Talk:Szlachta/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"Anti-Polish" Khmelnytsky Uprising (With Cleaner Formatting and Flow to Make Readable and Easier to Follow)

NOTE: Opposing Editor is referring to the Khmelnytsky Uprising (1648-57), a mass movement against the Citizens of Poland (the Polish nobility aka szlachta) known as the Cossack-Polish War

OPPOSING EDITOR'S RESPONSE

The reference sourced specifically uses the words "anti-Polish" and "anti-noble" (szlachta = Citizen of Poland) to describe the Cossack-Polish War known as the Khmelnytsky Uprising. See WP:PROVEIT. The deletion of "anti-Polish" is a suppression of that referenced viewpoint. The objection to the deletion concerns issues of neutrality, plus accuracy, to say nothing of logic.

Quoting Ukrainian historian Orest Subtelny, University of Toronto, on the Khmelnytsky Uprising known as the Cossack-Polish War,

"Several Cossack detachments advanced west into territories settled mostly by Poles or Belarusians, and anti-noble and anti-Polish revolts also broke out there. ... Zhdanovych tried to hold the anti-Polish front but did not succeed." - https://web.archive.org/web/20180828200830/http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CC%5CO%5CCossack6PolishWar.htm - Exxess (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Quoting opposing editor:

"So overall adding 'anti-Polish' part is simply incorrect and unnecessary."

WP:PROVEIT. Find a reference saying the the Cossack-Polish War known as the Khmelnytsky Uprising was pro-Polish and/or a reference stating, "saying anti-Polish is incorrect and unnecessary." Both viewpoints can be presented in the Szlachta article. - Exxess (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Please stop inverting my words. I'm proposing to remove "Anti-Polish", not add "pro-Polish" statement. And the reasons for that stated above. Please do take your time and actually read, not ignore and repeat yourself. Korwinski (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Why? The reference uses the specific words "anti-Polish" in regards to the Khmelnytsky Uprising. See WP:PROVEIT. Why suppress that viewpoint? Readers are entitled to it. What is the logic? If the Khmelnytsky Uprising is not anti-Polish, it must be neutral-Polish or pro-Polish, which is strange (to say the least) for an uprising known as the Cossack-Polish War. - Exxess (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I've shown with sources actually dealing with szlachta self-identification that Polish meant szlachta at the time, and szlachta self-identified at the time as a part of Polish political nation. Not as if in Polish meaning Polish people. I've shown with sources that a lot of rebels that fought against Magnates etc were szlachta themselves. You want to continue using WP:PROVEIT? Prrovide sources that szlachta fighting on Cossack side had different szlachta self-identification than szlachta fighting on the other side, and that rebellions themselves Ukrainian.Korwinski (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

And BTW.

...w miarę trwania wojny domowej prowadzonej przez Chmielnickiego zweryfikował swoje poglądy wobec Kozaków na ich niekorzyść. 1

RZECZPOSPOLITA W OBLICZU WOJNY DOMOWEJ 1648-1649 R. ZABIEGI DYPLOMATYCZNE, PRZYGOTOWANIA WOJSKOWE 1

I can continue. But as you can see it was Civil war. Korwinski (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

In the context of the article, szlachta means Citizen of Poland, and Polish people meant the szlachta. Quoting Bishop of Poznań, Wawrzyniec Goślicki, herbu Grzymała (between 1530 and 1540 - 1607):

"The kingdome of Polonia doth also consist of the said three sortes, that is, the king, nobility and people. But it is to be noted, that this word people includeth only knights and gentlemen. ... The gentlemen of Polonia doe represent the popular state, for in them consisteth a great part of the government, and they are as a Seminarie from whence Councellors and Kinges are taken." (See Szlachta article).

BUT, that is a digression. A reference (WP:PROVEIT) was deleted that uses the words "anti-Polish" and "anti-noble". The opposing editor wants "anti-Polish" to not appear in front of the Khmelnytsky Uprising aka the Cossack-Polish war because, quoting the opposing editor, "saying anti-Polish is incorrect and unnecessary.", so (WP:PROVEIT). Find something such as the Encyclopedia Britannica that states, "saying anti-Polish is incorrect and unnecessary" in regards to the Khmelnytsky Uprising. See (WP:PROVEIT). - Exxess (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

In the context of the article, szlachta means Citizen of Poland

There was no single "Poland" starting from Union of Lublin and up until Constitution of 3 May. Citizenship did not exist yet. People were residents and subjects of the Crown.

Polish people meant the szlachta

Yes, we proved that with sources above. But 1) it is still misleading, as even this statement is located way deep in this article. 2) I still do not see any sources that szlachta that joined Cossacks and szlachta fighting for the Crown had different self-identification. Nor do I see any sources stating that they actually called themselves Ukrainian. Korwinski (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The suggestion is put the "anti-Polish" references (WP:PROVEIT) to the Khmelnytsky Uprising in the article, then put the opposing view, too - "saying anti-Polish is incorrect and unnecessary." with a reference (WP:PROVEIT) to the Uprising making the case that "saying anti-Polish is incorrect and unnecessary." Give readers both viewpoints. - Exxess (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Quoting opposing editor, "Citizenship did not exist yet. People were residents and subjects of the Crown." WP:PROVEIT. See Roman Empire (Roman citizenship) and ancient Greece regarding Citizenship.

Cossacks and peasants without a Polish coat of arms were not szlachta, they were not Citizens of Poland, they were not Polish people (Bishop of Poznań, Wawrzyniec Goślicki - "But it is to be noted, that this word people includeth only knights and gentlemen."), so find a reference stating "saying anti-Polish is incorrect and unnecessary." WP:PROVEIT in regards to the Khmelnytsky Uprising known as the Cossack-Polish War where "saying anti-Polish is incorrect and unnecessary."

Adding from the Encyclopedia Britannica, a reference supporting describing the Khmelnytsky Uprising as anti-Polish:

"... Cossack resentment of Polish authority finally coalesced and came to a head in 1648. Beginning with a seemingly typical Cossack revolt, under the leadership of Bohdan Khmelnytsky, Ukraine was quickly engulfed in an unprecedented war and revolution. ..." - "The Cossacks: The Khmelnytsky insurrection" - Exxess (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

See Roman Empire (Roman citizenship) and ancient Greece regarding Citizenship.

Lol. Are you serious?

Cossacks and peasants without a Polish coat of arms where not szlachta, they were not Citizens of Poland, they were not Polish people

Sources were already provided. Rebels were socially divided. And a lot of them were szlachta, who considered themselves szlachta. Do try to read my answers above. Its getting tiring to repeat myself.

so find a reference stating "saying anti-Polish is incorrect and unnecessary.

Nice try. You're trying to add information to the article, not me. And all required references were already stated above. And finally use WP:PROVEIT to find sources that szlachta that joined Cossacks and szlachta fighting for the Crown had different self-identification, and that they called themselves Ukrainian. Also I was writing about szlachta in Zaporozhian Host, not about ordinary Cossacks or Peasants that joined uprising. Stop inverting my words.

I do not see any "Anti-Polish" in that quote. And as we already established above Polish meant szlachta. And it was fighting on both sides. Korwinski (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Also I do not see any arguments against second part of your edits regarding szlachta in Zaporozhian Host. If I won't hear any soon, I will have to revert that part. Korwinski (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The information added was supported with references (WP:PROVEIT), which is the main point of Wikipedia - secondary sources of information in support of a viewpoint. Not only did a reference support the information, it used the exact words "anti-Polish." You deleted the reference on the premise "saying anti-Polish is incorrect and unnecessary." without any secondary sources supporting that proposition, meaning your authority alone is sufficient. Very Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and Wikipedia:Be bold, yet not very neutral, but the end result is suppression of a secondary source of information, a denial of a viewpoint opposed to your peculiar conclusions ("saying anti-Polish is incorrect and unnecessary."), meaning your opinion is the world does not need to be reading the viewpoint of that secondary source of information. It's irrelevant whether you or I like the words or viewpoint "anti-Polish". It's irrelevant whether you or I think the viewpoint is wrong. A secondary source of information explicates on that viewpoint, and so should be presented. Read WP:PROVEIT. - Exxess (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Members of an autonomous state, the Cossack Hetmanate, whose autonomy Poland recognized after the Cossack-Polish War (Khmelnytsky Uprising), could not be szlachta, the People of Poland, by definition. The Cossack Hetmanate made alliances and treaties with the enemies of Poland (Russia and Sweden), and the King of Sweden, an enemy of Poland, signed the Hetmanate's constitution, so the new nobility of the Cossack Hetmanate could not also be the People of Poland, the szlachta, by definition. If the new nobility of the Cossack Hetmanate were szlachta, the People of Poland, then they would be traitors, for making alliances with Poland's enemies, but the Hetmanate was an autonomous state. That means sovereign. The new nobility of the Hetmanate had a different allegiance than the szlachta, the People of Poland. Loosely using the word "szlachta" (People of Poland) for the Cossack Hetmanate, is contradictory, and it's being brought to attention with the way the article stands now.

What you are trying to propose is like saying after the anti-English American Revolutionary War, the Citizens of the united states of America were part of the English nobility and subject to the King of England - ludicrous and contradictory. - Exxess (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

What needs to happen is other editors need to get involved to see if your deletion of "anti-Polish" has any merit. The specific words "anti-Polish" before Khmelnytsky Uprising appear in a reference (WP:PROVEIT), but you're deleting "anti-Polish" and the reference, calling the new nobility of a new, opposing autonomous state, birthed out of the Cossack-Polish War, the Cossack Hetmanate, the szlachta, when for centuries szlachta meant the People of Poland with an allegiance to Poland. The Cossack Hetmanate was autonomous, which means an allegiance to the Hetmanate, not Poland. - Exxess (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Or, another suggestion - leave "anti-Polish" before Khmelnytsky Uprising because a reference uses the specific words "anti-Polish," then explain the complications with the Cossack Hetmanate having former members of the People of Poland (szlachta) become the new nobility of the Cossack Hetmanate, like English noblemen in the American colonies became Citizens of the united states of America after the anti-English American Revolutionary War because the American subjects of the King did not like the institution of the English monarchy (anti-English). The English nobility continued to speak English, as did the Citizens of the united states of America, but that did not make those Citizens English noblemen. - Exxess (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, anyone in the szlachta picture gallery in the article should have a Polish coat of arms, which demonstrates at some point in time, their ancestors were one of the People of Poland, the szlachta. It's probably not a good idea to be equating "szlachta" loosely with nobility, or else there would need to be Russian, Hungarian, German, and English nobility in the "szlachta/noble" picture gallery. Being a member of the Ukrainian nobility is not enough. - Exxess (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

