Talk:Zaporozhian Sich/Archive 1

Archive 1

Скуфьи

A "skuf'i" is a hat worn by Orthodox Priests, derived from Greek, and nothing to do with a Sich. Also sík simply means "level" or "smooth" in Hungarian, it has no connection to land. Also, what is "Old Rus'"? Old East Slavic?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.65.61 (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2007‎

Quality of writing

Parts of this article sound as though they were translated from Ukrainian to English by a non-native English speaker. I have tried to clean them up a bit, but it still seems a bit disjointed. Please help. Lubap (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Russian history??

In what way is this a Russia history wikiproject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Counterstrike69 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Why, to allow the Russians to censor Ukrainian history, so as to make Russia look good. Or so the many edits would suggest. Why else?Lubap (talk) 09:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

merging

Why not merge this article with "Zaporozhian Host" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Counterstrike69 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

I think the Sich was actually a city, or otherwise a geographical area, why the host refers to a group of people (prot-nation, perhaps).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Passage deleting

I deleted the passage: "The lack of southern borders and enemies in the past years had a profound affect on the combat-ability of the Cossacks, who realised the Russian infantry was present only after the Sech was surrounded. The surprise effect put a devastating blow to the morale of the Cossacks preventing them from any resistance."

In 1774 Cossacks took an active part in Russo-Turkish War, so the "lack of enemies in the past years" seem to be not true. By testimonies of Ukrainian sources, Ukrainians were ready to fight, but their otaman Kalnyshevsky and local priest convinced them to surrender. [1] Ans-mo 13:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Erasing of alternative point of view

What is the reason for deleting this passage:

The abolishment of the Zaporizhian Sich remained a tragic event in the Ukrainian folklore and peoples memory, where frequently expressed negative attitude towards Empress Catherine and Moscovites (moskal), who ruined the stronghold of the Ukrainian dignity and independence.

What rule is violated? Ans-mo 12:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Again Russian political censorship for passages with clear sources

Here again are erased passages with clear Russian empire loving prejudice. The passage was two times erased by one user, which is close to vandalism.

The abolishment of the Zaporizhian Sich remained a tragic event in the Ukrainian folklore and peoples memory, where frequently expressed negative attitude towards Empress Catherine and Moscovites (moskal), who ruined the stronghold of the Ukrainian dignity and independence. Ukrainian historian A.Kaschenko [2] states, that "Ukrainian people, which for several centuries had a powerfull defender of its rights and reliable asylum , bitterly mourned the abolishment of Sich: - - "Not yet a light, not yet a light, too early for a sunrise, But Moscovite is already surrounding Zaporizhia...", "Moscovites did not sleep, but took all the reserves. Moscovites seniors robbed the Church. They took silver, they took gold, wax candles. Oh, there cried koshovyi with starshyna in Sich." (excerpts of peoples songs)

Please dont erase this passage from discussion page (as it was earlier).Ans-mo 06:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Some new examples

Here is estimation on Zaporizhian Sich ruining by "Encyclopedia of Ukrainian Cossackdom":

By the Government order general Tekely ruined Zaporizhian Sich, in 1781 administrative (polk and sotnia) regime was abolished. Cossacks were made state peasants and serves, cossack starshyna was given right of nobility. These events are presented in Encyclopedia as yet another tragedy of the Ukrainian people. Second time in its history it lost its statehood and national elite.

All Zaporizhians were deprived of weapons. Part of starshyna, and all the highest of them, were repressed. Koshovy Otaman Kalnishevsky was exiled to Solovki monastery, military judge Pavel Golovaty - to Tobolski monastery, military record clerk - to Turuhanski monastery. All of them had not come back. [3]

Having not possibility of express this point in article itself because of one sided censorship I post this sourced opinion to discussion page. Please dont erase it. The problem is that the point of view on Ukrainian Cossakdom from Ukranian side almost not presented. Ans-mo 08:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The Sich as a pirate republic

From the social and economic point of view, the Sich originated as a typical "pirate republic" of the 16th century. Its population was quite international. It included Ukrainians, Tatars, Poles, Lithuanians and Russians. The social structure was also complex — destitute gentry and boyars, merchants and peasants, outlaws of every sort, run-away slaves from Turkish galleys, etc. The remoteness of the place and rapids on the Dnepr river effectively guarded the place from invasions of revenge-seeking powers. The natural business of this motley crowd was robbery. The main target: rich settlements on the Black Sea shores of the Ottoman Empire.

