Talk:Khmelnytsky Uprising

message: Is this about the time when the (fictional) events described in Gogol's Taras Bulba took place? Perhaps a mention here would be good? - Guest  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.242.4 (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: @151.207.242.4 I'm pretty sure Gogol's text explicitly mentions Nalyvaiko. 85.128.6.226 (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taras Bulba? 

message: Saint Jan from Dukla, Lviv Bernardin monastery monk. Lived in the 15-th.cent.
77.109.12.174 07:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warbox needed 

message: In December 2005 the article was moved from "Chmielnicki Uprising" to "Khmelnytskyi Uprising". I have just received a request to move this to "Khmelnytsky Uprising". I decided to put this move for discussion, as we should use the Ch/K spelling variant which is most common in English (per WP:NC). This decision, as Kuban Kazak pointed at my talk, should also result the article about B.Ch/K himself, so we have a consistent naming. For now I did search results on Google Print with the following results:
a) Chmielnicki: 267 books
b) Khmelnytskyi: 23 books
c) Khmelnytsky: 87 books
It would appear that the correct move should be back to Chmielnicki Uprising. Any comments?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the big one is the Russian version Khmelnitsky 1590 books. So make your conclusions, but consistency has to be applied with the uprsing and the man himself. I would personally move right now the article to Khmelnysky Uprising and then continue the discussion/survey at Talk:Bohdan Khmelnytsky.--Kuban Cossack  16:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not however that this search is  in regards to general name, rather then specific person.
--Molobo 16:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Note the difference between hits and books. Khmelnitsky gives actually 271 books, so we now have one of those situations were two names have virtually the same popularity. Eh. I certainly agree we should use the same name for the man and for the uprising. I will move the article per your suggestion now for technical reasons (same name).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, that was the main reason of asking anyway. I think we should settle on this name, for one his legacy is certainly more relevant to Ukrainian history than Polish or Russian, and he was Ukrainian himself. So if you're happy then its a finished discussion...because right now - I am happy. --Kuban Cossack  11:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't see what would prevent us from moving it back and forth if we started, and it is probably better to leave the article at the spelling prefered by people who view him as a hero then those who see him as a villain. So I guess for now the move discussion is settled. There is however one more issue to address: how to call him in articles - i.e. if and when we are allowed to us 'Chmielnicki' in article's?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name - move proposed 

message: Robert Bideleux and Ian Jeffries, A History of Eastern Europe: Crisis and Change, Routledge (1998),  (hardcover),  (paperback), p. 138 has a somewhat different take on this. The following is verbatim:
In 1640 and 1644 Podolia and Volynia were ravaged by marauding Crimean Tatars, who made off with thousands of captives. These raids prompted King Wladyslaw IV to plan a major military campaign against the Crimean Tatars and their Ottoman overlords in alliance with Muscovy and the Dnieper Cossacks, who were promised substantial shares of the spoils. However the Sejm did not trust Wladyslaw IV and managed to obstruct his preparations in 1647–48, whereupon the already armed and mobilized Dnieper Cossacks ran amok under their unsavoury and opportunistic military leader Bogdan Chmilenicki (Khmelnitsky), who now made common cause with the Crimean Tatars against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. This Cossack rebellion, combined with several disastrously bungled attempts to bring the Cossacks to heel, ignited a massive explosion of peasant unrest in the Ukraine. At that time the Ukraine was home to a large number of runaway serfs, religious dissenters and peasants hostile to the soutward spread of Polish-Lithuanian landlordism, serfdom, and rack-renting Jewish ‘middlemen’. To a far greater extent than anyone could have foreseen in 1648, the Cossach--cum-peasant rebellion was to have deadly consequences. These abruptly terminated the 'golden age' of the Rzeczpospolita and heralded its long and calamitous decline (1648–1795). Numerous weaknesses and portents of decline can of course be detected before 1648, but until that year the Rzeczpospolita was to all appearances riding high.
Hope some of that is useful; it should certainly qualify as a citable, reliable source. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From Bideleux and Jeffries 

