Laszlo Panaflex (talk | contribs) |
Lembit Staan (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 139: | Line 139: | ||
:{{re|Laszlo Panaflex}} Apologies for having missed the change and your query until now. I'm in agreement with {{u|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. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 19:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC) |
:{{re|Laszlo Panaflex}} Apologies for having missed the change and your query until now. I'm in agreement with {{u|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. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 19:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC) |
||
::Thank you Iryna and Staszek Lem. [[User:Laszlo Panaflex|Laszlo Panaflex]] ([[User talk:Laszlo Panaflex|talk]]) 18:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC) |
::Thank you Iryna and Staszek Lem. [[User:Laszlo Panaflex|Laszlo Panaflex]] ([[User talk:Laszlo Panaflex|talk]]) 18:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC) |
||
== Requested move 22 June 2018 == |
|||
{{requested move/dated|Zaporozhian Sich}} |
|||
[[:Zaporizhian Sich]] → {{no redirect|Zaporozhian Sich}} – In accordance with article text. [[User:Staszek Lem|Staszek Lem]] ([[User talk:Staszek Lem|talk]]) 23:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:54, 22 June 2018
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
Name
The name of this place was Zaporizhian Sich, which is also the original title of this article. Here's some English language sources. Historians: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Travel guides [9]. Government/Library of Congress [10].
Please stop trying to Russify this name for no reason. Start an WP:RM if you must.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Axxxion, in case you didn't notice this section before, one more time, if you want the article moved please follow up proper procedure and start an WP:RM. Please also stop changing the name in text to the Russian translation of the name as that version is not prevalent in English language sources and it doesn't make sense to change the name until the article title issue is settled.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. While the Russian transliteration is almost as common in books as Zaporizhian Sich (see "google books"), Zaporizhian Sich is a significantly more common name in news and other publications. My very best wishes (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- I get 56 hits on gbooks for "Zaporozhskaya Sech", a lot of them very outdated (from the 1930's and 1940's) or some kind of direct translations of Russian works, like Gogol's Dead Souls, or related to a person named Vera Zaporozhskaya, [11]. I get more than three times as many hits for the current title, "Zaporizhian Sich", [12].Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Actually "Zaporozhian" seems to be slightly more common than "Zaporizhian".Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. This is wrong argument by Axxion. It does not matter who established the "Sech". It does not matter if it was "ruski" or not. Only one thing matters: the proper word in modern English per WP:COMMON NAME. My very best wishes (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted the move, on the grounds that Wikipedia policy is that controversial moves should be made using the process at WP:RM. It is also Wikipedia policy that talk pages should have the same name as the article name; so either the article needed moving back to its original name, or the talk page needed moving to Axxxion's new name.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- Zaporizhian Sich has much more hits in Google books then Zaporozhskaya Sech. So the much more common English name for the subject of this Wikipedia artickle is "Zaporizhian Sich" and Wikipedia articles should reflect common English usage. So stop moving this page Axxxion. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
By the way Axxxion insulted me here (or Hispanics is general) as an "argument" why this page should be named "Zaporozhskaya Sech"... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- And why does Axxxion keeps removing the Polish translation of the name of Zaporizhian Sich in the lead. Zaporizhian Sich is also part of the history of Poland. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Reprise
The title Zapirizhian (with "i") looks silly because the text itself says "Zaporozhian" everywhere as well as all the other related articles with the same word use "o" in their titles. Just looks incorrect. BTW, the article in Ukrainian is entitled Запорозька Січ, again with "o". I think we should change the title back to "o" --Asimsky (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- The WP:COMMONNAME in English (per Magocsi, the Ukrainian online Encyclopedia, et al) is "Zaporozhian Sich", "Zaporozhian cossacks", and so forth. I suspect that the reason for the confusion is that the actual geographic region it was located in was Zaporizhia. The cossacks, themselves, were referred to (and referred to themselves) as "Запорожці" ("Zaporozhtsi"). The difference is that Zaporozhian is adjectival, with the subject being "sich"; i.e., Zaporizhian Sich is an ungrammatical transliteration... So, yes, the article needs to be renamed and brought in line with the other articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- I was just looking into this when you posted. The main source used, the Encyclopedia of Ukriane, uses the spellings you discuss here, so thanks for the explanation. I agree that the article should be moved, and usage within the article should be checked. (I did extensive work on the article and didn't even notice this, so obviously it needs to be checked by someone other than me!) Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'll just wait to see whether there is consensus to rename the article (rather than go through an RM), and am happy to make the relevant changes. Mind you, I'd be grateful if someone else double-check. I'm wary of not noticing things, just as are you. I guess I just 'read' these articles about the cossacks without paying attention to the nomenclature because I know it in more than one language, and automatically know what is being referred to. After all, it's never actually come to my attention until Asimsky kindly pointed out the inconsistencies! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- I was just looking into this when you posted. The main source used, the Encyclopedia of Ukriane, uses the spellings you discuss here, so thanks for the explanation. I agree that the article should be moved, and usage within the article should be checked. (I did extensive work on the article and didn't even notice this, so obviously it needs to be checked by someone other than me!) Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2017 (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.
- 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)
- 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)
Requested move 22 June 2018
Zaporizhian Sich → Zaporozhian Sich – In accordance with article text. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)