And again. This article is called Szlachta. Not Szlachta (Poland). Not Szlachta (Bohemia), not Szlachta (Lithuania). And Poland was constituent part of PLC. It was not PLC itself. And by law it became Poland only after Constitution of 3 May was signed, but days of independence of PLC were over anyway. How many times should we repeat that? Szlachta was recognised legal class in PLC, some of them served as officers and cossacks among Registered Cossacks, others were lived and were part of Zaporozhian Hosts. Petro Konashevych-Sahaidachny or Ivan Sulyma or their founding father Prince Dmytro Vyshnevetsky. After Civil War (also known as Khmelnytsky Uprising) part of szlachta of PLC with Cossacks and peasants created autonomy, and then state, and then another autonomy officially known as Zaporozhian Host. In that autonomy/state/autonomy legal system was based on Statutes of Lithuania, which determines rights and privileges of the szlachta. Szlachta status was recognised in the state, it was recognised by Tsar. Szlachta (also known as General Starshyna) was rulling class there. By the end of XVIII century most of that szlachta became part of the dvorianstvo. Just like szlachta on the Right-bank. The reason to mention and keep this szlachta in the same article with szlachta from PLC is because their origins etc were the same ones. Their history after rebellion is different, but history before that, culture, status etc remained the same. Should we exclude from szlachta Mykhailo Khanenko who received szlachta status in 1661 from King John II Casimir of Poland? Did he lose that when he moved? Did someone take it from him? Or Petro Doroshenko, who received nobility the same year? Were they granted any other szlachta title than szlachta who supported the crown? They were not new nobility of a new state, but nobility of PLC that joined Cossacks and became their ruling class, when they formed state/autonomy Zaporozhian Host. Any questions? WP:PROVEIT. Please provide any source that states that szlachta from Zaporozhian Host was not recognised as szlachta by King or Sejm. Or that to be szlachta you had to be specifically be subject of the crown of PLC. Radziwills Princely title was Reichsfürst. Were they any less Princely house of PLC compared to Czartoryski or Lubomirski? Or to any other princely family in Holy Roman Empire, considering that they almost never lived there. I think not. Actually I'm all ears to hear how Mazeppa lost his szlachta title when he moved and became Hetman of Zaporozhian Host. And how he managed to be received by King Leszczyński considering that he was a "sworn enemy", and worse - not szlachta.

Sure, you can call for any editors. I've provided all required sources that such statement is misleading. Especially considering that you did not provide any sources that states that szlachta fighting on Cossack side had any different identification than the ones fighting for the Crown. Or that they did not belong to Polish political nation of the PLC. In my opinion we should leave either just "Following Khmelnytsky's Uprising" or change to "Following the Civil War".

PS I see no point in comparing with America, since they did not recognise nobility from the very beginning.

Incidentally, anyone in the szlachta picture gallery in the article should have a Polish coat of arms

Herbarz Polski od Średniowiecza do XX wieku (Polish Armorials from the Middle Ages to the 20th century) by Tadeusz Gajl at your disposal. Korwinski (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The verbiage above does not change the fact "anti-Polish" in regards to the Khmelnytsky Uprising is supported by a secondary source (WP:PROVEIT) using the specific words "anti-Polish". The verbiage above does not change the fact the assertion "saying anti-Polish is incorrect and unnecessary." appears in no secondary source as yet presented. It's a very peculiar view of the Cossack-Polish War aka Khmelnytsky Uprising. - Exxess (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

But it is misleading and I specified why. Korwinski (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

So? WP:PROVEIT. A secondary source says "anti-Polish". Not being able to write "anti-Polish" for the forces opposing the People of Poland, the szlachta, with an allegiance to Poland, not Khmelnytsky, is very peculiar. - Exxess (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

If "anti-Polish" is removed from Khmelnytsky Uprising, your deletion will be reverted because there is a source using the specific words "anti-Polish." The argument can focus on that, the validity of deleting a sourced reference supporting "anti-Polish" (Khmelnytsky Uprising). - Exxess (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

As to the verbiage above, an argument can be made, that in the strict sense, the new nobility of the Cossack Hetmanate were anti-Polish because of a Cossack-Polish War that established their autonomous state, they had no allegiance to Poland, their allegiance was to the Hetmanate, the new nobility made alliances with the enemies of the People of Poland, the szlachta, and the new nobility's alliances with the enemies of the People of Poland, the szlachta, led to the decline and eventual partitions of Poland. If that qualifies as one of the People of Poland (szlachta), it means traitors. As the secondary source states, "anti-Polish." It's not misleading. It's precise. Ivan Vyhovsky, herbu Abdank was executed as a traitor. - Exxess (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Leaving out "anti-Polish" and deleting a reference with the words "anti-Polish" is misleading in the extreme. - Exxess (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

"anti-Polish" is not my opinion. It's coming from a secondary source, and a reputable one, too - the University of Toronto. - Exxess (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Before deleting, canvas the thoughts of other editors, and build a consensus for deleting, or Wikipedia:Be bold and delete. The deletion will be countered with Wikipedia:Be bold and reverted. Such a reversion would be justified. See WP:PROVEIT. In my opinion, as of the moment WP:PROVEIT does not support deleting "anti-Polish". Giving due weight to the "anti-Polish" characterization the secondary source presents (Wikipedia:Verifiability) is informative. - Exxess (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The Cossack-Hetmanate needs to be given its due weight, which is why it's there. It seems people were not aware its leadership and nobility had Polish coats of arms and szlachta ancestry. - Exxess (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

If you want to delete, go for it. Will to try to build consensus after that... - Exxess (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

If you want to delete, go ahead. Do not agree with deletion of "anti-Polish," but will not start edit war... Will try to build consensus... Talk page solidified issues around Cossack-Hetmanate. - Exxess (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, did not have enough time to return to our discussion.

You do understand that pointing WP:PROVEIT every time and at the same time completely ignoring my requests for the very same WP:PROVEIT regarding your statements does not look good? University of Toronto? So? My sources include Vice president of Polish academy of Sciences Janusz Tazbir, who clearly states that we should not be mistake "Polish" back then and "Polish" today. And that if people Janusz Radziwill call himself and his brother Litwins, so they must be Litwins. Not Poles. Yet you continue to provide sources that use modern terminology. About Khmelnytsky Uprising. In general. Including all rebels, not just szlachta. While we're talking about specifically about szlachta that joined Uprising or moved to Zaporozhian Host. Do you not see the difference? Where're the sources that state that szlachta in that Uprising had Ukrainian self-identity, and did not have the same identity as szlachta that supported the Crown? And since you do not want to, or cannot provide such sources, Subtelny and other references that you provided simply cannot be credible to resolve this particular issue. Simply because 1) they use modern terminology, which is misleading in our case 2) they're talking about rebels in Uprising in general, not about szlachta in particular.

It is very interesting how you talk about nationalism on my side, yet you're do completely the same on your side. "Poland", "People of Poland" etc, while completely ignoring the fact that PLC was not called Poland, and most of the population of that state did not identify as Polish. Its like saying England instead of UK. Or calling Scottish or Welsh people English.

new nobility of the Cossack Hetmanate were anti-Polish

WP:PROVEIT. Sources that recognise szlachta of PLC that joined Uprising or later moved to ZH as new, and that this szlachta (not rebels in general. We're talking specifically about szlachta here) was "Anti-Polish".

enemies of the People of Poland [...] If that qualifies as one of the People of Poland (szlachta), it means traitors

This is simply absurd and anti-historical. You mentioned Sweden. But King Stanisław Leszczyński for example was pro-Swedish. And his ally included Hetman Pylyp Orlyk, whose father Stefan Orlyk was Catholic and died in Battle of Khotyn (1673) (so even while there're no sources regarding that part of his life we can say pretty sure that he did not fight for the rebels). And he himself never fought against PLC. When he moved there and became Hetman, did he lose his szlachta title and became a traitor too? How is his szlachta title (into which he was born and which obviously was recognised) any different from King Leszczyński’s? Btw. Leszczyński later was forced out of the country. When he left and became Duke of Lorraine, did he stop belonging to szlachta? Or did his predecessor or successor of Wetton family lose their title (Elector of Saxony) when they moved to PLC to be kings? I don’t think so.

Overall i will have to remove you statements because they are simply not true:

With sources we proved that “Polish” name was used by both originally Polish szlachta, and Lithuanian-Ruthenian nobility when they joined szlachta. Still they kept their original identity and language (while using Polish as well, until became dominant by the end of XVII century), and recognised their Lithuanian/Ruthenian identity while using Polish idiom to describe their belonging to Polish political nation meaning nothing else but szlachta political nation

“Anti-Polish” statements in all provided sources are describing Khmelnytsky uprising overall. Together with with these sources stating “Ukrainian”, “Belorussian” we can see that they are using modern terminology, which makes them invalid to solve this case. And with sections in the article like Polish szlachta (as in szlachta of Kingdom of Poland before Union of Lublin, which still not correct as it had large number of Ruthenian szlachta that kept both faith and language), it is simply confusing for the readers. They would need to go way deep to find that quote that describes three social classes of PLC. And I don’t think it would still be enough, as there obviously identity and name section that needs to be added. Even by looking at the agreement of “Treaty of Zboriv” we would see that: 1) Cossacks were fighting for rights of Cossacks to be added to the Registry and for right of Orthodox szlachta; 2) Roman Catholics (including Jesuits), Jews and GREEK CATHOLICS (at the time called as Uniates, and religion of most Rusyns and Litwins by XVIII century, but obviously not Poles) were banned from lands of Zaporozhian Host. And thats pretty much all they were fighting for. Later it got messier, but still the same requests in all agreements.

Orthodox (and those who converted to Orthodox) szlachta played major role in Cossack uprising. Most of the officers including Hetmans were szlachta. There’s no evidence saying that they had any different identity from their szlachta rivals, but faith and language. Art, heraldy, clothing, works of literature, even Polish language (for some time; Hetman Orlyk’s diaries, that are currently kept at archives of MFA of France, for example are written in Polish) and sources provided above show us that Sarmatian ideology and its culture were well preserved even after Pereyaslav Treaty.

Szlachta was obviously not “new”, it was the very same one. They were not nobilitated by anyone else (like Tsar or Hospodar of Moldavia). Some of them were nobilitated during Civil war by Sejm and King, but overall it was predominantly the very same szlachta of PLC that they were fighting against (except for faith and language). You mention Wyhowski herbu Abdank. But 5 sons of Ovruch Boyar Luka received nobilitation and started to call themselves Wyhowski after receiving royal decree back in 1546 1. Who nobilitated them again after Khmelnytsky Uprising so that they became “new”?

