Talk:Cossacks

Remove anachronistic national adjective sub section headings
Words Ukrainian, Russian, etc make no sense. Various Cossak hosts served various states at various periods. And some hosts predate appearance of words like "Ukarine" by few centuries. Instead Hosts should be listed/sectioned in alphabetical or historical origin, or any other rational and valid order. For a start, just remove the subsection headings with national adjectives (in particular Ukrainian Cossacks and Russian Cossacks), without making any other changes. Zero loss. Much gain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:4000:B281:DB8D:48DB:50BF:A506:2 (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Ukrainian Cossacks???
There is no such definition as Ukrainian or Russian or German or whatever-else Cossacks. Cossacks appeared in the Pontic steppes and later became very popular in the Russian Empire and with a some extent in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * yeah this article is being heavily influenced by the modern geopolitical issue of Ukrainian sovereignty. 82.174.102.190 (talk) 10:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

All Cossacks came from Ukraine and have nothing to do with Kazakh people. The national identity of Cossacks can certainly be discussed, however the fact of matter is that it was a multinational militarized society that stood for defense of the Eastern Orthodox religion. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Another important fact is that all of Cossacks Hosts spoke some version of the Ukrainian language (such as Balachka) which also points to the fact of their origin. One may reinvent a wheel all day, if he wants, however Cossacks will still be Cossacks. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Cossacks made up of different ethnicity groups. But the core is the Ukrainians. It's Ukrainian political nation. They Ukrainian Cossacks. Read about Nation. 188.163.73.30 (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * All of these claims are just a load of Ukrainian POV. The origin of the Cossacks is not in what today is the Ukraine, but further east in Europe, and according to mainstream sources they were a Turkic people, not Ukrainians, living initially in areas that today belong to Russia and later also in areas that were then part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. And the early Cossacks did not speak Ukrainian, for the simple reason that the Ukrainian language didn't exist back then, and didn't separate from Old East Slavic until the 17th century (at the same time as Russian and Ruthenian became separate languages, up until then they all spoke Old East Slavic), while the Cossacks emerged not later than the 14th-15th centuries, and according to non-mainstream sources even as far back as the 10th century. So the claims about them being Ukrainians are about as crazy as claims I've seen about Vladimir the Great having been king of the Ukraine, a country that didn't exist until a thousand years after Vladimir's time. Thomas.W talk 21:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

"Originally the term referred to semi-independent Tatar groups (qazaq or "free men") who inhabited the "Wild Fields", or steppes, north of the Black Sea near the Dnieper River" - Kazakh people are today living in Kazakhstan and they are not the source of Cossack peoples name. Also Cossacks surely arent of Turkic origin as they have specific Slavic facial elements that are not usual for Turkic people. Please stop citing such babble like that of ignorant user Tomas. W. who apparently knows nothing of ow Slavs look like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.89.212.247 (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Try to remove the "Russian" section header then. It is equally anachronistic.--Lute88 (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, that's wherein any perceived problems lie. There are nationalist claims on both sides, and the association with cossacks being "Russian" is no less an exercise in nationalism. Simultaneously, trying to oversimplify who and what "cossacks" were/are, and state that their origins lie in nomadic-come-Golden Horde roots is denying a long and convoluted history. I'm sorry, but how many "cossacks" look Asiatic or Turkic to you? The idea of their being an ethnic group lies in the fact that they lived on the margins of mainstream society and had their own allegiances, not that they are of some form of Turkic or Caucasian ethnic groups. I'd love to see the DNA evidence for that. And do you think that Old East Slavic was in use in the same format in the 17th century as the 10th, 14th-15th centuries? If you compare that to the development of any vernacular language (including English), there isn't a linguist in the world who'd take you seriously. Call me crazy, but Vladimir the Great wasn't king of "Russia" either, yet we have articles in Wikipedia that would have it so. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I explicitly wrote that the origin of the Cossacks lay further east in Europe. According to the mainstream theory the Cossacks were originally a Turkic people, that over the course of several centuries were mixed with Slavic peoples, and became what they later were. What I object to is A) the claims made here about "all Cossacks came from Ukraine" and "all Cossack hosts spoke some version of the Ukrainian language", since mainstream sources and the late evolution of a separate Ukrainian language say it isn't true (see above), and B) using that patently false claim as a justification for claiming, in the "Early history" section of this article, that all Zaporozhian Cossacks were Ukrainians (by putting them under a separate header saying "Ukrainian cossacks"), both because mainstream sources say they were primarily connected to Russia and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and because the Ukraine didn't exist at that time, making it a totally anachronistic claim. Thomas.W talk 12:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Suggested reading: Malgosci's "History of Ukraine", Part 4: The Cossack State 1648-1711. Try reading some Polish sources on the Zaporizhian Host, Ruthenians (not Russians), and how early in the piece they referred to themselves as being Ukrayintski (in effect, consciously disassociating themselves from the Poles and Muscovy-come-Russia as being part of their own ethnic identity and language). You might wonder at why a translator was needed at the Pereyaslav Agreement for the benefit of the Grand Prince of Muscovy and his entourage considering that Khmelnytsky and his entourage weren't speaking Polish for the gathering. No, not all Cossack hosts were from Ukraine, but the majority were established after the razing of Sich where those who had chosen to stick with their hosts were transported to enclaves now associated with "Russian" cossacks. You don't appear to be terribly familiar with the ethnic complexities of Decossackization, either. What you're talking about is the Russified version of cossack history: it's only an anachronistic claim according to that particular version of history. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Interesting note
The uniform of the man in the Cossack photo here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Na_Dony.jpg is very similar to the Militia uniforms(http://www.vedomstva-uniforma.ru/mil43-58.html) from the 1943-1958 time period.