message: Polish wiki has quite a few more battle articles related to the uprising; it has however no equivalent to our red linked battle of Kiev (see campaingbox). Would anybody object to removal of this battle from the campaignbox? On a related note, the article should have a better coverage of the military side of the uprising (after all, it was the primary part).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections to the removal, but perhaps it would be better to leave it "red" and allow someone who comes across it in the future to write that specific battle. --Riurik(discuss) 20:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the point is that I don't recall any source I read mentioning battle of Kiev in this context. There were battles near Kiev but they are described in their respective articles named after smaller, but closer, settlements (ex. Korsun). History of Kiev mentions that In 1648 the Bohdan Khmelnytsky's cossacks triumphantly entered Kiev in the course of their uprising establishing the rule of their Cossack state in the city, but there is no mention of any military conflict in the city or its vicinity...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle of Kiev?

message: GalAssi, can you please quote the relevant section from Magocsi regarding "arendators" on page 147? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The landowners therefore turned to the Jews [...] for their expertise in leasing. The Jews obliged [...] 1617th centuries they had come to to dominate the arenda system and to manage a considerable portion of the aagricultural economy in Ukrainian lands...."Galassi 05:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am just wondering if "arendator" is the best term. But as I don't have any sources to the contrary, it can stay, and indeed it describes the phenomena quite well. Could you expand the arendator article, and throw a ref there too?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  06:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ADENDATOR (ORENDAR in Ukr., OTKUPSCHIK in Rus.) is THE term. There is nothing derogatory about it. Arenda was a common practice throughout Europe, and it made a lot of people rich.Galassi 10:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I never thought it could be derogatory; thanks for expanding the stub: for a common practice across centuries of Europan history, it is still a drop in the ocean of what we need... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: They must be mentioned because 1. they constituted a large part of the "jasyr", and 2. this contradicts neither Cossacks' image nor historical reality.Galassi (talk) 12:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Feel free to mention them elsewhere. In this particular passage they are superfluous. On your second point you are simply wrong Chestnut ah (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arendators 

message: You guys seem to be very much in favor of Mr. Bogdan Chmelnitsky, and you downplay the fact that the uprising involved a massacre. While the number of people killed grew in the retelling, the fact is that a large proportion of the Jewish population of affected areas died, and that numerous Poles were also slain. More attention needs to be given to the atrocities, especially since they were an important effect and part of the uprising. 204.52.215.13 (talk) 04:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the casualties section. Ostap 04:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonetheless, 20,000 killed out of 40,000 is still half the population. That's a major historical influence on one population.204.52.215.13 (talk) 04:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, maybe it wasn't so POV after all. 204.52.215.13 (talk) 06:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article is POV in favor of Khmelnetsky 

message: ;Ukrainian
While Ukrainian peasants and Cossacks were in many cases the perpetrators of massacres of Polish szlachta members and their collaborators, they also suffered horrendous loss of life resulting from Polish reprisals, Tatar raids, famine, plague, and general destruction due to war.
What kind of sentence is that? Are they proven to be the perpetrators in most of the cases? Is there like a statistical analysis of some sort? How come the szlachta that caused the horrendous losses to the civil population is not labeled as the perpetrators? From the article it seems like Poland suffered greatly from the crazy ukes. It's like wholy crap!!! And then next sentence mentioning some retribution. What is that all about? Retribution for what? For Polonizing, for censorship of Ukrainian culture, for causing series of dicriminations? What kind of retribution is mentioned? The view point of the article is convienly constructed to portray the barbarism of the Ukrainian society. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does the author of the article thinks he has the authority to claim who the perpatrator is? There are facts of crime committed, that is true. But are we to judge all of the Ukrainians at once and in general? Isn't that kind of discrimatory? Besides those crimes were committed on both of the fighting sides, to say the least. There was no Nurnberg's show-trial, thankfully. Besides, the Polish authorities also were not that great diplomatically. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this make any sense? 

