Talk:Bohdan Khmelnytsky/Archive 1

Old talk
128.etc.

see also Battle of Beresteczko.

Do not change correct English usage into Ukrainian names. Some of names can be under dispute, of course.

Uprising was not against Polish magnates: Wisniowiecki was Ukrainian magnate, many others were also Ukrainian magnates. One can argue that it wasn't against Poland, since in beginning Chmielnicki considered himself subject of Polish king. But it evolved into uprising against Poland. szopen

Chmielnicki's uprosing was in fact a civil war. Chmielnicki was an ethnic Pole as well as many Cossacks and peasants by his side. In contrary Wisniowiecki was Ruthenian (Ukrainians if you prefer) as well as majority of his soldiers. In fact it was a war between two elites of Ukraine: actual nobles (in majority Ruthenians) and potential nobility (Cossakcs). Unfortunalelly, the popular view (in Poland and in Ukraine) of history of these events is full of nationalistic and class mithology.

Regards,

User:Yeti

'This view however is on the far side of radical nationalism rather than unprejudiced'

A far side is a bit too far I think. I agree with nationalism, but you make it sound like ultra-propaganda...

Second. What u say here about Ukrainian magnats...well, lets face it, they spoke Polish, converted to catholiciism - most of them embraced the Polish culture. Which is not to say that majority of the peasantry wasnt Ukrainian.

I agree with rest of what you say...curse those stupid nobles for destroying the PLN with their petty nationalism, yes... --Piotrus 19:14, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Looks like Wiki will have to think of a way to settle nationalistic disputes. In Russia, they taught me that it was a unification of Ukraine and Russia with the help of Bogdan Khmelnitsky, not annexation by Russia :). I guess, Ukraine is now revising its history to match it with its current ideology (who knows if it's right or wrong). Though it's funny how they never tried to sanctify the White Army in Russia, for example. They have been fighting with the evil Bolsheviks, haven't they? Check out my article on Ivan Mazepa, I hope you won't find it offensive.

KNewman 23:38, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Khmelnytsky
Why is Khmelnytsky the one name not listed as an option in the opening sentence, yet used exclusively throughout afterwards? Jayjg 19:07, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Because Ukrainian nationalists have been doing sweeping changes over all wikipedia in a great rush and didn't bother themselves with such trifles as overall consistency, even with transliterations from their own language. Mikkalai 19:23, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I've now rendered it correctly in Wikipedia's conventional Ukrainian transliteration, as well as a common historical English transliteration for the last name. &mdash;Michael Z. 20:37, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)


 * I just noted that the intro mentions that he's called in Polish as Chmielnicki. While this is true, he is also apparently known in English under that name as well ( - ) note that I added the date to be sure that the links are about the person and not the town of that name. On the other thought, I don't want to open yet another can of worms, I'm simply pointing to the fact that we could simplify the header a bit. Halibutt 22:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Category
Perhaps the category should be changed from Polish History to Polish nobility? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:51, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jewish casualties
 estimates range from a minimum 100,000 to over half a million Jews killed.

That estimate seems exaggerated, since according to History of the Jews in Poland, there were 750 000 Jews in the world at the time, with about 450 000 in Poland. Even the biggest estimates out there are "100 000 to 200 000", so that seems more accurate to me. Also it should be noted that not all of those were killed, some died of diseases and of imprisonment by the invading Tatars. So after my revision:

 The precise number of dead may never be known, but the decrease of the Jewish population during that period is estimated at 100,000 to 200,000, which also includes deaths from diseases and Tatar imprisonment.

In no way is this intented to diminish the tragedy which occurred, but the numbers have to adhere to facts and make sense.


 * If that's the biggest estimate, what is the full range of estimates that can be considered realistic? &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-02-6 15:17 Z 


 * If you read Ukrainian, you can read this article to appreciate the complexity of determining how many people died during that time: http://ukrhistory.narod.ru/texts/sysyn-1.htm.
 * If you read Ukrainian, you can read this article to appreciate the complexity of determining how many people died during that time: http://ukrhistory.narod.ru/texts/sysyn-1.htm.
 * If you read Ukrainian, you can read this article to appreciate the complexity of determining how many people died during that time: http://ukrhistory.narod.ru/texts/sysyn-1.htm.
 * If you read Ukrainian, you can read this article to appreciate the complexity of determining how many people died during that time: http://ukrhistory.narod.ru/texts/sysyn-1.htm.
 * If you read Ukrainian, you can read this article to appreciate the complexity of determining how many people died during that time: http://ukrhistory.narod.ru/texts/sysyn-1.htm.
 * If you read Ukrainian, you can read this article to appreciate the complexity of determining how many people died during that time: http://ukrhistory.narod.ru/texts/sysyn-1.htm.


 * There are varying counts, taking into account different time periods, using conflicting population data, etc...
 * There are varying counts, taking into account different time periods, using conflicting population data, etc...
 * There are varying counts, taking into account different time periods, using conflicting population data, etc...
 * There are varying counts, taking into account different time periods, using conflicting population data, etc...
 * There are varying counts, taking into account different time periods, using conflicting population data, etc...
 * There are varying counts, taking into account different time periods, using conflicting population data, etc...

Disputed origin
Article sais that his origin is disputed, and various users periodically change Polish to Ruthenian or vice versa. This could use expantion/explanation and some sources, preferably. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I think there wasn't a concept of nation the way we have today, at least among the peasantry. Many people described themselves as "local" or "orthodox".  On the other hand, many commonwealth nobles consciously changed their names from Ukrainian to Polish (or was it just from Cyrillic to Latin spelling?) to fit in with mainstream society.


 * I haven't read anywhere that Khmelnytsky said what his nationality was. Ruthenian might be considered a more inclusive term by some.  &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-03-8 16:12 Z 

"The Jews"
I object to the phrase "the Jews" in the following sentance:

"The magnates sold and leased certain privileges to the Jews for a lump sum and, while enjoying themselves at their courts, left it to the Jewish leaseholders and collectors to become objects of hatred to the oppressed and long-suffering peasants."

"The Jews" did not form a unit to which privileges (or anything else) could be sold or leased. The phrase should be modified to reflect the specific group to whom the author refers, or at least to reflect that only a minority of Jews participated in this process. The current usage is offensive. Adam Holland 18:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The statement is accurate. Everything in the 1600s was strictly divided along religious/racial lines. Special laws applied to "The Jews" as a unit. For example, it was illegal for Jews to own land. But the Polish nobilty exploited everyone to the hilt, so they encouraged Jewish enterpreneurs to lease land under very difficult terms that made it almost impossible to profit without abusing the peasant population. According to Subtelny, in 1616 more than 50% of Polish crown lands in Ukraine were leased out to Jewish enterpreneurs.

RedManPlus, December 14, 2005.

