Talk:History of the Cossacks/Archive 1

Archive 1

Old talk

This article will be increased. The Cossacks as well. But of course in Cossacks could be a short summarise of their history.User:Yeti 20:34, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Maybe this page should also talk about the importance of Cossacks to Ukrainian national identity. Along with their language, their historical memory of the relative self-rule of the Cossacks is an important component of their national construction. So in addition to the as yet unwritten section on Cossacks in Russia today, we should definitely talk about Ukraine. --Iceager 02:39, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The following piece removed from article.

===Origin myths=== The Cossacks allegedly began as a non-exclusive ethnic group which grew out of various Hun and Turko-Mongol equestrian pastoralists. From them derives the Kazakh term Cossack meaning "wanderer/adventurer" Though the Kazakhs mostly adopted Islam, Orthodox Christianity soon became the representative religion of the the Cossack "ethnicity". Similarly Slavic replaced Turkic as the necessary communication base. In legend, outlaws from all across Europe made their way to the steppes of the Ukraine to enjoy the freedom of cossack life.

Truth mixed with guesswork. Mikkalai 02:15, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Shouldn't this be merged and redirected into Cossack? - Arthur George Carrick 20:34, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• 'Yes!' It also needs sources adding. Ewjw 10:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Forget it. Big articles are being split, not merged. But there is a piece of wisdom, indeed: the contents of both must be carefully reshuffled. mikka (t) 01:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

If there's a lot of shuffling to do, it may be easier to merge, mix, and then extract the history article while leaving behind a summary of it. —Michael Z. 2005-12-6 02:06 Z

I don't think it should be merged. It was obviously split so that the main Cossack article wouldn't be oversized and bloated. Add sources and let it be.--Kross^Talk 04:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that merge is needed, just more expantion. Even ifwe merge them now, we would had to split them again eventually.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC) Cazacii- sunt tyragetii din antichitate, din marea familie a traco-getilor, care traiau pe teritoriul Daciei, pana in nordul Marii Negre. Tyragetii, adica getii de pe Tiras=Nistru . Ei locuiau intre Nistru si Don . Sunt cunoscuti in evul mediu, in vremea voievodatelor si al Moldovei, ca si cazacii- moldoveni, prieteni si ajutor al lui Stefan cel Mare si despre care , Sobieski, regele Poloniei, spunea, in urma unui razboi cu Stefan cel Mare: nu ma lupt cu cazacii, pentruca sunt moldoveni. Asta este originea lor, sunt getii din nordul Marii negre, nume generic de moldoveni, dar care traind aproape de slavi, limba lor s-a slavizat. Au fost vecnic independenti, nu se socotesc rusi, slavi, tatari sau alte etnii. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.80.17.0 (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

World War 2

Is this a joke? No sources, no bibliography, apears to be a cut and paste from an article. -- Kuban kazak 17:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

This article should not be merged with History of Cossacks, because History of Cossacks puts very little emphasis on Ukrainian Cossacks, who are really the most popular and most refferred to as "cossacks".

Well expand the article, and being a cossack I find that quite insulting considerign that a) Ukrainian cossacks don't exist anymore. b) All of the Zaporozhian cossacks migrated to the Kuban c)Being a successor of them, we call ourselves RUSSIAN. And in western press Cossacks are more often portraid as Russian right monarchist groups. -- Kuban kazak 01:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Being the son of a Kuban Cossack that fought with Vlasov during the war I heard a different side to the story. Unfortunately most of the members are gone now including a famous writer of Cossack history in Windsor, Ontario. We need more participation from the inheritors of the Cossack life to fill in the gaps that are missing. alexchem- sept 21, 2006

Origins of Cossacks --- Wasili Glaskow

Who is Wasili Glaskow? Does he work at any university or academic institution? Is he a professional historian. You can find only one pocketbook written by him on the Amazon.com. His "conclusions" about the origins of Cossacks sounds like fiction of Russian and Ukrainian nationalists. Can anybody tell me who is this scholar? --133.41.4.46 19:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

His books were published in 60s, so too old to be able to google anything. But they were not self-published but by Robert Speller & Sons, a reputable publishing house. Also, the book is abailable in libraries, including the Library of Congress, see LCCN 67-31332. I found him occastionally cited in modern books. Also note that his theory is purposefully cited as a non-mainstream one but with "Some authors..." preface which presents things properly. Theories exist but they are not universally accepted. If you want people to discuss things with you, log in to your account and use ONE and only one account. --Irpen 19:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

1)I have only one account. No relation to Oleksiy or whatever. Do not offense.

If you have "only one account". Care to use it. You don't even now. --Irpen 05:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

2) Library of Congress has many non-academic books. Its not an arguement. I just want to know is Wasili Glaskow an academic scholar or not? Did he have any other publications (even in Russian), presentations and so on.

I don't know. He was writing in 60s. However, there are references to him even in modern academic publications. --Irpen 05:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

3) Never heard about "Robert Speller & Sons, a reputable publishing house". Do you have any idea where I can get the information about it.

If you google around a little, you will see plenty of books, often cited too, published by RS&S but all of them in mid-century. Probably they are not around anymore. But from the books published at its time, this seems a pretty reputable publisher.

4)"Some authors" tells nothing. It is beter to call the thing by proper name: "non-mainstream author".

With this I agree. If this theory is indeed out of the mainstream, we can present it as such. I will check how exactly is he cited in other works.

5)I think the best way is to present theories about the Cossacks' origins by dividing them into two passeges: the mainstream (traditional Soviet and Western) and non-mainstream (stuff like "all steppe people were Cossacks' ancectors" etc.).

Any suggestions? 133.41.4.46 18:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)--Alex Kov 04:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

See above, --Irpen 05:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)