… Except those tatars from Lvov (prokljati banderivci): “…между украинцами из Львова и татарами генетическое расстояние составляет всего 10 единиц.”  And why not to use such a nice opportunity to involve here some politics: “Можно как угодно реагировать на эти строго научные факты, показывающие природную сущность эталонных электоратов Виктора Ющенко и Виктора Януковича”
Good enough for people to understand what was the purpose of this “article”. But not for Kazak who uses it for supporting his “original” ideas: “…the Kuban territories' gene pool was by far the purest of all the Russian samples.” ; “My opinion: the followng people Velikorossians, Malorossians, Belorossians, Pomorians, Carpathian Ruthenians and Cossacks are just the different variations of the Russian slavic group.” 
There is simple definition for such type of sources and claims: “yellow press” and “chauvinism”. And this why all civilized scientific community agreed long time ago not to conduct such type of research or not to present it in this way (but something like this 
). This is why “…часть исследования из-за недостатка государственного финансирования ученым пришлось выполнять совместно с зарубежными коллегами, которые на многие результаты наложили мораторий до выхода совместных публикаций в научной прессе.” Because even if this true statement and this publication will ever see the light in a reputable edition – it will have much different claims. And it will take even much more time and many more articles on the subject for historians to use these data in support of their new theories.
Nobody is obliged to recognize his real roots or nationality, nobody is prevented from creating his own myths about his origins, transform his identity, create his own ideology. This is all acceptable, but only in those cases, when such ideas are not imposed on others, or does not harm them in any way.
In case of WP remember (your own words and one of the correct arguments of local guru Irpen) – this is an encyclopedia, where credible information is extracted from reputable sources, compiled and organized to form and encyclopedic style article, but NOT and original research.
This will be my arguments for removing your “Kubanization” in WP.
Yours--Bryndza 22:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See your talk page, would you like the results of 2002 census? Or the appendix of 1926 (find it in any library). Or original manuscripts dating to Zaporozhian times. Face it. When Khmelnitskiy signed the Pereyaslavl agreement he meant it. When we moved to the Kuban we were NOT evicted (some remained and became petty peasents), but our lifestyle was the most important fact in here. We still live under the oath of Pereyaslavl. Since the end of the Sech Ukraine has changed, Cossacks have changed. Our common history splintered, sure there is more things that unite us slavs that separate, but its like telling the Irish they are English. Our culture, tongue, traditions, religion (Greco-Catholic in the west of Ukraine, one of the original sworn opponents of Cossacks) etc. went and still going in different paths of development. -- Kuban kazak 22:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On "Kubanization" by Kuban Kazak 

message: 1926 census I believe currentely does not exist in an online form. Krasnodar state library contains the original 1927 published atlas, massive in size, with maps and endless statistics. I presume if you live on the territory of former FSU you will be able to obtain a copy. 
2002 census
Thank you. From the tables I can see next: All population: 145166731, Ukrainians: 2942961. 2942961 from 145166731 is 2.03%. Please kindly put this number in the text. I will do it.--Bryndza 23:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: http://195.133.159.86/ct/html/TOM_04_03_3.htm
Scroll down from there, Cossacks appear under Russian headings. Kuban' is presentely devided between Adygea, KBR, KChR and Krasnodar Krai. Respectevelly Cossacks populate 470, 1307, 2501, 17542. The Stavropolian Cossacks are currentely united with the Terek Cossacks host. -- Kuban kazak 00:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  See, Kazache, the article is on Cossaks. I know it is important for you to prove that Ukrainians are... but it is not releavant here (minimum) and your interpretaion of data is biased (another story). My point is presented in numbers on the page. As you like to advise me, I would also suggest you to read more of the press published neither in Russia, or even Ukraine. Then you may find different trends in Ukrainian economy. Also you will study that speaking Ukrainian does not mean to be the one, and vise versa. And so on...--Bryndza 16:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: In reality there are probably a LOT more, since they only listed those who are of ethnic Cossack origin and who serve in Cossack hosts. They did not list those who are of non-ethnic Cossack origin but who serve in hosts as Cossacks and they aslo forgot that preatty much all of historic Cossack lands are populated by their successors who listed themselves as normal Russians rather than Cossacks, because they do not serve in hosts. But that number will continue to increase.-- Kuban kazak 17:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Does the author have any external sources to refer to? I'm skeptical of the presentation of information in this article and its neutrality
Zshzn 17:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly do you have in question?--Kuban Cossack  18:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I gather that in 1914, the Cossack hosts were divided broadly into Steppe Cossacks (7 hosts), and a 2-host group (Kuban and Terek hosts) with broadly different uniforms.  In his World War One Sourcebook, Haythornwaite refers to the latter group as "Caucasian Cossacks".  I have seen them refered to elsewhere as "Circassian Cossacks".  Is either of these terms considered more accurate? Boris B 05:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well essentially all Cossacks are steppe Cossacks, but Kuban and Terek, due to the proximity of the Caucasus mountains were influenced in local traditions e.g. Lezginka dance, Cherkesska overcoat and the like. Essentially the Caucasus peoples of the Kuban were known as Circassians, before the 20th century in English, in Russia they were called Cherkessy, but later upon more anthropological evidence these were devided into Kabardins, modern Cherkess and Adygeyans. --Kuban Cossack 12:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caucasian ... Circassian? 

message: Because essentially the history of the Kuban Cossack Host and the Black Sea Cossack Host are interchangible then I chose to unify the articles and redirected the Black Sea Cossack Host to the subsection that I wrote here. The other article was but a petty stub, nothing else. --Kuban Cossack 11:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect from [[Black Sea Cossack Host]]

message: Addressed mostly to Kuban Kazak.  Because Zaporizhian Sich/Sech was in what is now Ukraine and populated more by Ruthenians than by Russians, do you feel that it would not be more appropriate to use the Little Russian/Ukrainian term for this word rather than the Russian translation?  Do you have an argument why the Russian word should be preserved?  warmly Faustian 13:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that sech is more appropriate in the same way Lvov is appropriate to use for articles such as Lvov-Sandomierz Offensive, whereas it is still suitable to refer to it as Lviv or Lwow in other cases. The question is does it really matter? What is this about, improving the article or sorting such a petty detail. Regards. --Kuban Cossack 22:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think it is a big deal; I noticed that you had taken the time to revert someone who had changed it to Sich by changing it back to Sech and was wondering about your reason for doing so.  The comparison to Lvov-Sandomierz Offensive is inappropriate.  The former is the term used in most books to refer to that offensive.  In contrast, most English-language books refer to Zaporozhian Sich rather than Sech.  A quick google search shows 3,000+ references to Zaporozhian Sich  and only about 400 to "Zaporozhian Sech." (indeed, the wiki article is titled Zaporozhian Sich).  Similarly, googlebooks shows over 200 books using Zaporozhian Sich and only 25 using Zaporozhian Sech .  So the appropriate name is Sich rather than Sech for wiki purposes.Faustian 20:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is suitable in the same way Belarusian articles about history refer to Vilnius as Vilnia, even though officially it was never known as such. --Kuban Cossack 22:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Sech means Urine in Old Russian (южн. зап.  - southwesten - according to Vladimir Dal). In modern Russian we have , e is pronounced as in fetch.--Vihljun 12:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sech or Sich?