To summon up today-tomorrow I will have to rewrite paragraph, as its 1) misleading 2) its facts and statements are simply incorrect. 3) In case there would be no new sources, I will have to remove “Anti-Polish” part. Korwinski (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Removed opposing editor's rewritten paragraph - too much original research (see Wikipedia:NOR), too much synthesis (Wikipedia:SYNTH), and a broadening and very loose definition of szlachta, as if szlachta was synonymous with nobility in general. The new nobility of the Cossack state was called "starshyna," according to the sources. It approximated the Polish nobility (szlachta) in its privileges. Opposing editor removes sources that highlight the distinctions between the szlachta and the new nobility called the starshyna. The starshyna had some members with szlachta ancestry demonstrated in a Polish coat of arms. Strictly speaking, starshyna were not szlachta because starshyna were members of another sovereign state, the Cossack Hetmanate, creation of said Hetmanate leading to decline of Polish state. Cossack Hetmanate aligned itself with enemies of Polish state. Also, opposing editor removed sourced material because opposing editor does not personally like what source says ("anti-Polish"). The Batih massacre was anti-Polish - 3,500 szlachta butchered in two days of disembowelment and beheading. Opposing editor removed that.

Removing and starting another edit war after you explicitly stated that you won't start it is a sign of very bad faith and as for me it looks like a reason to request for a block for you to edit this article.

too much original research [...] too much synthesis

State exact parts which require another/better sources.

if szlachta was synonymous with nobility in general

You're misinterpreting my words and making stuff up. Not nice.

The new nobility of the Cossack state was called "starshyna," according to the sources.

It was not. Starshyna were called top-ranking officers only. Magnates for example are the best known of the szlachta. It does not make then the only szlachta.

It approximated the Polish nobility (szlachta) in its privileges.

Obviously. Because they were szlachta. And they szlachta self-identification. And they fought for these rights.

Opposing editor removes sources that highlight the distinctions between the szlachta and the new nobility called the starshyna.

Again a lie. You're stating some original research about szlachta. Obviously it should be removed until respectable sources regarding szlachta (not Cossacks, peasants, clergy etc) will be provided.

starshyna were not szlachta because starshyna were members of another sovereign state

Original reasearch.

leading to decline of Polish state.

No such country at the time.

Cossack Hetmanate aligned itself with enemies of Polish state

King Stanisław Leszczyński aligned with swedes. So what? Sources that state that such thing meant that such persons are not szlachta anymore?

Also, opposing editor removed sourced material because opposing editor does not personally like what source says ("anti-Polish")

A lie. We established that "Polish" at the time meant szlachta. And szlachta fighting on the other side was not "anti-szlachta". Also I changed it to "Civil war", which cannot be "Anti-anything" to just stop this nonsense, yet you removed it.

The Batih massacre was anti-Polish - 3,500 szlachta butchered in two days of disembowelment and beheading.

Sources that state that majority of the the ones who killed them were szlachta? Also one of the two versions state that Khmelnytsky himself ordered them to be executed. It was so "anti-polish" and so related to this article that sejm granted his son Yurii Khmelnytsky nobility in 1659. Which was so "new" and non-related to the one in PLC as per your statements. I just don't see point in adding it here. In Khmelnytsky Uprising article it would be no problem. Massacres were common from both sides. But we're editing introduction to Szlachta article here. No point in adding non-related statements. And please, stop with original research/making stuff up. Everybody can see this discussion with no related sources provided by you. And you misinterpreting my words. I'm returning my edits. Any revert without proper sources that concern the article and szlachta (not Cossacks, or clergy or peasants) and I will make a request for banning you from editing this article for starting edit wars. Korwinski (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Opposing editor - consider translating your sources into English. This is an English Wikipedia.

1) There's no such rule. 2) This article is about Polish-Ukrainian-Belorussian-Lithuanian history. Obviously most of the sources would be in these languages. Korwinski (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Opposing editor is placing persons in the picture gallery with no Polish coat of arms, which means they are not szlachta. - Exxess (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

As to this editor's actions, the deletion of "anti-Polish", which was referenced (WP:PROVEIT), was Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and Wikipedia:Be bold, so this editor responded with Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and Wikipedia:Be bold - great, provocative fun in the staid and staunch lands of Wikipedia with admins issuing marching orders and blocks, but this editor digresses. - Exxess (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: Opposing editor, you've written a new article in the talk section. Please re-format. Reference section you created is making for strange formatting, making your references look like part of my response. They are not. - Exxess (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: Opposing editor reformatted. Thanks. - Exxess (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Request for Third Opinion - "Anti-Polish" Khmelnytsky Uprising

Source uses phrase "anti-Polish" (Cossack-Polish War aka Khmelnytsky Uprising). Opposing editor says source is wrong, so deletes "anti-Polish" and reference. - Exxess (talk) 01:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

---

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:

This discussion is all over the place, but...I see no problem with leaving "anti-Polish" in the article, especially because that term is indeed backed up by the source. It seems that the opposing editor (it's hard to tell who's on which side anymore)'s argument falls under WP:SYN. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 19:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Please note that:

1) This artice is about szlachta. Not Cossacks overall. Not Ruthenian peasants. But szlachta. As established above "Polish" idiom at the time was only used by szlachta of all ethnicities of PLC to describe their belonging to Polish political nation - szlachta political system. It did not mean that they took Polish identity. Sources provided above clearly state that. I especially added sources that deal with self-identification of szlachta in XVI-XVII century.

2) Sources provided by opponent: a) use modern terminology ("Ukrainian", "Belorussian" etc), b) describe Uprising overall and do not reflect situation on the matter - szlachta that joined Uprising alongside with Cossacks and peasants. And since we're talking specifically about szlachta statement "Anti-Polish" would be absurd. As it is synonym to "Anti-szlachta" at the time. And szlachta that joined rebellion did not give up their szlachta rights, and fought and negotiated about them in every agreement.

3) Opponent did not provide any sources that show that szlachta that joined rebellion and szlachta that fought in Royal and Lithuanian army changed their belonging to any different self-identification. Sarmatian culture and self-identification remained. Szlachta rights were a separate and vital part of all agreements with Diet and Tsar.

Overall:

1) User did not provide any requested sources. None.

2) User completely ignores all the sources I've provided.

3) As he was unable to provide any requested sources, he stated (for second time):

If you want to delete, go ahead. Do not agree with deletion of "anti-Polish," but will not start edit war... Will try to build consensus... Talk page solidified issues around Cossack-Hetmanate.

And when I've rewritten paragraph to meet all the requirements, user reverted edits. Again. And yet again wants to start another edit war.

4) On my part I've suggested to change "Anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising" to Civil war. It is backed up by sources. And in no way it can be "Anti-Polish", or "Anti-Jewish" etc. Yet user despite his previous statements again reverts them. Korwinski (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Consensus built - referenced source uses words "anti-Polish." Third opinion agrees "anti-Polish" is OK. Opposing editor's personal authority is not greater than University of Toronto source. Opposing editor says source is wrong. Opposing editor - read WP:SYNTH, Wikipedia:No original research, and WP:PROVEIT. Consensus at the moment is two editors say "anti-Polish" backed by source is correct, versus one opposing editor stating "anti-Polish" is wrong and continuously deleting a viewpoint supported by sources because Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Before deleting again because Wikipedia:I just don't like it, try building a consensus for your point of view. Also, try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard or Wikipedia:Requests for comment - Exxess (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Consensus built

Like where? You did not provide any, ANY sources requested sources and agreed to the removal. Yet, you start another edit war, despite stating that you won't do so.

editor's personal authority

I backed up all my statements with reliable source ON THE TOPIC. You're using generalisations, which does not relate to the topic at all. We're not talking about Cossacks here. How hard is that to understand? We're talking about szlachta. SZLACHTA. Not Cossacks, or peasants. Find sources on the topic, and then we'll talk. Korwinski (talk) 07:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Before deleting again because Wikipedia:I just don't like it, try building a consensus for your point of view. Also, try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard or Wikipedia:Requests for comment. As of the moment two editors state "anti-Polish" is OK because source uses those exact words versus one opposing editor deleting because Wikipedia:I just don't like it. - Exxess (talk) 07:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I did. In case any information requires more sources, state which ones and I will add it.

At the moment the only consensus we have is this:

If you want to delete, go ahead. Do not agree with deletion of "anti-Polish," but will not start edit war... Will try to build consensus... Talk page solidified issues around Cossack-Hetmanate. (talk)

Yet we can see how you keep your words.

As I can see user Expert did not go over our discussion and did not reply with any valid arguments to my points. So until then it cannot be counted as "two editors". Korwinski (talk) 07:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Before deleting again because Wikipedia:I just don't like it, try building a consensus for your point of view. Also, try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard or Wikipedia:Requests for comment. As of the moment two editors state "anti-Polish" is OK because source uses those exact words versus one opposing editor deleting because Wikipedia:I just don't like it. - Exxess (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Malorossian szlachta (Little Russia Szlachta)

Malorossian "szlachta" did not have allegiance to Poland. Use of loose definition for szlachta (nobility) is expanding article to include nobility of Balkans, Moldavia. Szlachta should mean at one time having allegiance to Poland demonstrated with Polish coat of arms (ennoblement by a King or Sejm of Poland). Not sure if source cited by opposing editor uses word "szlachta" or "nobility":

Очерки из истории и юридического быта старой Малороссии : Превращение козацкой старшины в дворянство / [Соч.] Д. Миллера. - Киев : тип. Ун-та св. Владимира Н.Т. Корчак-Новицкого, 1897. - [2], 136 с.; 26.

Essays from the history and legal life of the old Little Russia: The conversion of the Cossack sergeant-major to the nobility / [Com.] D. Miller. - Kiev: type. Un-ta St. Vladimir N.T. Korchak-Novitsky, 1897. - [2], 136 pp .; 26.

- Exxess (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Malorossian "szlachta" did not have allegiance to Poland

1) There was no such state at the time. 2) Remind us about allegiance Bogusław Radziwiłł and Janusz Radziwiłł (1612–1655). Exactly. It has nothing to do with their szlachta self-identification and their rights.

Use of loose definition for szlachta (nobility) is expanding article to include nobility of Balkans, Moldavia

That is simply misinterpretation of my words. Which also looks absurd since you're keeping As the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569–1795) evolved and expanded in territory, its membership grew to include the leaders of Ducal Prussia and Livonia part.

Szlachta should mean at one time having allegiance to Poland

WP:PROVEIT Remember, no original research. And thats what you're doing right now.

Not sure if source cited by opposing editor uses word "szlachta" or "nobility"

Page 1: Судьба шляхетства въ гетманщинъ после революціи 1648 г... (Faith of szlachta in Hetmanate after revolution of 1648...) Korwinski (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Plenty of WP:PROVEIT - see references to Boniecki's Herbarz Polski and Niesiecki's Herbarz Polski. Highly doubtful if some of the people now loosely called "szlachta" ever had a Polish coat of arms appearing in a Polish armorial. Avoid WP:SYNTH and remember Wikipedia:No original research and WP:PROVEIT. - Exxess (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Plenty of WP:PROVEIT

On my side yes. On your's - none.