Other son
Romanian sources mention Timofei (spelling?), a second son to Bohdan (he was important for certain events in Romanian history - see Vasile Lupu). Dahn 00:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Bohdan's other son... and his right hand man was named Tymosh (full name Tymoshenko or Tymofii). Tymosh married the Moldavian Hospodar Lupu's daughter in June 1652 in order to seal an alliance between Cossackdom and Moldavia. He was wounded by a cannonball during a campaign September 1653 and died of gangrene several days later. Earlier in June 1651 his father Hetman Bohdan suspected that his 2nd wife, of Polish origin, was cheating on him. He wrote Tymosh a letter ordering him to investigate and to hang the woman if charges true. Under torture the truth came out and Tymosh hung 6 people, including Bohdan's adulterous wife and her mother. The Hetman grieved deeply, but within a few years married for the 3rd time... deliberately choosing a Ukrainian Cossack widow. (Widows were very common in those times).

The definitive Ukrainian history was written by Professor Mykhailo Hrushevsky (1866-1934). He briefly became Ukaine's president in 1918. The work is 11 volumes and about 7,000 pages. Several volumes have been translated into English. Anyone unfamiliar with this work cannot seriously comment on the history of Ukraine. Khemlnytsky hosted foreign envoys and diplomats almost daily. All political eyes in EU were upon him... since he stood at the nexus of the conflict between Catholicism/Orthodoxy and Christianity/Islam. Hrushevsky's history is primarily based on 1000s of [[Image:letters written by diplomats and preserved in EU archives.

Also, the discussion about whether Bohdan was Ukrainian or Polish is laughable. Today in Ukraine the Polish population might be 1-2% because Stalin forcibly evicted all ethnic Poles from West Ukraine. The idea that the UA government would put a Polish national on their 5 hryvnia note is nonsensical. Also, Poles are Catholic while Cossackdom was near universally Orthodox.]]

Death
How did he die?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Rename?
Plese see the discussion at Talk:Khmelnysky_Uprising.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

so-called leader
However much he may not be liked, it cannot be disputed that he was an actual leader. He wasn't a "so-called" leader and so I'm going to remove the words "so-called" from the end of the first paragraph. Additionally, the first paragraph ends on righteous cry of indignation -- I approve, but this is an encyclopedia. The number listed here and later in the article has also been inflated to its maximum from previous reports -- I've changed those back. Banaticus 21:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

homosexual
Bogdan had homosexual tendencies? In all my reading about him I've NEVER come across this allegation, hence I removed it from the article.

User:Tgrain

ruthenians
Why Ruthenians?! What's wrong with Ukrainians?

User:Ademchuk At that time the ethnonym "Ukrainian" was not used. Ukrainians were known as Rusyny or Ruthenians. Bandurist 16:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * They referred to themselves as Russians (Rus'kie - compare to modern Russkie), not Rusyny (a smaller group). Ruthenians is a latinized form of Russians (eg. look at element Ruthenium). With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Overenthusiasm
Guys reading sections of the article sounds like reading an advertisement. I mean this is not written in an encyclopaedic tone. Let me give you two examples.

"While it might appear that the Czapliński Affair caused the Uprising, it was only an impetus that brought a successful and talented Cossack to the forefront of popular discontent among the people of Ukraine."

successful? talented? I don't dispute these claims however write about facts or create a separate personal attributes section. (I've got to be honest with you though I have not often seen psychoanalysis of historical fugues and as far as I know it isn't encouraged - read weasel words)

"This could have been one of the many other frequent Cossack revolts that had been put down by the authorities, but the stature, the skill and the respect of the seasoned 50-year-old negotiator and warrior Khmelnytsky made all the difference."

Again more weasel words - stature, skill, respect, warrior. Write about facts and let the reader be the judge of personal character. 59.101.198.132 11:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources from a blog?
I removed the part about the mayor of the ciry of Khmelnytsky. First of all, it has nothing to do with the historical figure, second of all a blog is not acceptable as a source per WP:V. Please use published academic sources. --Hillock65 06:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant additions
Indifferent of the Cossacks towards the commoners is irrelevant to the description of Khmelnytsky's role in Ukrainian history. If you want to expand on relationships between Cossacks and peasants, there are appropriate places for that. Here however, it does not belong, since it shifts attention away from the description of Khmelnytsky to Coccack politics and attitudes. This addition is irrelevant to this section about Khmelnytsky, and furthermore, it is not referenced and highly speculative. It should be kept out of this section. Opinions of other editors are welcome. --Hillock65 17:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * І think it is essential for understanding B's image. As one friend, who is a historian and a folklorist said to me many years ago- B's actions caused the Turks to inherit the worst traits of our character.Galassi 21:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No one agues with that. Mention it in the appropriate parts. Here it does not belong, it takes away the reader's attention from the topic of narrative to unrelated speculation of relationship between Cossacks and peasants. If you want to implicate BK in it, do it directly, otherwise, please remove the unrelated speculation. --Hillock65 23:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph: Treaty of Pereyaslav' and loss of Ukrainian independance
Wasn't Ukraine part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? If it was, how can one lose something one didn't have in the first place? With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Have a look at Cossack Hetmanate. Between 1651 and 1654 Cossacks were independent. They broke their alliance with PLC after the battle of Berestechko and where looking for a new sovereign: Turks and Muscovites. --202.249.210.76 (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Khmelnytsky in Jewish history
Hello,

This entire section has no sources. At all. Please add some.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Jayjg (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Is Khmelnytsky an Eastern Catholic Christian?
Is Khmelnytsky an Eastern Catholic Christian?

In Japanese page(ボフダン・フメリヌィーツィクィイ), ja:利用者:Alex K(User:Alex Kov) who is an Ukrainian insists that Khmelnytsky belonged to Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. Is that true? I guess if it is true, the articles written in English page now is not true...