71.181.178.159 (talk) 05:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Article seems, strangely, to miss events in history with negative connotations for article subject
I came to the article to understand better certain historical events involving the Cossacks, in the 16th and 17th centuries.

Based on reading from other sources, it appears the 28 March version of this Wikipedia article may understate, even ignore, participation of Cossack units alongside Russian (and sometimes Polish) forces in religious violence against Jewish and Catholic residents of various territories, e.g., in Nemirov and Tulchin in June 1648, and much later, in the Ukraine in 1919.

The various accounts have, e.g., "Cossack troops and ...peasant bands under ...Ganzha advanc[ing] against the fortified town of Nemirov, which had 6,000 Jewish inhabitants... [[a]fter the defeat of the Poles near Korsun]", a confrontation which reportedly ended in the slaughter of the Jewish residents of Nemirov, with "those escaping immediate death undergoing frightful tortures (June 10, 1648)".

In Tulchin, two weeks later, it is reported that "600 Polish soldiers and 2,000 Jews" had taken refuge, whereupon division between the Poles and Jews resulted in the Pole's admission of Cossacks held outside the fortress. The report states that after "everything [had been take] from the Jews", they were "offered ...choice between death and baptism", whereupon "1,000 Jews who remained steadfast were tortured and executed before the eyes of the Polish nobles (June 24, 1648)."

At the same time, other instances that are given limited description may also need review (e.g., incidents in 1919).

See: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4685-cossacks-uprising http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jewish/jhistory4.php3 http://books.google.com/books?id=gSkEAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA191&lpg=PA191&dq=cossack+slaughter&source=bl&ots=pOrFZs5Xzp&sig=iix41ggSj1x2DF2DBg_eXKZzHf8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=t4VVUauoFuyDyAHU9YC4DA&ved=0CEwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=cossack%20slaughter&f=false The historical veracity of these references need to be crosschecked, but events in history that may be construed as negative nevertheless have to be present for the article to be an unbiased representation of the history of this important group within Russia. If the facts of the matter are contested, all sides of the matter can be summarized. In any case, the events and claims cannot simply be passed over or ignored. LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.123.248 (talk) 13:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I should note that I am a registered editor, do not always log before writing, and propose that editorial comment should be judged at face value, and not on the basis of whether the commentator is registered or is known to us simply by IP. The latter often join the registered ranks after a period of commenting anonymously. I am aware of no Wiki policies that prohibit this (though registration is always encouraged), and so believe we should welcome all contributions of substance, without bias as to registration.  LeProf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.123.248 (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * These are important points that you are raising. However, it could perhaps be mentioned that Don Cossacks and Russian troops participated in stopping Ukranian Cossacks (of Bogdan Kmelnitsky) from pogroms.  This is a well known episode.  Actions of Ukrainian Cossacks, however, should be carefully judged, since Kmelnytsky and his Cossacks fought very bitter liberation war against the Polish oppression (which had resulted in thousands of people of Orthodox faith killed and tortured).   This is an extremely sad story. Someone -- who has both Cossack and Jewish blood in their veins -- perhaps Galassi, should very carefully write about this, since otherwise this might turn into a blame war.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.255.146 (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, Galassi did write about this in this entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmelnytsky_Uprising So the facts that you are mentioning belong in Galassi's article.
 * It is not clear, to whom the immediately preceding text should be ascribed. Please sign.
 * In re: "the facts that you are mentioning belong in Galassi's article". Please, consider again the request for a further few sentences of clarification, here in this article, regarding the questions raise in this section.  Each article should be able to stand alone, in terms of its tone, and general accuracy of impression.  If key facts related to the impressions created for a subject only appear elsewhere, at the very least, the reader should be directed to them.  Better, they can be summarized for the reader, in the process of directing them to the in-depth source (wikipedia or otherwise). Otherwise, the stand-alone article appears to remain imbalanced. LeProf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.9.222 (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I edited this out: You can't cite a fictional work to make historical claims. As stated above, they're much more known for slaughtering Jews than saving them from pogroms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.22.130.245 (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