Boniecki's Herbarz Polski and Niesiecki's Herbarz Polski.

You're familiar with it. Good. Mazeppa herbs Kurcz, Orlyk herbu Nowina, Sulima herbu wlasnego, Wyhowski herbu Abdank and so on. They all are in that Armorial. I've even attached links to sarmatian portraits of this szlachta with their coat of arms. And links where whole powiats szlachta joined rebellion. Yet you still for some reason ignore all them and make excuses to come up with some "traitor" original research. Avoid WP:SYNTH and remember Wikipedia:No original research and finally find WP:PROVEIT. Because so far this discussion already lasted for more than 3 weeks, and you still did not come with any reliable sources ON THE TOPIC. Batih events etc ARE NOT topic of szlachta discussion. Rebellion overall is not subject of this discussion. We're talking about szlachta that joined rebellion. Not Cossacks. Not peasants. SZLACHTA. Also see pl:Powstanie chłopskie w lądzkich dobrach cystersów (1651) and Kostka-Napierski uprising to understand how absurd "Anti-Polish" statements would be even if we keep it. "Anti-Polish" Polish peasants that joined uprising and led by "Anti-Polish" Polish szlachta. Sounds ovely, doesn't it? Korwinski (talk) 07:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Source uses phrase "anti-Polish" (Cossack-Polish War aka Khmelnytsky Uprising). Opposing editor deleting because Wikipedia:I just don't like it. - Exxess (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not exactly sure what you guys are fighting over, but I guess it relates to [1]? My thoughts: 1) I wouldn't describe Khm Uprising as 'anti-Polish'. It was that, but it was also anti-Jewish, anti-non-Orthdox, ant-establishment, and so on. It's too much of a simplifications to call it anti-Polish. 2) calling starshyna the new nobility is rather weird. starshyna = elders. I wouldn't use the term nobility here. If something else is disputed, please make it more clear if you'd like my third opinion here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe Khm Uprising as 'anti-Polish'

Exactly what I was telling my opponent. Especially since only szlachta was called Polish at the time (as in Polish political nation aka belonging to szlachta political system), and we're talking about szlachta that fought on both sides, not about Cossacks or Peasants of the Uprising in General. I've changed it to Civil war (which cannot be Anti-something) and simplified it to paragraph that you left, but user Exxcess has strange requirement to keep both versions without providing any sources whatsoever regarding szlachta fighting on rebels side.

calling starshyna the new nobility is rather weird. starshyna - elders. I wouldn't use the term nobility here

Starshyna were top-ranking officers in Cossack army. Majority of them were szlachta, and later they rose to position of magnates in Zaporozhian Host (but not actual using the term; while Cossack starshyna name and rank became basically hereditary there). They should not be mistaken with Malorossian szachta overall, as there were a lot of other szlachta that could even not serve in Cossack army, but still keep szlachta title. And also Clergy families (like one of Ivan Kotliarevsky of Ogonczyk coat of arms, whose great grandfather and grandfather were priests, while his father served in Poltava magistrate and had nothing to do with Starshyna and Cossack army at all). I've added sources for large numbers of szlachta joining rebellion, but opponent still does not believe that was possible and makes up some original research that only szlachta in PLC was valid szlachta. Korwinski (talk) 10:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to the new editor joining the discussion. This latest edit is very bad in light of the sources and viewpoints removed. As to what was considered "Polish" consider what someone with personal knowledge stated. Quoting Bishop of Poznań, Wawrzyniec Goślicki, herbu Grzymała (between 1530 and 1540 - 1607):

"The kingdome of Polonia doth also consist of the said three sortes, that is, the king, nobility and people. But it is to be noted, that this word people includeth only knights and gentlemen. ... The gentlemen of Polonia doe represent the popular state, for in them consisteth a great part of the government, and they are as a Seminarie from whence Councellors and Kinges are taken."

Now it's clear what Polish means. It was stated succinctly in the talk section long ago, but an opposing editor obscured it by writing a new article in the talk section. It's also referenced and sourced in the Szlachta article.

Removing "anti-Polish" from Khmelnytsky Uprising is very strange, considering the Uprising is also known as the Cossack-Polish War. It boggles the mind. War means killing people. It's the ultimate in "anti." This editor's objections and edits concern the imprecision and lack of rigor and logic in the current edits. What is even worse is an eminent historian Orest Subtelny, University of Toronto, uses the specific words "anti-Polish", additionally using the words "anti-noble", in an article about the Khmelnytsky Uprising. The current edits clobber those details like the constellation of Taurus rampaging in a telephone-booth-sized tea shop.

Quoting Orest Subtelny, who was born in Kraków, Poland:

"Several Cossack detachments advanced west into territories settled mostly by Poles or Belarusians, and anti-noble and anti-Polish revolts also broke out there. ... Zhdanovych tried to hold the anti-Polish front but did not succeed." - https://web.archive.org/web/20180828200830/http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CC%5CO%5CCossack6PolishWar.htm

In support, another source clobbered:

"Tensions stemming from social discontent, religious strife, and Cossack resentment of Polish authority finally coalesced and came to a head in 1648. Beginning with a seemingly typical Cossack revolt, under the leadership of Bohdan Khmelnytsky, Ukraine was quickly engulfed in an unprecedented war and revolution. Khmelnytsky was a petty nobleman and Cossack officer who, unable to obtain justice for wrongs suffered at Polish hands, fled to the Sich in late 1647 and was soon elected hetman." - https://www.britannica.com/place/Ukraine/The-Cossacks

Hence, "anti-Polish" ... Trying to reduce the Khmelnytsky Uprising to a mere civil war, szlachta brother fighting szlachta brother, is dishonest, but opposing editor needs to do that to portray his Zaporozhian Host as part of his big, happy szlachta family that except for a few squabbles, saw eye-to-eye, and kissed each others cheeks, disregarding beheading and disemboweling. As the Encyclopedia Britannica stated, "unprecedented war and revolution." The American Revolution was not a civil war. It's called a Revolutionary War because a new sovereignty came into existence. American Citizens were not English nobility, even though they might've had ancestors that were English nobles. Opposing editors' sloppy edits obliterate and suppress all these distinctions and lines of inquiry.

Again, the events of the anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising and the existences of the sovereign Zaporozhian Host were the beginnings of the decline of the Polish state, ultimately leading to the partitions of the Polish state, which equaled non-existence. This Zaporozhian Host made treaties and alliances with the enemies of the Polish state. The Host did that because they were sovereign. The King of Sweden signed their constitution {see Deluge (history)}. And editors object to what the sources clearly point out, and said editors state "anti-Polish" is too simple? It boggles the mind in light of the sources now clumsily clobbered. The Khmelnytsky Uprising aka Cossack-Polish war was anti-Polish, whose foundation was an extreme dislike of Polish authority that culminated in killing and the foundation of a new sovereign state with its own constitution. There was nothing "pro-Polish" or "neutral-Polish" about the Khmelnytsky Uprising at all, perhaps except in matters of convenience. The American Revolution was "anti-English", despite the American colonists still speaking English, as they do to this day.

This editor would like to revert the latest edits of editor Piotrus. Considering what the now clobbered viewpoints stated, the article's introduction makes it sound like the szlachta were one big happy family, with the same fashion sense, which is Taurus excrement and misleading in the extreme.

As to the starshyna, this editor defers to the Encyclopedia Britannica, a source now clobbered:

"The ruling elite in the Hetmanate was composed of the senior Cossack officers, starshyna, who had evolved into a hereditary class approximating the Polish nobility in its privileges." - Encyclopedia Britannica on the starshyna

A new nobility of a sovereign state, without an allegiance to the Polish state, but an allegiance to their new Cossack state, a hereditary class approximating the Polish nobility in its privileges... That means not the Polish nobility, hence not szlachta... Not the knights and gentlemen of Polonia representing the Polish state. This new nobility of a sovereign Cossack Hetmanate - this hereditary class made alliances that weakened the Polish state, leading to the non-existence of the Polish state, hence, "anti-Polish" as a now-deleted viewpoint from a source stated. This new nobility approximating the Polish nobility in its privileges had members with szlachta ancestry, such as Ivan Vyhovsky {?-1664}, coat of arms Abdank. Why was he executed? Because he was considered "anti-Polish." He was executed for treason, a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state, hence "anti-Polish".

The opposing editor's contention is the szlachta were one big, happy family, so sources that specifically state "anti-Polish" are an inconvenience to be obliterated. Now the world has a szlachta article introduction that's weak, insipid, and misleading in the extreme. And readers on the primrose path of the happy szlachta family opposing editor is trying to portray are in for a rude awakening should they ever feast their eyes on the now clobbered sources. They'll begin their journey on a happy primrose path only to arrive in the center of a Hell of absurdity. Forgive opposing editors for they know not what they do. They crucify sources, they scream, "Give us Barabbas!," they reject the Truth and the Light, and this editor washes this editor's hands clean of this incontinent mess, reserving the right to revert current bad edits. One could make an argument the current edits have the merit of brevity, but that brevity came at the cost of slaughtering sources shedding light on the origins of the Cossack Hetmanate. Not very edifying, not conscientious, a disservice to readers, sloppy, reflective of mental sloth, and not encyclopedic. The current edit is a surgical removal of anything that insults the nostrils with the stench of controversy, the side-effects being stupefying suppression of enlightening facts.

Current situation is a stalemate - two editors "Anti-Polish" OK (see Third Opinion above), two editors "Anti-Polish" not OK. - Exxess (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC on "Anti-Polish" Khmelnytsky Uprising

Does this source support writing "anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising" in the Szlachta article? - Exxess (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Source uses the specific words "anti-Polish" in the article. - Exxess (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Against using anti-Polish: while the Khmelnytsky Uprising was certainly opposed to the Polish government, calling it "anti-Polish" implies a nationalist animus that is quite possibly ahistorical. While this is a reading that is supported by the provided source, I question the source's reliability, given that it's clearly biased toward Ukrainian nationalism, which causes me to doubt its assertion that the Khmelnytsky Uprising had a clear nationalist character. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC) 01:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Should editors be making that decision for readers? This is a University of Toronto source. The University of Toronto is inclined toward Ukrainian nationalism? Polish at that time meant the knights and gentlemen (nobility, szlachta) of Polonia, who represented Polish authority, hence the Cossack-Polish War, because of resentment of Polish authority.

Quoting Bishop of Poznań, Wawrzyniec Goślicki, herbu Grzymała (between 1530 and 1540 - 1607):

"The kingdome of Polonia doth also consist of the said three sortes, that is, the king, nobility and people. But it is to be noted, that this word people includeth only knights and gentlemen. ... The gentlemen of Polonia doe represent the popular state, for in them consisteth a great part of the government, and they are as a Seminarie from whence Councellors and Kinges are taken."