 * AlexK's edit
 * before - 東方正教会に所属しつづけた. (belongs to Eastern Orthodox)
 * after - 東方典礼カトリック教会 に所属しつづけた. ( belongs to Eastern Rite Catholic )--Kinno Angel (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No. He was Eastern ORTHODOX Christian.Galassi (talk) 11:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. Could you tell me citation? I will edit Japanese page with citation.--Kinno Angel (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is non-controversial fact that needs no citation, per Ukrainian Wiki.Galassi (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think so too... but in Japanese page(ボフダン・フメリヌィーツィクィイ), it is controversial by an Ukrainian even now... --Kinno Angel (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No controversy in Ukr.wiki at all. He studied at a Catholic college, but never converted.-Galassi (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Excuse me but, in Ukr.wiki, a tag "Джерело?" (WP:CITE) has been on this point...--Kinno Angel (talk) 07:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

He was indeed Eastern Orthodox. .Binyamin Goldstein (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Material added to "Khmelnytsky in Jewish history" section on 4/1/2012
I have reverted the apparently overly selective inclusion of material from the main Uprising article~, to PREVENT POVFORK.--Galassi (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)--Galassi (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The material in the current section was actually unsourced (see 2 year old complaints on the Talk: page above), and didn't really deal with "Khmelnytsky in Jewish history", which was the specific title of the section. It obviously wasn't a "POVFORK", but rather a summary of the main section in Khmelnytsky Uprising, with an emphasis on the material relevant to "Khmelnytsky in Jewish history". Thus the inclusion of the material about how the stories of the massacre etc. led to great despair in Jewish communities across Europe, and the rise of Messianism (and Sabbatai Zevi), and the quite relevant quote from Orest Subtelny that "...to this day the Khmelnytsky uprising is considered by Jews to be one of the most traumatic events in their history." Given the title of the section, it's hard to imagine more relevant or appropriate material; I'm sure once you've had a chance to review it, you'll agree. Jayjg (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If is not a POVFork: better not put in the "buried alive" stuff. It creates a certain mood inappropriate here.--Galassi (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you are writing. The section is supposed to indicate that significance of Khmelnytsky in Jewish history - and the significance was that these horrific stories were told of him and his uprising, leading to despair, a rise in apocalyptic Messianism, etc. That is exactly what the Jewish communities thought of him, both then, and for centuries after. Special prayers are still recited around the world in synagogues today on 20 Sivan lamenting the Khmelnytsky pogroms. How can one describe Khmelnytsky's effect on Jewish history if one doesn't actually describe it? Jayjg (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Deleted Magocsi quote
"this has nothing to do with his effect on Jewish history": What? It's directly relevant to everything else in that section. Unless you can provide a convincing explanation why you deleted the Magocsi quote, I'll restore it. Languagehat (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The section is about the effect Khmelnytsky had on the history of the Jews. It's not about exactly how many Jews were killed by him or his armies (or as a result of his actions), but rather of the lasting impact his actions had on the Ashkenazi Jewry, and Jews in general. See also the Talk: section immediately above this one. Jayjg (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

a few general notes on the article
I've given it one more read through and here's some notes:


 * The going to France thing, I'm pretty sure that's a legend, although he might have met with a French envoy. My understanding is that modern Ukrainian historiography acknowledges this, although during Soviet time this legend was taken seriously.
 * There's no mention of the sexual affair (possibly rape?) of Khmelnytsky's second wife with/by Czaplinski. Also the fact that Czaplinski not only "beat up" (more like "tried to kill") Khmelnytsky's son but also tried to kill Bohdan himself.
 * An important fact which is omitted is that before escaping to the Sich Khmelnytsky obtained letters from the Polish King to the Cossacks in which the King promised to extend the register and grant other privileges to them. The significance is that these letters conveyed some legitimacy to the uprising - Khmelnytsky could, and did, claim that they were not really rebelling against the Commonwealth but were just trying to enforce the orders and will of the king against insubordinate local magnates.
 * There's some weird stuff in the article about Khmelnytsky and his men overtaking a Polish regiment which was guarding the Sich and "liberating" it. This makes no sense - there were no Polish troops in the Sich. That's exactly why Khmelnytsky went there, because it was far away from the Poles. Khmelnytsky didn't have to "take over" the Sich as the local Cossacks already controlled it. At most, all he had to do was to convince the Cossacks there not to turn him over to the Polish magnates (which probably wasn't that hard, seeing as the whole purpose of the Sich was sort of to provide refuge in exactly these kinds of cases).
 * There's some peacock language and fluffery in the article.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Khmelnytsky was not an ethnic Ukrainian
Khmelnytsky was actually a Ruthenian.--141.19.228.15 (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

POV
The article doesn't quote Polish academic sources. (The only reference is about kontusz.)Xx236 (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Dead references
Unverifiable.Xx236 (talk) 07:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Khmelnytsky Uprising
The two pages are strictly connected.Xx236 (talk) 07:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bohdan Khmelnytsky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111002174624/http://www.megavideo.com/?v=B4ZPDHTQ to http://www.megavideo.com/?v=B4ZPDHTQ