SAY WHAT??? I don't know who wrote this, but first of all that's just an opinion, and second of IT IS A GROUNDLESS OPINION. Does the fact that the Sich gave a sanctuary to political refugees (enemies of its enemies) right away classifies it as a rogue state? And what about stating that the Sich didn't have any order or something like that? Whoever said that needs to reread the history. The river's name is not Dnepr, but rather Dnipro, "grandpa" Dnipro. Dnepr is the Russian version of the name (why? - an old colonization trick).

The remoteness of the place and rapids on the Dnepr river effectively guarded 
the place from invasions of revenge-seeking powers.

Interesting! What about the Cossacks military skills to defend their Heartland -- Khortytsia? And I'm just speechless of the last couple of sentenses -- that was written with direct disrespect.

THIS NEEDS TO BE TRASHED!!! Aleksandr Grigoryev 02:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Whatta HELL???

All I see is Russified version of history. This article seems as was created to justify the destruction of Zaporizhia. Aleksandr Grigoryev 03:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So fix it. --AW (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

What does "liquidated" mean? Destroyed? Sold? Depopulated?

I don't understand this sentence and added a clarification needed tag. --AW (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Reorganization

This article is very disorganized. The current "Origins" section actually provides a summary of the full history; the "Establishment" section begins, "In later years..." Etc. I am initially going to reorganize the existing content, with some changes of headings. I'm changing Origins to a Summary section, then that will need to be blended in with the existing History narrative. It needs more and better sourcing, of course, which I will not have time for, but I'm going to try to put the extant content in better order. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Please, do! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Eh, I mostly rearranged what was already here, adding some transitions and new material for coherence. Also removed some unsourced and incomprehensible content and copyvio. Hopefully I didn't introduce any new errors(!). Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me. As you've noted, it was verbose to the point of incoherence.

The only thing I'd prefer to restore at the moment is the nomenclature for 'starshina', restoring it to 'starshyna' as related to the WP:COMMONNAME for the subject and epoch. De-wikilinking it is a good call as the Starshina article is WP:SYNTH based on Russian language usage plus RF usage, and I don't believe there should be a redirect. At some point the articles should be separated and a DAB used for the terminology. Magocsi ("History of Ukraine: The Land and Its Peoples") uses the latter term exclusively (other than a transliteration from Russian to reflect its use in a Russian language document from the 19th century), as does Subtelny ("Ukraine: A History"), Britannica, and the Ukrainian online Encyclopedia.

While this is a minor point, even a quick Google search has yielded this for 'starshina', and this for 'starshyna'. Let me know what you think. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I was just making it consistent, no preference. Following Magocsi is good with me. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Khortytsia

The main source used for this page states that the first Sich was on Khortytsia Island, as does the Khortytsia page. This was changed today, with a non-English source added. Is there an English-language source for this change? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Laszlo Panaflex: Apologies for having missed the change and your query until now. I'm in agreement with Staszek Lem who has made appropriate changes. The compilation edited by Smoliy reference being referenced is appropriately called "Козацькі січі" ("Cossack Siches": "sichi" being the plural form of "sich"). As has been clarified, a 'sich' is simply a clearing/territory used as a base camp/HQ where Cossacks live, and from whence expeditions take place. It doesn't need to be a 'fortress' per se, simply to have its perimeters guarded. Islands, such as Tomakivka, could be used as being predisposed to being naturally fortified. The question of whether it was truly a precursor is conjecture. It existed in Zaporizhia, but does not mean that it was anything other than islands in Zaporizhia being strategically well placed and convenient to act as a sich. The sich at Khortytsia is understood to be the definitive location for the formation known as the Zaporozhian host. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Iryna and Staszek Lem. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)