Quoting Orest Subtelny, who was born in Kraków, Poland:

"Several Cossack detachments advanced west into territories settled mostly by Poles or Belarusians, and anti-noble and anti-Polish revolts also broke out there. ... Zhdanovych tried to hold the anti-Polish front but did not succeed." - https://web.archive.org/web/20180828200830/http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CC%5CO%5CCossack6PolishWar.htm

"anti-Polish" and "anti-noble" is just a precise statement of the facts, otherwise, what was the fight about? It was primarily about resentment of Polish authority and Polish institutions.

Is the Encyclopedia Britannica biased toward Ukrainian nationalism? It supports the source whose reliability is in question:

"Tensions stemming from social discontent, religious strife, and Cossack resentment of Polish authority finally coalesced and came to a head in 1648. Beginning with a seemingly typical Cossack revolt, under the leadership of Bohdan Khmelnytsky, Ukraine was quickly engulfed in an unprecedented war and revolution. Khmelnytsky was a petty nobleman and Cossack officer who, unable to obtain justice for wrongs suffered at Polish hands, fled to the Sich in late 1647 and was soon elected hetman." - https://www.britannica.com/place/Ukraine/The-Cossacks

The two sources complement each other. - Exxess (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Striking my vote, I saw "Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine" written in English and Ukrainian and did not think to investigate the source's publisher further. I'm still uncertain why this is being added to the lead when it goes unmentioned in the article, though. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Originally, Khmelnytsky Uprising appeared in the lead to explain origins of Cossack Hetmanate. It was very simple. The words "anti-Polish," which appear in a source discussing the Khmelnytsky Uprising, were added to become "anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising." There was no undue weight, or weighty lead, but the phrase "anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising" led to all Hell breaking loose. - Exxess (talk) 01:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The lead is way too long though. Compare it to the leads for articles about similar landed classes in other parts of Europe, such as Junker (Prussia), Hetman, or Gentry. Moreover, you currently don't mention Khmelnytsky or the Cossacks in the article–the lead is supposed to summarize and provide an introduction to the article. With the exception of stubs (which this is not), we shouldn't be writing leads that provide information not included elsewhere in the article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Originally "Khmelnytsky Uprising" appeared. There was no lengthy lead as shown below. That lead appeared for clarification purposes after all Hell broke loose by adding "anti-Polish" to "Khmelnytsky Uprising". I did not write anything about "Khmelnytsky Uprising". I think the opposing editor wrote that. I simply added "anti-Polish" before "Khmelnytsky Uprising", supported "anti-Polish" with sources, then all Hell broke loose. - Exxess (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• Object. Per my comment below, the very mention of KU is not needed in the lead of this article. What adjectives to use with is there not relevant. It's like an RfC asking 'should we use the adjective blue when discussing cheese in the lead of Obama's or Trump's article. The cheese may be blue, it has also nothing to do with those articles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Cannot introduce the Cossack Hetmanate without mentioning the so-called "civil war", a less than candid euphemism for the "anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising," that event being the genesis of the Cossack Hetmanate. My opinion is the Cossack Hetmanate is important, and its introduction defines the szlachta more precisely. The Devil is in the details and distinctions. My opinion, change "civil war" to "anti-Polish Khmelnysky Uprising" in current introduction, and/or maybe change intro to some members of the Zaporozhian Host had szlachta ancestry. Strictly speaking, do not think Zaporozhian Host was szlachta as their allegiance was not to the existing Polish state. There seems to be a loose definition of szlachta equating to nobility in general. The sentence about the Diet and Tsar and social status should be deleted. - Exxess (talk) 07:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Here's a suggested sentence: "The anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising resulted in the formation of the sovereign Cossack Hetmanate, some of whose members had szlachta ancestry." Short, sweet, and accurate. Do not think there is anything rebuttable in that sentence. The rest of what's in the lead can be deleted (Diet, Tsar, social status, etc.) - Exxess (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

This is fine - for the article on Cossacks or the Cossack Hetmanate. This not relevant to the szlachta. Szlachta may partially define the Cossacks, but certainly not the other way around. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed - Exxess (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

So I'm telling user Excess that this is not article about Cossacks. User Excess starts edit wars and gives pointless sources about Cossacks. While I'm talking about szlachta that joined uprising, not Cossacks themselves. And I'm providing sources about szlachta, not Cossacks. yet information is removed because... Awesome administratorship. Sorry, but I just do not see any logic here. :::::

certainly not the other way around.

Hmm, so Mykhailo Khanenko, Petro Doroshenko, Ivan Sulyma etc must be "not the other way around". I'm sorry but these stereotype statements are original research at best. Korwinski (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

OPPOSING EDITOR EXXESS: Editor Korwinski - sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. Respect the sequence of statements with your edits for readers. Your Deluge of interjections make it look like my statements follow yours when they earlier followed editor Piotrus, which is making the talk look mentally deranged. - Exxess (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed - "The anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising resulted in the formation of the sovereign Cossack Hetmanate, some of whose members had szlachta ancestry."Markewilliams (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

I must say I'm a bit confused as to what the argument is about: where exactly in the article is "anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising" being proposed as an addition? Currently, there's no mention of the Khmelnytsky Uprising at all, other than a mention of a Cossack rebellion in the lead (and nowhere else in the article!). Looking at the edit history, it seems that the proposed change is for the lead, which IMO is WP:UNDUE regardless of whether we call it "anti-Polish" or something else, unless it is also brought up in the body in significant depth. I've provided a vote above based on my current understanding of the issue, but would appreciate clarification. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

"anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising" was in the article, but opposing editor chose to use the more ambiguous words "civil war", then another editor obliterated everything, my presumption being to avoid the stench of anything controversial from insulting the proverbial nostrils, despite those exact words "anti-Polish" appearing in the source.

Encyclopedia Britannica makes it clear the Khmelnytsky Uprising was more than a civil war, or szlachta brother fighting szlachta brother. The end result was a new sovereign state, the Cossack Hetmanate, with its own constitution, which is more like the American Revolution than a mere civil war:

"Tensions stemming from social discontent, religious strife, and Cossack resentment of Polish authority finally coalesced and came to a head in 1648. Beginning with a seemingly typical Cossack revolt, under the leadership of Bohdan Khmelnytsky, Ukraine was quickly engulfed in an unprecedented war and revolution." - Encyclopedia Britannica

Not quite sure about knee-jerk deletions of viewpoints like this. Seems too trigger-happy. "Cossack resentment of Polish authority" seems to support "anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising" phrase.

Here's another source from a Polish author, in support of "anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising". No matter where one looks, nowhere is one left with the sense the Khmelnytsky Uprising was somehow "pro-Polish" or "neutral-Polish." In light of the following source, calling the Khmelnytsky Uprising a "civil war" is near sleight of hand:

"Huk goes on to call the exclusive Sarmatian ideology practised in Kresy as perversely close to racism avant la lettre, and considers the disdainful approach of Polish lords toward Ukrainian peasants as a key cause of brutal, bloody uprisings in Ukraine, from the Khmelnitsky Uprising in 1648 up to the massacre in Volhynia during WW2." - https://archive.is/20170624062330/http://culture.pl/en/article/slavery-vs-serfdom-or-was-poland-a-colonial-empire

Below is the obliterated section, supported by sources, but annihilated and characterized as a non-neutral point of view. If anything, the section seems to be too precise for the tastes of an opposing editor, who wants to portray the szlachta as one big, prestigious happy noble family, and the words "anti-Polish" inconvenience that portrayal. That is a presumption and a guess, of course, but the matter is more complicated and subtle than that. These brute force deletions of "anti-Polish" close off any inquiring along those lines. The conclusion the Khmelnytsky Uprising was "pro-Polish" or "neutral-Polish" is all one is left with absent "anti-Polish". Another editor states this entire matter of the Zaporozhian Host / sovereign Cossack Hetmanate being part of the szlachta is controversial and should be removed from the article. The elite of the Cossack Hetmanate had an allegiance to their Hetmanate, so strictly speaking, how they could they be szlachta? The szlachta had an allegiance to the Polish state by definition. This is another distinction opposing editor does not want brought to light, which the phrase "anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising" brings to light.

As far as undue weight concerns go, "civil war," which is misleading and ambiguous, and almost sleight of hand, should be replaced with "anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising", the "anti-Polish" part supported by three sources. It's a mistake to close inquiry into the anti-Polish origins of the Cossack Hetmanate, which the phrase "anti-Polish" instigates.

So far, three sources supporting "anti-Polish." Not finding too many sources with a "pro-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising" or "neutral-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising" point of view, other than WP:SYNTH from opposing editor needing to obfuscate matters, so a portrayal of the szlachta as one big, happy, prestigious family is not questioned. Seems very non-neutral... - Exxess (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

That's a false dichotomy–the issue isn't whether the revolt was either pro-Polish or anti-Polish, but whether framing it as "anti-Polish" misrepresents the primary motivations of the conflict. That having been said, at this point I think you're right that the sources justify the usage of the phrase "anti-Polish", although I would argue that the paragraph on Polish history (which includes the section on Cossack uprisings) is an unnecessary inclusion to the lead as it is tangential to a description of the szlachta. I'd be ok with describing the Khmelnytsky Uprising as anti-Polish, elsewhere in the article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Originally, "Khmelnytsky Uprising" appeared in the lead to explain origins of Cossack Hetmanate. It was very simple. The words "anti-Polish," which appear in a source discussing the Khmelnytsky Uprising, were added to become "anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising." There was no undue weight, or weighty lead, but the phrase "anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising" led to all Hell breaking loose. - Exxess (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica puts the motivations of the conflict very politely - resentment of Polish authority, or in the vernacular, "hatred" of Polish authority. As the article stands now, I think "civil war" in the lead should be replaced with "anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising." That avoids undue weight, it's simple, but is an honest statement. "civil war" is, to put it politely, a little less than candid. - Exxess (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Getting into the subtleties of allegiances and law, there's a question of whether members of the Cossack Hetmanate were, strictly speaking, szlachta. I will concede some had szlachta ancestry, which justifies their mention in the szlachta article. - Exxess (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Would like to eventually read other editor's opinions... The Cossack Hetmanate in the szlachta article is controversial and interesting. - Exxess (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Understand consensus is not a matter of "vote counting", but as it stands now Third Opinion editor states "anti-Polish" is OK, RfC editor Rosguill states "anti-Polish" is OK, editor Exxess states "anti-Polish" is OK. That's versus two opposing editors at the moment ("anti-Polish" not OK). - Exxess (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Quoting deleted section:

Following the anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising (1648-57) (see Batih massacre in 1652), a mass movement in the Ukraine against the Polish nobility (szlachta) of the Commonwealth and their supporters, part civil war and part revolution, known as the Cossack-Polish War, the new nobility (starshyna) of the resulting sovereign Cossack Hetmanate, officially known as the Zaporozhian Host (1649–1764), often had szlachta ancestry bearing Polish coats of arms (see Ivan Vyhovsky {?-1664}, coat of arms Abdank, who was executed as a traitor).