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Video has not been archived, only the web page it was embedded in. I can't find a substitute so will mark it for 'cbignore' until a sub is found. Thanks Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect (warped) spelling - Bogdan not Bohdan
In ukrainian the letter G is pronounced guterally similar to a greek Г, though it sounds similar to H it is still a G. Note the spelling in cyrillic Богдан Хмельницкий, the 3rd letter is a G (Г), whereas the surname begins with an H (Х). Therefore the correct transliteration of the name is Bogdan. This a weird trend possibly to force foreigners to distinguish ukrainian pronunciation from russian. In any case, it's a warping of both ukrainian and English. The spelling is what it is and cannot be changed, people are free to pronounce it as they wish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Congoclash (talk • contribs) 09:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A) This is a talk page, not a soapbox; B) You evidently don't know that there's a difference between the Ukrainian ґ (g) and г (h), so please keep your lack of knowledge to yourself. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bohdan Khmelnytsky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160406134427/http://monar.ru/index.php?download%2Fsaints%2FOct%2F30%2Flife01.html to http://monar.ru/index.php?download%2Fsaints%2FOct%2F30%2Flife01.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Category
Isn't it somewhat ahistorical and anachronistic to categorize Khmelnytsky under Genocide perpetrators? The man lived over four centuries ago and the idea of genocide wasn't even conceptualized until the twentieth century. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 01:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Bogdan Chmielnicki
Since he is frequently referred to as Bogdan Chmielnicki in English-language reference sources that form should be mentioned at least in the article's introduction. Mcljlm (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The Lead
The lead sentence "He led the uprising against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1648 – 1654), which resulted in the Treaty of Pereyaslavl of 1654 with Tsardom of Russia." is awkward, biased and factually not true. His leadership in the uprising led to many things (I will not recapitulate them all for the sake of time) - one of them was a Treaty with Pereyaslavl with Muscovy. Note - not the only one that resulted from it, but one of them. --Hillock65 14:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. The solution - expand the article, and expand the lead, so we can summarize other consequences. There is no deyning that Khmelnytsky had much impact on the history.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't feel an expansion of the lead is warranted. I don't want the reader to get lost in the description of all of his achievements right off the top. Let it be as short as it is - just to give his two main achievements and if the reader is interested there will be plenty more to read on that in the article's body. My feeling is that the lead should be as neutral and as concise as possible for people to make their own judgements as they read further.--Hillock65 15:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I am not rushing to work on it now, but in the future we will have to expand it - check WP:LEAD.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The sentence "...was a hetman of the Zaporozhian Cossack Hetmanate of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (now Ukraine)" is syntactically ambiguous; it can be read to mean that the whole Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is now Ukraine.--Georgius (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The Uprising
I strongly suggest that this section should be about Khmelnystky role in the uprising, and not just summarize the article about the uprising.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate? I split the article into main sections - uprising, union with Muscovy, etc. I am not sure how much there should be in each section so there is no conflict with the Uprising article. I left for the time being the Early successes section, but am not sure what to do next.--Hillock65 20:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Well, I'd like to read which battles he commanded, what did he do on a political scene, etc. instead of background like 'why did the conflict erupt' or about the battles he didn't participate in. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Recommendations
I want to commend Hillock for expanding the article, which was previously an appalling mess. Since he so readily assumes bad faith and hidden intent on my part, I don't want to revert war with him over each small edit concerning the language and MoS. Last time, he repeatedly reverted my edits en masse. Therefore, I will (for once) just enumerate my recommendations to improve the current text:
 * What can I cay? Your attempt at good faith might have sounded more convincing if you didn't start with accusations and addressed people in the second person, as it is polite to do. However, I do thank you for your recommendations, some of them are valid and very reasonable. I just started working on this article and haven't had the time to correct everything that was here before - so there is sill some things from the old version intermingled with my additions. I will be making some substantial changes some time later, and your comments will certainly be considered. Thank you.--Hillock65 23:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. What do you mean by saying that Bohdan was "Greek Orthodox"? Did he really speak Greek? Please change awkword phrase to "Eastern Orthodox", as this demonination is known in Wikipedia and elsewhere. - agreed, corrected
 * 2. Is there any particular reason why the Treaty of Pereyaslav should be called "Treaty of Pereyaslavl"? - agreed, corrected
 * 3. "St. Theodorus Day". Can you identify a saint with this fanciful name (a back translation from the mova, I suppose)? If you can't, I may help you.
 * - Your disparaging use of euphemism (mova) in relation to the Ukrainian language, done, again in bad faith forces me to skip this quesion.--Hillock65 00:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 4. "As it was the custom in the Orthodox church, he was baptised with one of his middle names". Could you provide some source that such a custom existed? What middle names do you speak about? I can't recall many Orthodox countries who have middle names. The usage seems to be purely Catholic. --Hillock65 00:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the way my source presents it. He was called even by cossacks: Zinoviy Bohdan. There was no patronimic, it started to be added later. However, the church is stated as Orthodox, probably to conform to Polish civil requirements, even Orhodox nobles were adding middle names to stress their noble status.--Hillock65 00:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 5. "Village Subotiv" should be changed to "the village of Subotiv". - done - thank you.
 * 6. "French ambassador Count De Bregie". The French spelling of his name should be double checked. It is also recommended to wikilink a certain "war in France" which is discussed in this passage.
 * I will look into that closer. --Hillock65 00:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 7. It is noted that Khmelnytsky's father "belonged to the Massalski and the Abdank noble families". This certainly needs to be sourced. In its current version, the assertion is patently false. You cannot belong to three or four families at the same time. It seems more likely that Khmelnytsky belonged to the Khmelnytsky family.
 * - it is a mirky story as it is, there are virtually no documents to prove anything. His Father Mykhailo claims it, so, that's the way it is, I just have to state that that's his father's claim of nobility.--Hillock65 01:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I may be able to explain the confusion. Massalski and Abdank where 'coat of arms clans', not families in our today understanding of that world. Polish heraldry can offer more information on that, for now, I changed 'family' to clans (briefly: he was of the Chmielnicki family, Abdank clan).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 8. "Kyiv" and "Lviv" should be changed to "Kijow" and "Lwow", per WP:NC. We don't need another Gdanzig here.
 * I'll look into that. --Hillock65 01:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 9. "Historians believe he probably received...": if they are not sure about the fact, "probably" is redundant. - done --Hillock65 01:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10. Bohdan "occupies himself with running his father's estate". The next passage: "Khmelnytsky occupies himself with running his estate". How many times this should be repeated? - I will look into style later, but thanks anyway.--Hillock65 01:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 11. "A Polish magnate Stanislaw Konecpolski" should be replaced with "the Polish magnate..." - thank you for mentioning, but inserting an article definitely won't cause a revert war. --Hillock65 01:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 12. "The Cossack's issue of the war with the Tatars". Who was that Cossack who warred against the Khan? - I '' refrase that --Hillock65 01:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 13. "Polish authorities already used to frequent Cossack revolts". Why did they frequent those revolts? Is "frequent" supposed to be a verb or an adjective here? corrected--Hillock65 01:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 14. The caption for the Polish image reads: "Chmelnicki Uprising 1648-54". If it's not the title of the painting, what does this mean? will look into it--Hillock65 01:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 15. "The name of Khmelnytsky remained a controversial figure". How the name can be a figure? -corrected--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 16. "... this led to the Polish king giving royal recognition for the contentious privileges under the Treaty of Zborov". Had to reread that three times before understanding the sentence. Not good. - that is the part from the old article. It will be changed--Hillock65 01:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC) --corrected --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 17. "accept a loser's treaty" - ??- that is the part from the old article. It will be changed--Hillock65 01:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 18. The last passage presents only the Polish side of the story. Can something be said about Khmelnytsky's commemoration in Russia and Ukraine? What about the order of Khmelnytsky? The famous bridge in Moscow? We have separate articles about these. I also recall a Soviet movie starring Sergei Bondarchuk.- that is the part from the old article. It will be changed--Hillock65 01:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 19. You need to determine which tense you want to use throughout the article. It is annoyong when one sentence is rendered in the present tense, and the following one in the past. - thank you for the suggestion --Hillock65 01:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 20. Per Manual of Style, there is no need to wikilink names each time they are mentioned in the article. Once is enough. Otherwise, the article looks overlinked and slovenly. -- Ghirla -трёп-  23:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC) - Thank you again. As I said it is a very raw edit with a lot of old text still there. I didn't want to leave blanks. It will be rewritten soon. Thanks for the suggestions.--Hillock65 01:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Bohdan Khmelnytsky
HM! some "anonymous" - inserted another paragraph, that is already partly present in article. Also, facts expressed there are very, let's say, tremendous, but no sources are given. I think, cause of long article history this paragraph should be disscussed first, and only then used (or declined). --Galkovsky 15:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The facts are very well-known, even though the desire to hide them is understandable. Beit Or 14:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I second what Galkovsky wrote. Please support the statements by reliable sources. --KPbIC 21:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Controversial facts should be referenced.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Further improvements
Even though I finished my additions to the article, I get the feeling that it is still raw and needs improvements. I would appreciate comments and suggestions.--Hillock65 18:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Needs inline citations, a lot of them. Content is good enough for GA but lack of references is a problem.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Much of the new material is of general history coverage rather than of the person, the subject of the article. It should be moved to Khmelnytsky uprising and other articles on history. Of course having it here is better than not having it at all. --Irpen 19:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are probably right; IIRC K Uprising was created by splitting material from this article in the first place... maybe it's time to repeat the history :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Khmelnytsky in Jewish history
It is quite understandable that Khmelnytsky is not a popular figure in Jewish history, however, this article does not have to be vandalised over and over again with unencyclopedic epithets about him. This is not a message board or a wall for graffiti. If someone wants to mention that he was a "sadistic murderer", "much reviled" and other 7th Grade descriptions of a historical figure, please look at other "mass murderers" and note that there the encyclopaedic style is preserved, although they are surely no "less reviled". In any additions references are necessary. --Hillock65 11:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Such adjectives are simply not encyclopedic.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I put in those "seventh grade" descriptions out of frustration and disbelief that anyone would find anything controversial about Chmielnicki and his place in Jewish history. A "better variant"?  Better variants are for improving the expression of a basically true fact.  While you claim that you are only interested in maintaining the encyclopedic tone of this article, your numerous reverts that simply eliminated references wholesale betray the bias. Comparing Chmielnicki to Naftaly Frenkel and a host of minor players in history who couldn't carry Chmielnicki's sword sheath? Are you for real??!!! Be intellectually honest; compare him to Joseph Stalin or others whose victims played as large a part of his story as Chmielnicki.  You'll see that indeed, the "number game" you so abhor is featured.  He doth protest too much.