message: The background of the article is poor. The local nobility was giving some rights, but not the full rights as for them to retain their status they had to become of Polish culture. Another reason for the uprising was on the relgious grounds, which only mentions couter-reformation, but that is way too general. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background 

message: The last paragraph of Khmelnytsky's role is a dubious analysis.
Khmelnytsky managed to overcome more than a century of mutual hostility between Cossacks and Tatars. He also turned the idea of Cossack as "protector of the Christian people" on its head by agreeing to pay the Khan of Crimea with jasyr or Christian captives (initially Polish PoWs, but later the whole tracts of land in Ukraine were assigned for Tartars to capture any unfortunate soul (including Jews who moved en masse into the palatinates of Ukraine after 1569) and lead them to be sold on the slave markets of Kaffa).
First of all Khmelnytsky was not really the Zaporizhian Cossack. Second of all allying with Tatars was in practice among szlachta of which he was. Third of all not only Jews were among the unfortunate soul. And even so, what purpose does the comment serve in the paragraph? Although not really, but in the way it is also anti-Semitic, because again Khmelnytsky is being accused of victimising the Jewish population. Mercilessly. Besides, why couldn't Jews be one of the mentioned unfortunate souls? And it is not like Khmelnytskyi laid out a welcome rag there saying that Jews are welcome. Another thing about the paragraph as it is sort of descrimitory towards the Crimean Khanate as well. Crimean Khanate was not that evil towards the Christian population. The history shows that it used to house a great deal of Armenian and Greek population, until the Soviets moved them away. The persecutions of Christian population in Crimean Khanate was arguably not much worse than in the Polish State. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: The word casualties is defined as either a 
1. Military or other serviceman who is killed
or
2. a person who is injured or killed in an accident
Note that it is either a military casualty, i.e. a serviceman killed, or a civilian killed in an accident.
With regard to Jewish murdered victims (and perhaps others as well) - "casualties" is totally inappropriate. Murdered victims would be a more precise sub-title.
I find the article overly obsessed with numbers and lacking a moral perspective. The acts perpetrated in the uprising are horrific and deserve censure and a morally critical position by all. Even if the uprising had merits (It sounds like it did although I am not one to judge), the manner in which it was perpetrated is simply murder of the most horrific nature (irrespective of whether 20,000, 50,000, 100,000 or more Jews were butchered).
I find the article distasteful, particularly the mistaken, misleading and morally bereft use of the word casualties.
Notice the whitewashing terminology: "Early twentieth-century estimates of Jewish deaths were based on..." 
"deaths", "casualties" - as if the article is dealing with pestilence or some other natural disaster. Even Ukranians who see this rebellion as a positive national struggle would do wisely in emphasizing the morally depraved acts that accompanied it. The sub-title "casualties" to depict murdered and violently butchered unarmed civilian populations including woman, infants and aged is totally mistaken.
Zvish (talk) 08:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  casualties is an incorrect and problematic term   

message: The Chmielnicki Uprising (Khmelnytsky, whatever) qualifies as a genocide, which is a " deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.[1]" - the genocide in this case being of Jews and Poles within reach of the rebels. A minimum of 13,000 Jews, and probably more, as pointed out above, met their grisly ends at the hands of the rebels. So why not call the "massacre" and "uprising" what it was - a genocide?  —  Rickyrab | Talk 05:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All the Reliable Sources apparently disagree, and that includes Jewish scholarly sources. --Galassi (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:   —  Rickyrab | Talk 17:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Genocide