Look, the uprising was anti-Polish (among others, and even perhaps mostly). But this level of detail is unlikely to be needed for THIS article (go ahead and add it to KU article, I'd support it there), and IMHO even the very mention of KU at all is irrelevant to the lead of this article. It doesn't matter if the sources support this phrase (I am sure they do, since it is mostly correct). The point is this is a a phrase not relevant to the lead of this article. Szlachta, in no shape or form, is defined by the KhmUprising. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Cannot introduce the Cossack Hetmanate without mentioning the so-called "civil war", a less than candid euphemism for the "anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising," that event being the genesis of the Cossack Hetmanate. My opinion is the Cossack Hetmanate is important to the article, and its introduction defines the szlachta more precisely. The Devil is in the details and distinctions. Members of the Cossack Hetmanate did have szlachta ancestry. Here's a suggested sentence: "The anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising resulted in the formation of the sovereign Cossack Hetmanate, some of whose members had szlachta ancestry." Short, sweet, and accurate. Do not think there is anything rebuttable in that sentence. The rest of what's in the lead can be deleted (Diet, Tsar, social status, etc.) and seems to be WP:SYNTH and imprecise. - Exxess (talk) 07:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Again. We're talking about szlachta that joined rebellion. It is not a "so-called civil war" that is the exact words that are stated in sources that I've provided. Polish sources. Just like you're inclining that we should use "anti-Polish" part since these exact words were stated in your sources. And it looks like it does not ring a bell to you that these sources at the very same time use Ukrainian and Belorussian idiom to describe population that rebelled. And I do not see any reason for them to be less valid than the ones you provided. Only difference is that my sources are regarding topic of this article - szlachta, while yours are generalisations at best that are at the same time about Cossacks, peasants etc. And they have nothing to do with szlachta that joined rebellion.

"Anti-Polish" part was removed simply because "Polish" at the time had different meaning then it does today. And the quote of Wawrzyniec that you're inclining should be enough is very deep in the article. In case user reads only lead part they would be misleaded. And obviously that quote is not enough to explain situation. At the moment if we leave your paragraph as you want it, elaborations and more specific details would make it look like this. And it wouldn't take a genius to see how absurd your statements would be:

Following the anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising (1648-57) (see anti-Polish Batih massacre in 1652, anti-Polish uprising of Polish szlachta and Polish peasants against Polish szlachta in Lesser Poland in 1651 and anti-Polish Polish szlachta and Polish peasant uprising in Greater Poland (1651)) led by Polish noblemen Bohdan Khmelnytsky, a mass movement in the Ukraine, Lesser Poland and Greater Poland against the Polish nobility (also known as Polish szlachta, which at the same in large numbers joined joined Anti-Polish uprising and their supporters, part civil war and part revolution, also known as the Cossack-Polish War, Polish nobility (that later also made up majority of top-ranking officers in Cossacks army known as starshyna) while joining anti-Polish uprising usually had Polish szlachta ancestry and Polish identity bearing Polish coats of arms (see Ivan Vyhovsky {?-1664}, coat of arms Abdank, who was executed as a traitor) or received it later (see Yurii Khmelnytsky, who in 6 years after anti-Polish Batih massacre (that was ordered by his anti-Polish Polish nobleman father) received Polish nobility).

References

George Washington had gentry English ancestry. In an article about English nobility, one would write "Anti-English American Revolution," not the sleight of hand phrase, "civil war". And how does anyone know readers would be misled? The "anti-Polish" words deleted had three references with quotes to clarify concerns about being misled. Stating readers would be misled is presumptuous, and given the three deleted sources, is anti-WP:PROVEIT. "anti-Polish" pointed to the fact from the point of view of the Polish state, the Cossack Hetmanate was birthed in treason, given some of its former szlachta members were executed for treason. Szlachta by definition would have allegiance to the Polish state, not a foreign state, the Cossack Hetmanate. And without these irrelevant "anti-Polish" peasants and "anti-Polish" Cossacks (deleted sources stated Cossacks hated Polish authority) no Khmelnytsky Uprising, no Cossack Hetmanate. - Exxess (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I did not know that British granted nobility to rebels or that they had nobility in the USA at the time. *facepalm* In any case I do not see how is it relevant to the szlachta of PLC. While they obviously fighting on both sides, and that is exactly what stated in sources. Polish sources. I can provide valid sources in English or Ukrainian or Russian or Belorussian languages if required. But so far no valid argument to consider these sources to be incorrect.

So far you provided 0 (ZERO) requested WP:PROVEIT sources to confirm your statements.While complete;y ignoring all my sources on the topic. On szlachta. Not some sources that you're using about Cossacks or peasants which have nothing to do with this article.

Cossack Hetmanate was birthed in treason

Synth and original research.

Szlachta by definition would have allegiance to the Polish state, not a foreign state, the Cossack Hetmanate.

Synth and original research.

deleted sources stated Cossacks hated Polish authority)

Irrelevant. This topic is on szlachta that joined rebellion. It has nothing to do with non-szlachta Cossacks.

We can close this now. I've removed the irrelevant parts about Cossacks/KU from the lead entirely. They were added there only recently (didn't exist in January this year [2] or for years since). End of story. KUprising has no place in the lead of the szlachta article; it is not a relevant topic to the definition and summary of the concept of szlachta. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I did not add anything about the Khmelnytsky Uprising, but once it was put there, the sourced "anti-Polish" part needed to precede it, lest readers were misled into a portrayal of the szlachta as one, big, happy, prestigious family, with former members becoming part of the Cossack Hetmanate, whose actions (purposely making treaties with the enemies of the Polish state with the specific goal of partitioning it) led to the decline of the Polish state, which led to its non-existence. The elite members of the sovereign Cossack Hetmanate had no allegiance to the Polish state by definition, therefore strictly speaking they were not szlachta, and some of its former szlachta members were executed for treason (because they were "anti-Polish"). In the lead, the Cossack Hetmanate was a bit of a turd in the punch bowl. That being said, the lead as it stands now is good. - Exxess (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

were misled into a portrayal of the szlachta as one, big, happy, prestigious family

Obviously it was not. Szlachta all the time joined anti-government activity. So far no sources from you that state that szlachta lost any privileges by joining uprising or by later moving to ZH. See last source in paragraph above. According to Treaty of Hadiach all rebels were pardoned at the time, for example. And son (one of the many. See articles of Treaty of Hadiach) of main organiser of the uprising even received re-nobilitation.

whose actions (purposely making treaties with the enemies of the Polish state with the specific goal of partitioning it)

Original research. Partitioning happened only when it became obvious that pro-government szlachta won't respect agreements. And it also led to civil war inside Zaporozhian Host itself also known as The Ruin (Ukrainian history). An it is strange to see such statements from someone editing szlachta article and not knowing that szlachta did that all the time. Protestant szlachta participated with Swedes for specific goal of partition of PLC during Deluge. Or szlachta that participated with Russians and Prussians which led to Partitioning of PLC.

led to the decline of the Polish state, which led to its non-existence

Such state did not exist until May 3rd Constitution. Which was 130+ years later.

Editor Exxess in Reply to Opposing Editor: "O Wisest of Men, read the quote":

"The kingdome of Polonia doth also consist of the said three sortes, that is, the king, nobility and people. But it is to be noted, that this word people includeth only knights and gentlemen. ... The gentlemen of Polonia doe represent the popular state, for in them consisteth a great part of the government, and they are as a Seminarie from whence Councellors and Kinges are taken." - Bishop of Poznań, Wawrzyniec Goślicki, herbu Grzymała (between 1530 and 1540 - 1607)

Read the word "kingdome." Followed by the word "state." Notice the word "government." Followed by years. This quote has been repeated several times already. - Exxess (talk) 05:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay. I give up. I did not know there so stupid people. But I must've been wrong. Korwinski (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

OPPOSING EDITOR EXXESS - Do not talk about yourself that way, opposing editor. - Exxess (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

had no allegiance to the Polish state by definition, therefore strictly speaking they were not szlachta

It has been twice since I've asked you for source about that. I have not seen any from you so far. So original research.

former szlachta members were executed for treason (because they were "anti-Polish")

Sources that state that they were executed "because they were "anti-Polish""

Cossack Hetmanate had Swedish King sign their constitution. Negates opposing editor's arguments swiftly and decisively. Four editors "anti-Polish" good. One opposing editor "anti-WP:PROVEIT" good (sources deleted), "anti-Polish" not good. Noted. - Exxess (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

So no requested sources to back up your statements? Original research that has nothing to do with actual szlachta history, as I stated.

You do understand that there was a ~50 years gap between Uprising and that Constitution. And King Stanisław Leszczyński was a close ally of that very same Swedish king, and actually he (King of Sweden) was the one who made Leszczynski king and that sejm twice(!) voted for him? Damn, you do suck at Polish history.

So I have 2 more questions to go for you to understand how stupid and absurd your statements are:

1) You do understand that neither his ally Fylyp Orlyk, nor his father (who was Catholic and died in Battle of Khotyn) never fought against the Crown. Orlyk of Nowina coat of arms received Polish nobility back in XV. How "anti-Polish" Fylyp Orlyk became when he decided to move to Zaporozhian Host? How did he become "traitor"? How "new" was his nobility? When and how did he lose his nobility? And the same goes for King Leszczynski.

2) There're 2 very well known [Kostka-Napierski uprising|anti-Polish uprising of Polish szlachta and Polish peasants against Polish szlachta in Lesser Poland in 1651]] and anti-Polish Polish szlachta and Polish peasant uprising in Greater Poland (1651). Both were part of Khmelnytsky Uprising. How "anti-Polish" and "traitorous" were they? Do they fit to be "anti-Polish" as you claim for them to be?

OPPOSING EDITOR EXXESS - Editor Korwinski cannot wrap his mind around WP:PROVEIT. A source was cited that used the words "anti-Polish" and "anti-noble." A source made the claims. - Exxess (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The title of this section is "Anti-Polish" Khmelnytsky Uprising, which has become opposing editor's Deluge. WP:PROVEIT means in the article.