On the other hand calling him "controversial in Jewish historical memory" seems like a weasel word. Is there really any controversy among Jewish historians about how to properly view him? Is there controversy as to how Jews perceive him and his role in their history? I seriously doubt it. "Reviled" is probably more accurate, though admittedly very charged. radek 17:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I edited the sentence out until a better variant is found.--Hillock65 18:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how recounting Jewish losses during the Khmelnytsky Uprising in that much detail is relevant to the article about a person. This has been covered quite extensively in the Khmelnytsky Uprising artticle. Do I need to remind that this article is about Khmelnytsky and his role in the events and not about events themselves? There is a place for this in the appropriate article. If this is to stay here, which is contrary to the subject of this article, a view of other historians on casualties will have to be added, which will make this a discussion on casualties, rather than of a historical person. Please keep to the subject matter of the article.--Hillock65 11:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The source itself attributes these killing to Chmelnitzki. You've been consistently cutting this section down; soon it will disappear altogether. I've added some general information about the impact on the Jewish communities, taking into account the varying estimates. Jayjg(talk) 16:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, do not insert the Hanover Chronicle "estimates", as they are utterly unrelistic. The historians' consensus is 20-30,000 out of 60,000.Galassi 17:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't own the article and I am not the only editor, your additions are welcome but, please also add some references or sources to the claims that you are making. --Hillock65 16:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that we move away from numbers at all and agree that many people died? This issue over numbers has been fought over at Khmelnytsky Uprising article from where User Jayjg has been transplanting material word-for-word here, preferring to post only one side of the argument. Must we go over numbers again? This article is about Khmelnytsky — his legacy is controversial, indeed, even for Ukrainians — so, lets focus on the man and his legacy instead of numbers. Way more Ukrainians and Poles died and I don't see people going over numbers over and over again in all possible articles. Let's stick to the subject matter of the article please.--Hillock65 17:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I first added the material here, and you reverted it, claiming it belonged in Khmelnytsky Uprising. I then moved it to Khmelnytsky Uprising (where of course it was also reverted); now you claim that I was doing something wrong by doing that? In addition, I have indeed added references, including ones you've specifically asked for. You asked for a reference for the claim that 50% of the Jews in Ukraine were killed, then when I provide it, you delete the sentence anyway. This is not editing in good faith. The percentage killed is important, as are the number of Jewish communities destroyed, regardless of where the number is 20,000 or 200,000. Rather than inserting long parenthetical footnotes giving third hand descriptions of numbers nobody goes by (millions), let's just give the parameters of what the various reliable sources says, from lowest to highest, along with the impact on the Jewish community as a whole in terms of numbers of communities affected or destroyed. Jayjg (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't accuse me of removing anything from the Uprising article, I didn't touch it at all. You are singularly missing the point of this article — it is about Khmelnytsky and his role in the killings. You instead, have presented nothing new, just posted material from other articles. In regards to numbers and quotations, you seem to prefer to insert data that suits you and ignore other evidence. You mentioned that all sides have to be represented, but all of a sudden, a famous historian Orest Subtelny, an authority on Ukrainian history is relegated as trivia and his research on numbers is reverted, while a timeline from CBS (!!!) is an authority on the subject! I posted Subtelny's comments since you obviously ignored my proposal to stay off the number game and duplicate material from other articles. I thought you might add something on how Khmelnytsky's legace is viewed by Jews, instead you prefer to wage revert wars now on two different articles, but over one and the same topic. This is very counterproductive. Your additions are welcome, but please do not ugly up the article with irrelevant material. For the third time, please stick to the topic of this article. --Hillock65 20:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyways, the article missed one of the main influences Khmelnytsky had on Judaism - namely the anniversary of the uprising is a fast day in Eastern european communities, and "From Khmelnytsky's Time," is a Yiddish saying for, "Long, long, ago." Basejumper 19:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Khmelnytsky is pretty much the Slavic version of Adolf Hitler. He wanted to annihilate the Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.240.43.113 (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this true?
"Khmelnytsky captured the Polish king John II Casimir at the battle of Zbarazh,". ??? radek 14:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No. See Siege of Zbarazh (need to translate more from pl wiki) and Treaty of Zboriv. Tatars (not Cossacks) surrounded detached army of Polish king, but he never surrnedered - instead Tatars got a huge ransom to remove themselves from the fight, weakening Khmel.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Jewish death toll
"...with death toll estimates ranging from 20,000 to 30,000."[11][20][21][22]

Several of the cited sources (The Columbia Encyclopedia, Reiss, Spector, Midlarsky, Gilbert, Pasahoff, Goldberg, etc.) mention death tolls of 100,000 or more. What's going on here?P4k (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The recent, modern research dedicated to the issue of Jewish casualties supports the 20-30k numbers, but older, more general publications, quoting old research, gives those larger, less realistic numbers.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually this whole section is pretty stupid; where the other "Khmelnytsky remembered" subsections describe the view of him presented in different national histories, this is mostly just about the effect of uprising on Ukrainian Jews, which belongs here. It's a repetition of this better section.P4k (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Portraits
In, the author notes that there is only one known portrait of Chmielnicki, one whose author is most likely Abraham van Westervelt/pl:Abraham van Westerveld/commons:Category:Abraham Evertsz. van Westerveld (in late September 1651, during negotiations at Treaty of Bila Tserkva) and which was engraved by Willem Hondius later that year in Gdańsk. He also notes

Now, this raises a few issues. First, as far as I can tell, we have a number of various copies of this painting at Commons at commons:Category:Bohdan Khmelnytsky, but most are attributed to unknown, few to Hondius, and none to Westerveld - an error which needs to be fixed.