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Ukrainian Cossack state Zaporizhian Host 1649 1653.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 23:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: B-class review

message: "was a Cossack rebellion in Ukraine between the years 1648–1657 which turned into a Ukrainian war of liberation from Poland."
Not in Ukrainie but within the borders of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, as Ukraine  didn't even exist back then, there was no such thing as "Ukrainian war of liberation from Poland" as neither Ukraine nor Poland were around back then. All subjects in this conflict were citizens of the PLC so it was more of a civil war than some mythical war between Ukrainians and Poles. Compatible to the American Civil War. There were no nations at that time, nations are fairly modern concept in history. For example, Khmelnytsky was of the "Polish stock" while Wisniowecki of Ruthenian yet they both fought on the opposite sides. Cossak rebellions in the PLC were rebellions of some part of the lower class within the PLC against the central authority, it had nothing to do with the notions of nation, patriotism etc. as we know them today. Seems like this article was written / edited by some modern day nationalist.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.57.129 (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical nonsence 

message: This whole article is historically inaccurate and filled with anachronisms. It is written from a point of view of one-sided Ukraine nationalist propaganda and is self-contradictory when regarding historical facts.
1. Khmelnytsky is repeatedly called a noble throughout the article. This however is a controversy rather than a fact. As far as I know the only proof of his supposed nobility was his own ambiguous statement. This is important as one of the reasons behind Uprising was a social status of Cossacks. From the legal point they were not citizens (szlachta), they did not share the rights. The way the Polish magnates did with Khmelnytsky before the Uprising clearly shows that by the contemporary he was not (!) considered noble. However Cossacs did perform the utmost important military duties that were traditionally assigned to nobility (szlachta) even though the nobility would avoid it at the time. Hence the Cossacks rightfully demanded better treatment and perhaps more rights than common peasant(czerń). However acknowledging the rights of the Cossacks was considered unacceptable by Ruthuenian-Lithuanian ruling class in Ukraine, who - much unlike Khmelnytsky - were considered szlachta and had full rights. The reason lies in the very foundation of Commonwealth - a transfer of Ukraine to the Crown and adoption of Lithuanian and Rutheanian nobility. This is one of the reasons for the Uprising, which is not crucial but important.
2. Quotation: "This Szlachta, along with the actions of the upper-class Polish Magnates, oppressed the lower-class Ruthenians, with the introduction of Counter-Reformation missionary practices, and the use of Jewish arendators to manage their estates." Sickening lie. First of all the wiki should not be used to spread antisemitism. This alone is outrageous.
2. Another quotation form the article: (...)his transformation into a revolutionary, it was his ambition to become the ruler of a Ruthenian nation that expanded the uprising from a simple rebellion into a national movement (about Khmelnytsky). The national movements in Ukraine begun some two centuries later and used Uprising as their founding myth. This is a clear anachronism. There was never a Ruthenian nation only Ruthenian peoples. Many Ruthenians were the privileged class (szlachta, magnateria) in Commonwealth. One fine example is Khmelnytsky's nemesis Jarema Wiśniowiecki. The uprising was not about nationality because ethinicity was not a factor in Commonwealth, which was multiethnic. Also Khmelnytsky was in no position to become independent, let alone the ruler of all Ruthenians (raging nonsense!), which is clearly proven by the fact that he constantly turned to greater powers for aid and protection: the Commonwealth, the Crimean Tatars (and by extension the Ottoman Empire), and finally to the Moscow.
3. The article neglects the most important reason behind the Uprising. It is the reason why the Uprising was supported by peasantry (czerń). The animosity was fueled by the religious conflict. The ruling class was mostly Catholic while the Cossacks and peasants were mostly Orthodox. There were events of religious cleansings during the uprising. Most Cossacks joined the Uprising hoping for a  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.71.106.7 (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is - what were the Jews doing in Ukraine according to you?Xx236 (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:   Are you claiming all Jews were arendators?  No petty merchants, craftmen, etc, as in most other eastern european Jewish communities? Ricardianman (talk) 21:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

text: @Xx236 The sentiment behind this question is outrageous and unbecoming of any editor of this Wikipedia. 85.128.6.226 (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historically inaccurate. 