Cossack Hetmanate had Swedish King sign their constitution. Sovereignty - live it and love it. Rest of the verbiage better suited for an article, in this editor's opinion. The authors of the sources you deleted are listed below. Write to them. It was enjoyable presenting their viewpoint. Have a Nice Day. - Exxess (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Stanisław was born into a powerful magnate family of Greater Poland, and he had the opportunity to travel to western Europe in his youth. In 1702 King Charles XII of Sweden marched into the country as part of a continuing series of conflicts between the powers of northern Europe. Charles forced the Polish nobility to depose Poland’s king, Augustus II the Strong, and then placed Stanisław on the throne (1704). [...]

When Augustus died in 1733, Stanisław sought to regain the Polish throne with the help of French support for his candidacy. After travelling to Warsaw in disguise, he was elected king of Poland by an overwhelming majority of the Diet.

Learn your history first. But I guess that is too hard. Absurd original research statements are the best you can do. Korwinski (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

OPPOSING EDITOR EXXESS - Not absurd, just beyond your comprehension. See your statement, "Citizenship did not exist yet. People were residents and subjects of the Crown", then read more Wikipedia articles. - Exxess (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually no:

1) My paragraph stated nothing about Cossacks. Only szlahcta that joined uprising. Since it was of the same origin and was the same szlachta before uprising it should be included in the article as subsection. Religious conflict was major part of szlachta history and removing it would be incorrect. Szlachta of PLC constantly moved to Zaporozhian Host even after uprising, and Cossacks that did not have nobility received it constantly long-after Uprising and Pereyaslav treaty. Most of them kept there szlachta identity, legal status, culture etc. Just like "evolved and expanded in territory, its membership grew to include the leaders of Ducal Prussia and Livonia." and "From that point until 1918, the legal status of the nobility was essentially dependent upon the policies of the three partitioning powers: the Russian Empire, the Kingdom of Prussia, and the Habsburg Monarchy. The legal privileges of the szlachta were legally abolished in the Second Polish Republic by the March Constitution of 1921." parts should be included in the article, those who separated should be mentioned as well. For example Franciszek Bohomolec representative of the Lithuanian branch of the family and Alexander A. Bogomolets, whose great*5 grandfather moved in early XVIII century to Zaporozhian Host. Or Ivan Mazepa, or Pylyp Orlyk etc. They never fought in Uprising, they were and stayed szlachta all their life, as they were legally recognised as szlachta. And considering that ~20000 men managed to prove their nobility to Russian government via documents that is a lot of szlachta we're ignoring. I've tried to make the paragraph to look as neutral as possible, but removing it completely just wouldn't be right.

2) At the time of the merge of two countries into the Commonwealth official name of the state was Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Samogitia. I won't be changing article as most of the sources are stating just GDL, as most of its history (before Galicia–Volhynia Wars and until Union of Lublin) it had just GDL as full name. But since it was a) full name of the state at the time of the merge 2) we're talking about Ruthenian szlachta in the article (and Ruthenians made up ~80% of the population of the state), it looks logical to use full name at the time of the merge. Korwinski (talk) 11:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

(Please use {{Reflist-talk}} when using references on talk to avoid them cluttering bottom of the talk page)

I am not opposed to a discussion of KU in the article here. What I am opposed to it having such a discussion in the lead (abstract, summary). While KU has some minor relevance to the topic of szlachta, and I can see why it could be discussed in some section or sections (if briefly), it is not a topic significant enough to be included in the short summary at the top. Similarly, pretty much every other conflict PLC / szlachta was involved in is not relevant in the lead, nor would be the names of Polish kings, even through some of them gave szlachta major priviliges, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, Cossack Hetmanate had members with szlachta ancestry. The verbiage in this talk section regarding Hetmanate szlachta belongs deeper in the article, but there needs to be precision and rigor around what exactly szlachta means. It's a mistake to be using szlachta as a term for nobility in general. Will insist, though, that Khmelnytsky Uprising be characterized as "anti-Polish" because supported by sources. Also, the objection stating "anti-Polish" means having to state "anti-Jewish," "anti-Catholic," "anti-etc." is wrong and sloppy. Khmelnytsky Uprising was only "anti-Jewish" because Jews supported the szlachta. Khmelnytsky Uprising was only "anti-Catholic" because Catholics supported szlachta. It was Polish authority and its institutions at the root of the war, revolution, and bloodshed, not Jewish-ness, etc., hence "anti-Polish." It was Polish authority and its institutions resented (Encyclopedia Britannica supports that), which led to supporters of Polish nobles being persecuted and killed. Jews were not killed because they were Jewish. They were killed because they allied themselves with Polish authority, that is, with the Polish nobility, the primordial source of the bloodshed. Szlachta meant Polish people, Szlachta meant Polish nation, Szlachta meant nobility, which is why deleted source used the specific words "anti-Polish" and "anti-noble" together. In the context of the time, being Polish meant being noble. Noble = szlachta = Polish nation = Polish people. All this is clearly stated in the Szlachta article and supported by sources, primary one being from Wawrzyniec Grzymała Goślicki:

""The kingdome of Polonia doth also consist of the said three sortes, that is, the king, nobility and people. But it is to be noted, that this word people includeth only knights and gentlemen. ... The gentlemen of Polonia doe represent the popular state, for in them consisteth a great part of the government, and they are as a Seminarie from whence Councellors and Kinges are taken."

Per Goślicki above, in the context of this article, and in the context of the Khmelnytsky Uprising, anyone not noble, was not Polish, and was not part of the Polish nation. Not part of the Polish nation includes Cossacks and peasants, which further strengthens the assertion the Uprising was not just a civil war (szlachta brother fighting szlachta brother) because a large part of the participants were never part of the Polish nation, which further strengthens the assertion the Uprising was "anti-Polish" and "anti-noble," which is precisely what the deleted source said, specifically using the words "anti-Polish" and "anti-noble" together. The Uprising went beyond a civil war because of the status of the participants. Another source mentioned peasants being treated with disdain by Polish nobles and uses the word "racism." That's logical, because if not noble, then not szlachta, then not one of the people of the Polish nation, per Goślicki above. Not one of the Polish people = the other (from the external darkness).

Deleting sources over concerns readers will be misled is a bit too presumptuous. If the sources are there, and the sources included direct quotes, turning people into non-readers smells a little too much like Fahrenheit 451 and is very much "anti-WP:PROVEIT." Challenging before deleting is more informative for everyone, but there's Wikipedia:Be bold, so do what you will. - Exxess (talk) 05:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Deleting sources over concerns readers will be misled is a bit too presumptuous. If the sources are there, and the sources included direct quotes, turning people into non-readers smells a little too much like Fahrenheit 451 and is very much "anti-WP:PROVEIT."

Stated by someone calling Civil war (Sources 1 2 and 3 by Ministry of Education of Poland) here as "so-called" and "misleading and ambiguous, and almost sleight of hand, should be replaced with "anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising", the "anti-Polish" part supported by three sources". Without any actual reason for them to be less valid than the ones you provided.

Also I do understand that you did not learn Polish history, culture or literature. But one of the most prominent polish poets of the time was Samuel Twardowski. Do you want was his magnum opus? A Civil War with the Cossacks and Tatars, Muscovy, and then with the Swedes and Hungarians, published in 1681 in Kalisz. I just see no point in arguing anymore, as its a total waste of time when there's someone so stupid to understand even basic statements. So long. Korwinski (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Editor Exxess am very stupid. Editor Exxess am an idiot, but far smarter than you, which is not saying much because it still means I am stupid and slower than stop. Getting smart began with actually reading the Szlachta article - carefully and looking at the sources. Enjoyed your vast knowledge of law, sovereignty, and Citizenship per your comments aka ill-conceived notions of Polish history, like "Citizenship did not exist yet. People were residents and subjects of the Crown" and "Such state did not exist until May 3rd Constitution. Which was 130+ years later." But, "anti-Polish" gone, and "Zaporozhian Host" gone. Problem solved. Lovely solution. Szlachta article lead is much better and more precise now, so this talk was productive given the conclusion was a better lead for the article. And I would not say you're arguing. Argue means to clarify. Keep up the good work, though, but try to tighten things up. Have a Nice Day. - Exxess (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Szlachta article might need a new section concerning the Zaporozhian Host (Cossack Hetmanate), since some of its members had Szlachta ancestry. - Exxess (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I won't bother with it. In case this even administrators cannot see what absurd situation user Excess caused, and since the best they can do is to remove valid, neutral information then sorry. This would be my last edit in English wikipedia. I will spend my time more productively elsewhere.

OPPOSING EDITOR EXXESS. The absurd situation I caused was putting "anti-Polish" before "Khmelnytsky Uprising." I did not write "Khmelnytsky Uprising." I think opposing editor Korwinski added "Khmelnytsky Uprising". I just put "anti-Polish" before "Khmelnytsky Uprising" because a source used the exact words "anti-Polish" and "anti-noble." I sourced my addition. That's all I did - put "anti-Polish" before "Khmelnytsky Uprising." Two words used in a source. - Exxess (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

OPPOSING EDITOR EXXESS. Thanks for messing up the flow, Korwinski. My reply to Piotrus was under his statement, now we have your Deluge preceding my response, which makes it look like I am replying to you. Do you think it's possible to show a little consideration for readers? As it stands now, the talk section reads ridiculous. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. Nothing personal, but my God. - Exxess (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

*sigh* We're not discussing KU here. And we're not discussing Cossacks, peasants or fairies. It is not even relevant to the article. We're discussing szlachta. Lead should show short understanding of szlachta. So basically consist of 4 parts: 1) who they were 2) very short history that also includes 3) expansion 4) what happened to them. // "Anti-polish" was suggested to be removed as "Polish" at the time meant szlachta. There's no such section that explains that in the article, just a quote in such big article does not solve that, so it only misleads user. Hence I was supporting its removal.

Now section 3) is what we're discussing. The most major events here would be Lithuanian-Ruthianian szlachta and Prussian and Livonian nobility joining in. So with examples we've shown large number of nobility joining szlchta. But at the very same time a lot of szlachta moved out of PLC and fought against the state for various reasons. Radziwills and Protestant szlachta fighting to separate Lithuania from PLC, Smolensk szlachta, Ruthenian princes moving to Muscowy, szlachta moving to Sloboda Ukraine etc. The most obvious group to show that would be szlachta that joined rebellion and started KU. The reasons would be: 1) They created a state with the very same legal system, 2) They kept culture and szlachta political system (with some modifications, but it was not the same for whole time in PLC as well) 3) They were constantly getting ennobled by Sejm and Kings (that is about ordinary Cossacks who did not nobility before) 4) Very large number of the szlachta that was nobilitated in the very same way and had the very same history and families in PLC moved to the new state. They did not change their szlachta name. They did not change their legal status. They recognised their "polish" (thats a quote and obviously meaning szlachta) ancestors. They did not change their culture (except Orthodox religion was the only one allowed) and so on. Even Polish Armorials include specifically Malorossian coat of arms and recognise them as szlachta (see Tadeusz Gajl and examples like: Kandyba or Lagoda or Alexandrowicz Malorosyjski and so on). So the best possible example. We're showing nobility joining szlachta and we're showing them leaving due to Social and Religious tensions that were major part of the history of PLC. There're no sources that state they were started to be some "new" or different szlachta with no szlachta past and so on, which would make them irrelevant to the article. Especially considering that we're also talking about Galician szlachta of Austro-Hungarian (that was actually called szlachta, while in Prussia or Russia there was no such social class) in the article, I especially see no point in excluding Malorossian szlachta. I remind you that Galician szlachta did not only started to have titles (Counts, Barons etc), but also was politically very different in the very from their szlachta-ancestors back during times of PLC. So overall again, we either keep it as in szlachta of PLC and remove all information about szlachta after PLC.