I wonder if anyone can comment on whether Wisner is right that Westerveld's work is the only eye-witness portrait of Chmielnicki? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 20:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Anonymous Bohdan Khmelnytsky.jpg seems to be different, but it is attributed to anonymous
 * File:Bohdan Khmelnytsky 3165.jpg/File:Litopys Samovydcia. Chmelnicki.jpg ditto
 * File:Bohdan Khmelnytsky portrait by S. Zemlyukov.jpg is attributed to "S. Zemlyukov" ?, but seems like a reproduction
 * File:Bohdan.Jan Matejko.jpg attributed to Jan Matejko seems similar, but not an exact copy

Massacre at Batoh section added
Where did the new entry for Massacre at Batoh come from, most particularly the "The massacre is sometimes called the "First Katyn" in similarities of circumstances to the Katyn massacre in 1940." business? Not only is such a comparison revisionism, the entire entry is based on two Polish language sources that can't be verified, nor even evaluated for being WP:RS: - Hanna Widacka (2013). "Rzeź polskich jeńców pod Batohem": I'm assuming this is based on an article found here and here; - Wojciech Jacek Długołęcki, Batoh 1652, s. 185-193. You forgot to even translate s. to pgs.

I see that there's an entire article in Polish Wikipedia called Rzeź polskich jeńców pod Batohem based on the two identical sources (and nothing else). Who are Długołęcki and Widacka? They don't particularly feature anywhere on Google scholar, nor is there anything on their credentials to be found. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Where - I presume you mean the recent edit by User:Marcus19771107 (whom I suggest you ping in the future). Now, I think the battle of Batoh does not need a dedicated section, but it certainly should be mentioned; it was an important battle of the uprising, and Khmelnytsky is listed as the Cossacks commander. I thought some more about the Batoh massacre, but the sources I find (Polish) do seem to be clear that Khmelnytsky was the one to order the massacre. The most reliable source I found for this is, by historian Radosław Sikora, and , by journalist Sebastian Duda, who in turn cites Wojciech Jacek Długołęcki:'s book (Batoh 1652, Bellona, 2008). I cannot find any academic credentials for Wojciech Jacek Długołęcki, it seems to be his first book and I am not seeing even an author bio blurb for him, but the book was published by a reliable publishing house - Bellona Publishing House, and in a well established series of books on historical battles (pl:Historyczne Bitwy).. R. Sikora is a reliable scholar (pl:Radosław Sikora, also has a uk wiki entry). Widacka seems a reliable author too, she has a short bio at  - historian of art, employee of the Polish National Library in Warsaw, author of 10+ books. As such, I think it is a non-controversial, well established fact (that the battle happened, and that thousands of Polish prisoners of war were massacred upon Khmelnytsky's orders). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  03:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In deference to your request,, I'm pinging both you and regarding his/her re-addition of the self-same content after no attempt to engage on this talk page discussion since May. If there is some form of discussion as to whether this content merits being integrated into to article (as a section dedicated to it certainly strikes me as being WP:UNDUE), this is where it needs to take place, hence I've reverted it per WP:BRD. A proper discussion is welcome. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The content on the "massacre" (all such incidents are consistently called "massacres" in Polish sources and something else in all other sources) is certainly given WP:UNDUE weight by Marcus19771107. An entire subsection and whole paragraph with lurid, unencyclopedic details is inappropriate and biased--especially since the only sources cited are obscure Polish ones written by a journalist and a "scholar" that the editor cannot even track down.  --Taivo (talk) 10:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I quote sources where WINTESSES of the event are quoted. What else do you want ???? On the subject write: - Jacek Długołęcki in his book on Batoh 1952 - Hrushevsky, Mykhail - Ciesielski, Tomasz - so on There are several accounts quoted in those books - I also made some references to them. I must say, you simple 'make history'. Why ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus19771107 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pinging me back. I am not impressed by the other two posts here, which seem to rather combatant/I like/I dislike/my version of history is the only true one-like. May I suggest that you draft a sentence to be included (not a section), based on the sources cited and discussed here? Something to the simple extent of Khm. being the commander and ordering the execution of the prisoners, an event referred to by Polish scholars as a "massacre". I'd think such a sentence would be a reasonable compromise. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The difficulty is, as with other bio articles surrounding historical persons, establishing where (exactly) it fits in per WP:TITLE. Given the current structure of the article, my take is that it suggests that it should be relegated to the "See also" section. Unless the article is re-jigged, his WP:N is the primary subject, and there are articles dedicated to prominent controversies surrounding him. There's no doubt that he's an extremely controversial figure with two prominent narratives competing with each other as to whether he was an, erhem, notorious or, erhem, heroic figure (plus a multitude of sub-narratives). How these fit into a more generalised biography is extremely difficult to judge. I'll give it some thought and get back to you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * See my draft in the article. I think this is a notable and "due" event, and the references are reliable.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is still problematic for a couple of reasons. First, there is no listing of individual battles or separate actions, so the sudden appearance of one battle, out of the many that he fought, is not appropriate.  Second, there is still no indication of why this single action is significant in any way other than to push a particular negative POV.  It simply seems to be inflammatory in nature rather than encyclopedic.  I'm simply not convinced that this small detail is appropriate for the article as a whole.  And, as a general rule, we don't use the article itself as a workspace to test things.  --Taivo (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Taivo on this, Piotrus. Simply put, it doesn't have anything to do with "Complications", but reads as being tacked on for lack of anywhere else to make a selective negative point. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I see my proposed addition was removed. The article mentions battles of Cecora and Korsun (it should mention more). The battle and massacre are mentioned in reliable, English sources, too:, ; even Subtelny is clear on that: . We have found reliable sources that the massacre was ordered by Khmelnytsky; I think that a sufficient compromise is to attribute this claim to the Polish scholars. The fact that the section name may not be most applicable calls for retitling of the section. I am going to ask for more participants of this discussion at relevant WikiProjects to help form a consensus. PS. I found an English language source for Khm. ordering the massacre himself: . While I know the source is old, the author Mykhailo Hrushevskyi, "one of the most important figures of the Ukrainian national revival of the early 20th century", can hardly be accused of any anti-Ukrainian bias, I'd think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  06:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should battle/massacre at Batoh be mentioned in the article on Khmelnytsky?