message: Ukrainian history goes back to 1917.  How can the goal of this rebellion be to create a Ukrainian Free State when the idea of Ukraine and Free State would not come into existence for centuries?  This argument is extremely tortured.  This article misstates facts to create some kind of Ukrainian foundation myth... about as believable as Romulus and Remes being suckled by a wolf.  The argument that the goal of the Uprising was to create a Ukrainian Free State is ridiculous... and presenting the entire article in this context even more so. 73.165.45.135 (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: in the history of Ukraine's relationship with Poland and Russia - I support the above comment.Xx236 (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ukrainian Free State?  What? 

message: *
*J. Kaczmarczyk, Bohdan Chmielnicki
Xx236 (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I believe  that szlachta is a much more precise description. His family was formally equal aristoracy but obviously wasn't.Xx236 (talk) 06:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Born to a ''noble'' family 

message: * 
:Taras Shevchenko is very important for Ukraine. Xx236 (talk) 06:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Excavated Mound by [[Taras Shevchenko]] 

message: The two pages are strictly connected.Xx236 (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bohdan Khmelnytsky]] 

message: All that there is on the Jews here is a long discussion on the precise number of deaths, with an attempt to debunk older casualty figures.  None on the experiences of the Jews being attacked, or the impact on Jewish life of losing (apparently) half the Jewish population of the region - presumably a much higher proportion in many localities.  This in an article with great detail on many other matters.   
Ricardianman (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish perspective not well covered? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Khmelnytsky Uprising. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070629160331/http://www.studiajudaica.pl/sj04musz.pdf to http://www.studiajudaica.pl/sj04musz.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130217222629/http://homepage.interaccess.com/~netpol/POLISH/historia/MAPY/1618.jpg to http://homepage.interaccess.com/%7Enetpol/POLISH/historia/MAPY/1618.jpg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130217222634/http://homepage.interaccess.com/~netpol/POLISH/historia/MAPY/1717.jpg to http://homepage.interaccess.com/%7Enetpol/POLISH/historia/MAPY/1717.jpg
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is this a POV fork? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The war and the war crimes are somewhat different things. Thus, the Batoh massacre and Cossack riots articles, though I agree the latter has a pretty poor name. Pharos (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cossack riots]] 

message: Right now it goes from "Beginning" right into "Aftermath".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.173.104.233 (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Beginning" needs to be renamed into anything more proper 

message: Whatever the existing problems with this page, not least those identified in previous entries above, the Hamas attack of 7 October 2023 has prompted many comparisons with and references to "the Khmelnytsky Uprising," "Khmelnytsky," and so forth. In particular, these comparisons point to the horrific nature of the physical and psychological devastation wrought on the 17th century Jewish population as a result of the attacks that are part of the Khmelnytsky Uprising's history and legacy for Jews since then. 
I won't be the only one coming to this page wanting to understand the comparison, only to find this page sorely lacking in sufficient information to consider the appropriateness and/or the power of the comparison. The numbers, accurate or otherwise, nor the reference to the proxy role of Jews as arendators, are not sufficient to explain the psychological impact being associated with each event.
See, e.g., "the Cossacks ... created spectacles of horror that seared themselves into the collective memory of the victims" (Beckerman,Gal, “Two Jewish Writers, a Bottle of Whiskey, and a Post-October 7 Reality,” The Atlantic, 14 January 2024, https://www.theatlantic.com/books/archive/2024/01/joshua-cohen-ruby-namdar-israel-october-7/677126/?utm_campaign=atlantic-daily-newsletter&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20240115&utm_term=The+Atlantic+Daily.) The preceding comparison in this publication is with the theatricality of Mongol warfare designed to terrorize and be remembered as a warning and lasting intimidation. 
What made "Khmelnytsky" a symbol of such horror that it has not been and should not be forgotten? Tarkiwi25 (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  In light of recent history