Now I've tried my best to show and state all that in the lead. I've added as much sources as needed and made it as neutral as it was possible. But original research, invalid sources and so on and so on from user Excess. I've quoted vice president of Polish academy of sciences that we shouldn't be mistaking Polish idiom back then and today, while all sources that user Excess was able to come up with had only modern versions of it. And none. None whatsoever. No sources regarding szlachta. I'm still not sure how is that possible to support someone who was able to provide ZERO sources regarding szlachta that joined uprising, and completely ignored all my sources. I guess that the best what English Wikipedia can offer. So as stated this would be my last edit. I just consider that it would be a waste of time to spend it anymore on morons like user Exxess who come to wikipedia and edit it without actually knowing the history on the subject they're editing. That is simply absurd and I would like nothing to do with no more. I do hope that you will have better judgement and keep my edits, but if not the more reason for me to leave. Korwinski (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Opposing editor is quitting because I put two words, "anti-Polish", in front of his "Khmelnytsky Uprising" addition to the article lead (I think opposing editor added "Khmelnytsky Uprising"). I sourced my addition. Source used words "anti-Polish" and "anti-noble" in regards to the Uprising. Author of source was historian Orest Subtelny, who was born in Kraków, Poland. Source not invalid. Further supporting sources like Encyclopedia Britannica not invalid. Opposing editor making a false claim. Opposing editor, put your knowledge in a new section of the Szlachta article. - Exxess (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Will presume this discussion is concluded as the result is a new lead for the szlachta article that is much cleaner and precise... Will let opposing editor continue to write to himself... Because he was there in 1648 for the Khmelnytsky Uprising... - Exxess (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

One final note - despite what opposing editor Korwinski writes, the issues around the "anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising" were bigger than those of a civil war (szlachta brother fighting szlachta brother), and those bigger issues, by way of contrast, highlight further all that which distinguished the szlachta from the rest of the population and defined the szlachta, but that's far too subtle a point for the opposing editor, who deleted the sources pointing this out, and opposing editor who writes, "Citizenship did not exist yet. People were residents and subjects of the Crown". That's an ill-conceived notion of Polish history, but that's for opposing editor to discover one day in reference works. That's why opposing editor's objections to "anti-Polish" before Khmelnytsky Uprising are unpersuasive, despite opposing editor giving impression he has personal knowledge of events because he was there over 400 years ago. Probably plenty of readers capable of more sophisticated view than opposing editor and in no danger of being misled by sourced words "anti-Polish" per opposing editor's concerns and justification for source deletions, despite WP:PROVEIT. Opposing editor could've instead added to the article, "Polish at that time did not mean ethnicity exclusively, nor Polish in the contemporary sense, but rather Polish meant having full rights in the multi-ethnic Commonwealth of that time." That would have assuaged "fears" of readers being "misled" and could have been added to the Szlachta article, making it more informative. - Exxess (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

And here's the sentence this editor (Exxess) wrote, "Following the anti-Polish [sourced with three references] Khmelnytsky Uprising (1648-57) (see Batih massacre in 1652), a mass movement in the Ukraine against the Polish nobility (szlachta) [because source used words anti-noble] of the Commonwealth and their supporters, part CIVIL WAR and part revolution, known as the Cossack-Polish War..." Opposing editor read "civil war". Opposing editor's assertions his actions were neutral because opposing editor wanted to only use the neutral words "civil war" are incoherent. Opposing editor put in his deletion edit "see TALK", then when there was a talk involving a Third Opinion and an RfC, opposing editor says he's quitting English Wikipedia because another editor clarified with sources and expanded on the material opposing editor initially provided (if I'm not mistaken). Opposing editor, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Opposing editor pushing point of view Khmelnytsky Uprising (genesis of the Cossack Hetmanate) was typical szlachta versus szlachta family squabble not accurate. The Uprising was "anti-Polish" because those prosecuting the war wanted the yoke, burden, and millstone of Polish authority off their backs. The Uprising was "anti-Polish" because they obviously considered Polish authority a trespass, hence war - "Don't tread on me." stated in no uncertain terms (see Batih massacre). Opposing editor's assertion is, "but all that will mislead readers, so do not mention it." Talk about a chilling effect. - Exxess (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

TBH, I have no idea what you guys are even arguing about. KU is no longer mentioned in this article's lead. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Opposing editor Korwinski added (I believe) Khmelnytsky Uprising to introduce the Cossack Hetmanate. I added the words "anti-Polish" before Khmelnytsky Uprising - the result being the "anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising". The specific words "anti-Polish" appeared in a source and were supported by other sources. I sourced my addition. Opposing editor Korwinski's verbiage is "anti-Polish" would mislead readers, so opposing editor deleted "anti-Polish". The addition of the words "anti-Polish," by way of contrast, highlighted further all that which distinguished the szlachta from the rest of the population and defined the szlachta, since in the time and context of the Szlachta article, Polish meant noble (szlachta). The argument therefore was fundamentally delete "anti-Polish" to not mislead readers or keep "anti-Polish" to inform readers. Hostile editing ensued, a Third Opinion was sought. Third Opinion was keep "anti-Polish". Further hostile editing ensued. RfC was sought. RfC was keep "anti-Polish". Editor Piotrus' elegant solution was delete Cossack Hetmanate, which meant no need to mention Khmelnytsky Uprising, therefore no need to mention "anti-Polish", so delete Khmelnytsky Uprising, too. Problem solved. Editor Korwinski packed up marbles, quit English Wikipedia, and went home. - Exxess (talk) 03:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Readability

Fellow Wikipedians, a plough proved unequal to the task, so I have had to resort to a Mattock to aid the readability of the lead and first part of this interesting offering. I hope you regard my exhausting efforts as a marginal improvement, as that was my aim.--Po Mieczu (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

You butchered this quote (God's Playground, Norman Davies, page 233): "The nobleman's sense of distinction led to practices that in later periods would be characterized as racism." If I find it after loaning it from the library, you're in for one fine day. 174.95.203.52 (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

You also butchered (removed) this statement: "(the szlachta Boreyko coat of arms heralds a swastika)," I'm not even close to parsing all your edits and the bias you inserted. 174.95.203.52 (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Also this one. You certainly did take a hatchet to this article: "In harshly stratified and elitist Polish society174.95.203.52 (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hacked and slashed the entire section on Recorded History from Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan up to the section on Lithuania. 174.95.203.52 (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Removed a LARGE portion of the section Szlachta Surnames beginning at "The expression "z" meaning "from" sometimes "at") plus the name of one's patrimony or estate carried the same prestige as "de" in French names such as "de Châtellerault", and "von" or "zu" in German names such as "von Weizsäcker" or "zu Rhein"." 174.95.203.52 (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I am suspending further searches for now. This is rather tiresome. You certainly are a butcher of articles. I'll update the list with the subsequent changes you made in a few weeks, after I confirm (God's Playground, Norman Davies, page 233) re: 'racism'. xtools user reference: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Po_Mieczu (for the record, 'Po Mieczu' in Polish is a distinction of male descent/lineage, ironically speaking). This used to be the best article on 'aristocracy' on WP, and you literally just murdered it. 174.95.203.52 (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is the referenced and deleted quote regarding the racism of the szlachta from GOD'S PLAYGROUND: A HISTORY OF POLAND, VOLUME 1: THE ORIGINS TO 1795 by Norman Davies:

"The nobleman's belief in the exclusive quality of his own estate led to practices which nowadays could only be described as an expression of Racism." - Exxess (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

References

It seems there are several "pro-Polish" editors, who upon discovering views they consider "anti-Polish," therefore unpalatable, make edits and deletions of referenced materials, despite WP:PROVEIT and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. - Exxess (talk) 04:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

From Po Mieczu: 'In this context is cited the medieval Boreyko coat of arms which contains a symbol that looks like a "swastika".' This is an attempt to be subtly disingenuous, and not an improvement in readability, which is claimed as the motive for the change.

The symbol IS a SWASTIKA, not something different that looks like a "swastika".

The original read: '... the szlachta Boreyko coat of arms heralds a swastika ...' - Exxess (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Going to put back much of the original verbiage, which was more precise and neutral. - Exxess (talk) 05:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Per the concerns regarding the butchering of szlachta article stated by another editor, and the excising of important details, put back some of the excised language. - Exxess (talk) 06:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Updating this issue (I posted the original complaint regarding these passages). I can now confirm the passage in Norman Davies, God's Playground: A History of Poland (revised edition) p.180-181 (chapter Szlachta) as follows:

The nobleman's belief in the exclusive quality of his own estate led to the practices which nowadays could only be desribed as an expression of Racism. Although the myth of blue blood was widespread in Europe, it usually referred to a tiny elite. In the Republic, it referred to perhaps ten per cent of the population, and had to be defended on a much wider front. All the specious arguments of history and religion which were later to be used by nationalist movements to differentiate the development of their own people, culture, and lands from that of 'foreigners', were used in an earlier period to strengthen the identification of the noble estate against the rest of society. Despite the continual process of ennoblement, whereby burghers, peasants, Jews, and foreigners, were added to their ranks, the szlachta continued to pretend that they were biologically unique. There was no strong feeling about bastardry, intermarriage or miscegenation as such - only that the children of irregular unions should not have a claim to nobility.

There are futher references and examplex provided. References to slavery, corruption and serfdom are also present throughout the chapter. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to update this article at the present moment; possibly in the near future. However, it's obviously been biased in favor of the aristocracy. 70.27.138.221 (talk) 10:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I can also confirm the surnames portion which was removed concerning the 'z' like 'zu', before suffix '-ski', etc... also exists in that chapter. 70.27.138.221 (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Dutch/Low German linguistic connection?

The etymology of Szlachta mostly refers to the German terms. Yet to me it seems incredibly similar to the Dutch term "geslacht", which other than biological sex is used to mean dynasty or house, or noble lineage. Has this been considered?