Should battle/massacre at Batoh be mentioned in the article on Khmelnytsky? See prior discussion for details; in short: this massacre is controversial and reflects badly on Khmelnytsky. The battle was a major one, and the fact that massacre happened is not questioned, neither is the fact that Khmelnytsky was the commander of the Cossack forces at the scene. We have found several reliable sources in Polish that attribute the order for the massacre to Khmelnytsky. I propose we add a sentence saying so, attributing it to said Polish (also found non-Polish0 sources. It is a biographical fact relevant to Khmelnytsky, and I (disclaimer: a Pole) do not believe ordering of massacre of thousands of prisoners of war is "too minor" to be included here. Ukrainian editors argue this event should not be mentioned, and I expect they'll summarize their views here. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - summoned by bot. It seems the discussion above was whether or not it deserved its own section, not whether or not it should be mentioned at all. Having its own section, when there are no other similar sections about battles, does seem to be WP:UNDUE. So can you please clarify that you want the whole section added back in, or whether this RfC is about any mention in this article at all? —Мандичка YO 😜 00:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not believe this event (or battle) deserves a section. A single sentence about the battle and the prisoner's execution, in the part of the article that deals with his life in those years, would be totally sufficient. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, I would suggest you scratch this RfC and start over. You should supply the exact text that you want added about this battle, and where it would go, and what sources it has. This way random editors who respond to the RfC can see the exact text instead of trying to guess who wants what where. When you form the question for the RfC, it should be completely neutral of your own opinion. Then you cast your own opinion below that like any other editor. See this example of recent recent RfC I started. (Not that it's perfect, but even people on the other side of my opinion said it was well written). —Мандичка YO 😜 13:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you mind drafting such a neutral RfC? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to but I need more info - do you have a diff available where I can look at the proposed text/sources etc? —Мандичка YO 😜 13:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This remains my proposed addition; I believe it is relevant and neutral. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 21:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK I've looked at and read some of the Khmelnytsky Uprising. I'm that not familiar with the subject so I think I'm fairly neutral. I agree that just including this post-battle massacre on his article without any context of his other military activities is UNDUE/POV. I think the best course of action is to, on Khmelnytsky's article, summarize his role in the uprising and go through the various battles. There is already a section like this at Khmelnytsky Uprising. The Ukrainian version of his biography goes through the various battles. We should follow both the Ukrainian and Polish RS (and get the best sources we can find) for this information. If controversy exists over this (I'm guessing it does), and that has also been mentioned in RS, we should include the info that this is controversial/disputed by some. What do you think?  —Мандичка YO 😜 23:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I will reply here to you as well as to Taivo. While I agree this article should be expanded, I don't see how a one-sentence mention would be a problem. We cannot say "this article is too short to discuss topic X", or otherwise we will never get anywhere. I have presented a number of reliable sources; nobody has presented sources that contradict them or criticize them, outside non-neutral comments about "Polish propaganda". I have expanded thousands of articles here, and the process is simple: people add what they think is relevant. If someone thinks the article focuses on topic x in an undue way, the best solution is to expand the section further. I have done this on a number of articles; I am totally fine if you or anyone else wants to do so here. What I object to is what I see as an attempt to turn this article into a hagiography - i.e. ensuring that content critical to the POV of Khm. being a flawless hero being removed. This started with an attempt by an editor to add a section about this massacre; I agree this was undue and non-neutral. Current version of censoring even the mention of the battle and the massacre is, IMHO, the same type of POV-pushing, just going the other way. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 19:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You still miss the point. No one here is denying that the particular event happened.  That has not been said once.  The point is one of weight and context.  You have provided, neither in the article (and I'm talking about your "full section", not just the single sentence) nor here on the talk page, any evidence whatsoever that this was a significant action in the arc of BK's life or even within the context of the single war in which it occurred.  If it happened once in his career, then it certainly doesn't define him as a military leader and you have failed to answer the relevant question, "So what?"  I went to a party dressed as a woman once, but that doesn't mean that I am a cross-dresser.  We could just as easily (with reliable sources, of course) list a time that he gave a coin to a beggar or fed a village.  But that again begs the question, "So what?"  Why is it relevant and why is it given any weight?  Even with the full subsection that you originally wrote, it was out of context in the article and it failed to give any indication of why it was an important event.  Just because it was a "massacre", in a time when that was not an uncommon event, we cannot simply apply 21st century sensibilities or Polish national disgust as a justification for including it.  If a neutrally-worded, properly in context (both in the article and in the arc of BK's life), appropriately weighted sentence mentioning the aftermath of an apparently important battle can be written, I have no objections.  But if this was a one-off, irrelevant, minor event that had no bearing on the war in which it occurred, then I would continue to question its relevance in this article.  If that is the case, then it should occur in a more detailed article about his wars and battles.  --Taivo (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking again at the structure of this article, an appropriate place for a neutrally-worded and appropriately-weighted comment about the massacre might be in the "Polish assessment" section, especially if the event weighs heavily in Polish attitudes toward him. --Taivo (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it would be sufficient to move my prior edit to that section; I can see how the massacre may not be relevant enough in the main biography section. Would you care to do it? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you seem to busy, I've added the sentence to said section as per your suggestion. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The discussion moved passed this point and the last consensus was that this material doesn't belong in this article. --Taivo (talk) 06:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Aside from any 'question' being unclear and malformed, the RfC is offensively formed and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Ethnic slurs and condemning participants to be seen as 'nationalists' (implying extremists, fascists, POV warriors) if they disagree with inclusion (as I assume that's what the NOM is suggesting) is unacceptable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am rather discouraged by your not-very-AGF comment. Where am I calling anyone nationalist, or worse? I simply noted that the discussion has so far attracted only me (I guess I should have disclosed myself as Pole in the RfC - I'll do it now), and as far as I can tell, three or so Ukrainian editors. I do not consider anyone a nationalist, through as pointed out, we all have our national POVs. I believe we need input from neutral (non-Ukrainian, non-Polish) editors to resolve this in a neutral fashion. If we let this article be shaped by decisions of people who have clear views on whether Khm. is someone's (theirs) national hero, I do not believe we will end up with a neutral biography (I'd sau the same for people who would consider someone in a negative light; and for the record, I have no particular pro- or con- opinion of the subject; and in the larger context I've always said that PLC mistreated Cossacks foolishly, and reaped what it has sew... but this is OT.). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In general the problem with such entries is that they almost always are judgmental in tone based on 1) 21st century mores and/or 2) nationalistic agendas. Why would this particular event be more important in the context of its time than any other similar event from that same time period?  And unless it is presented as part of a context, then it's just sensationalistic 21st century Polish judgment against an individual.  --Taivo (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Where is the judgement? It is a fact that Khm. ordered the execution of the prisoners of war. The execution is mentioned, as I noted, by such Ukrainian scholars as Subtelny or Hrushevskyi, so is the battle, which was a rather major affair, and one of Khm.'s more significant victories. It deserves a sentence, if not two or three. We are not judging Khm., we are not saying the massacre was or wasn't justified or such. I am not aware of him ordering other such large scale executions. If you have sources to show it was commonplace for him to do so, I could agree it would be a routine event that may not need to be mentioned. As it is, I believe it is a rather extraordinary event that deserves at lest half a sentence. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  21:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't get the point. This is a military action.  Everywhere else in the article his military actions are discussed only in the broadest of terms and then only in the context of his wars.  Appropriately, not a single one of his individual actions, strategies, or  tactics is discussed in any detail.  His battles are not named or listed.  Then all of a sudden you want to stick in a single sentence about a single battle, "Oh, he once ordered a massacre."  It's 1) not in context, 2) not an appropriate level of summary, and 3) not tied to any of his other history.  I once went to a party dressed as a woman, too.  I'm not saying that this information doesn't belong anywhere in Wikipedia.  What I'm saying is that it doesn't belong in this article as it is currently constructed as a broad summary of his career.  To just stick it here, in an inappropriate context, with a level of detail that is inconsistent with the rest of the article, is wrong.  It this context it is WP:POINTy and simply pushing an anti-Khmelnytsky, Polish POV.  Put it in the right article--you haven't convinced me that this is the one.  And I didn't say that it was commonplace for BK to order massacres, I said that during that period of time ordering a massacre was not unusual (for any commander).  It simply didn't carry the same emotional content that it does today.  That was my other point, unless this is placed in the right article, with the right neutral wording, and not sensationalized, then it simply becomes an exercise in inappropriate 21st century moralizing.  --Taivo (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur with Iryna. Since nobody has commented to say support or oppose, it would be good if this RfC were rewritten in a neutral manner and diffs provided as to the actual text that is proposed for the article, or the RfC should be canceled. —Мандичка YO 😜 00:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Considering the fact that battle atrocities were common in the centuries that Khmelnytsky was active, and the fact that there is no overall listing of his battles, tactics, casualties, etc., this is WP:UNDUE and WP:POINTy.  And while the proposer mentions "Ukrainians" in an unfavorable light, he fails to point out that he is also pushing a Polish agenda.  --Taivo (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ Since it appears the content in question (but not included in this RfC) is disputed, I oppose including it. I do support a neutral, comprehensive section on Khmelnytsky's military battles however, which could include Batoh if properly sourced. —Мандичка YO 😜 02:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course it should be mentioned. We are writing an encyclopedia, not a hagiography. Kmicic (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Include couple sentences. If it's discussed in notable reliable sources such as Subtelny or Hrushevskyi then it certainly deserves a mention. Accusations of "agendas" or whatever are irrelevant here. Is it discussed in reliable sources? Yes? Then it should get a mention, end of story.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not where it's being set up as a WP:COATRACK. Its introduction was WP:POINTy in the first instance: i.e., revisionist history calling it the "First Katyn". Having looked through parallel articles about 'leaders' in battles in this epoch, there is no discussion whatsoever as to how they dealt with prisoners in their bios. Can we assume, then, that the convention was to take prisoners and look after them nicely until battles/wars were over, then let them go home with a flask of brandy and a sandwich for 'on the way'? We're describing an era well and truly pre-dating Norman Cross or any other concepts of POW's having any form of basic rights. They were either a liability or purely a bartering tool. Given that the sections on national narratives are (appropriately) kept to minimal info, the inclusion of the information is WP:UNDUE in as much as it reads as "he was consciously an utter bastard, and that's really all you need to know about him in evaluating his role in history". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree that the mention does NOT belong in the lede, and any kind of talk about "first Katyn" is total nonsense. Still, because this incident is mentioned in reliable sources about the topic it deserves some - not much, some - mention in this article as well.
 * As to the general practice with regard to prisoners during this time, in this geographic area, in this kind of warfare - it's sort of irrelevant, but for what it's worth it actually was NOT common practice to kill captured prisoners, particularly if they were members of nobility (non-nobles or poor nobles usually either got sold off to the Tatars or were forcibly conscripted into the other person's army). Not out of any humanitarian concerns but simply because these could be ransomed or sold off for a tidy sum of money. So the killing of prisoners here WAS "a statement", basically saying "we hate you more than we care about money".Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In particular, I oppose this edit (and share your concerns about neutrality) but I think this edit is fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually I'm going to change my mind here and Oppose (striking my !vote above). I do think the info belongs in the article on the Khmelnytsky Uprising but this is an article about Khmelnytsky the person. What changed my mind is that I looked at a few sources and while most of them note the killing of the Polish prisoners there's not even indication that it was ordered by Khmelnytsky himself. According to Jasiennica (bit old but still), the massacre was carried out/organized by two Cossack attaman/colonels, Zolotarenko and Wysoczanin (don't know Ukrainian spelling) who bought the prisoners from the Tatars with their own money.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you add Jasienica ref to the Battle of Batih/Batih massacre articles?--<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. It might also be worth pointing out that this wasn't the only massacre committed by Khmelnytsky's forces. The other notable one was after the taking of Kudak. But, and this is noted in some of the sources explicitly, these were in response to massacres committed by Polish troops. Jasienica notes that the Batih one was revenge for Beresteczko. With the Polish massacres it depended on who the commander was. Jarema really did exectue (or worse) captured Cossacks as a matter of policy since in his eyes they were "traitors". "Royal" forces usually didn't. You know, "nienawiść wzrosła w serca i zatruła krew pobratymczą".Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As I've already noted, the introduction of this WP:ITSIMPORTANT information is already proving itself to be a WP:TROJAN. The overall interpretation of the effect of this discussion keeps coming back to being WP:POINTy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. What was originally presented by Piotrus as an important, isolated, single disreputable event to prevent this article becoming a hagiographia, has been shown for what it was:  a somewhat typical act of revenge in a long chain of acts of revenge committed by both sides.  That was my original point--adding this information was WP:POINTy.  While the chain of killings and reprisals is appropriate in the appropriate article, that "appropriate article" isn't this one.  --Taivo (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think there's room to argue both sides here - and I ended up agreeing with you and Iryna - so let's keep it civil please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The Batih massacre is mentioned in Khm.'s biography in the PWN Encyklopedia . I stand by my view that the battle and the massacre are both important enough to be mentioned, if briefly. There was much violence and cruelty back then, but the larger instances are notable. There are reliable sources which tie this to his biography, even in short entries such as the cited PWN encyclopedia. Not mentioning it, IMHO, detracts from the neutral treatment. Once again: we don't need a paragraph or a sentence. But a sentence mentioning the battle and the massacre should be included here. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Per Wikimandia, I don't know what I am being asked to support, and so can't support in a BDP (biography of dead person). Robert McClenon (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)