As of this date, this fictional vignette has apparently been re-added. I shall remove it. --Petzl (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Dangling sentence from Early History Section, for review.
The following sentence was removed as the last sentence to the "Early History" section, because it provides only a weak and confusing close to the section:

"The term 'Cossacks' was also used for a type of light cavalry in the army of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth."

insofar as the sentence, as it stands, does not place the stated association into the same timeframe as the preceding information. (This Commonwealth was only firmly established in 1569, far later than most events referenced in this section.) More critically, no reference is given, making it an outlier in this otherwise generally informative section. If can be returned, but further information, and a citation need to be added. However, it is possible that this stated fact belongs elsewhere in the article (if it is important and its citation can be given).

The sentence that now ends the paragraph is also weak, but it seemed less disjointed (connecting more clearly to the preceding bullets), and so was left in place. It too, however needs to be clarified as to time and place, and given a citation. LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.123.248 (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Claim or claimed Khazar origin
If a Cossack organizations is called Kazarla then this means that they still claim Khazar origin. Khazars in no way were considered inferior to Germans even in the Nazi Germany. Not only Cossacks, but Crimean Karaites, which claimed the same Khazar origin, served in SS, though the Karaites belonged to Judaism.
 * 'Kazarla' - it is a neologism and they don't claim Khazar origin. Nazi Germany gave a shit for Asians. - Altenmann >t 02:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Altenmann, you seemed to have reverted Cossacks article to a version that Gallasi was not supporting. Actually, you reverted to a version that was pushed by a hyper-energetic "Khazar editor" from Saint-Petersburg, Russia.  Too many changes of very low quality. It will take several weeks to polish the intro back to a civilized level.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.255.146 (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, see for youriself. Of course, the article is a mess. The first step is to block other incoming mess.  - Altenmann >t 04:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is a diff since february. There are some dubious additions to verify. 04:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Cossacks are not ethnic group, they are first of all - "free people by the will of God"
While talking, writing or discussing cossacks you must always keep in mind this, main and most ancient interpretation of word cossack (kozak, kazak, kazakh) - "free man by the will of God". This meaning is preserved in our region till nowadays and just from it other well-known meanings are derived: "freelancer", "man of free trade", "free warrior", "man of registered cossack status in Russian empire", "man of some or other ethnic group" and so on. Without this meaning and it's existence in worldview of people through centuries you will hardly understand people of region and their dramatic history, from ancient times connected with eternal struggle for freedom, for democracy, for human liberties and rights. Glory to God nowadays we, all people of the planet can freely say - we are cossacks, remembering all those people who saved this important worldview in steppes of Eurasia for all humanity of nowadays. Serge-kazak (talk) 07:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Many Cossacks beg to differ -- see www.kazarla.ru, www.fstanitsa.ru, and http://kazaki-narod.jimdo.com/. It is an ethnicity -- see Wikipedia's definition ethnicity, which is rather broad:

"Ethnicity or ethnic group is a socially defined category based on common culture or nationality. Ethnicity can, but does not have to, include common ancestry, appearance, cuisine, dressing style, heritage, history, language or dialect, religion, symbols, traditions, or other cultural factor. Ethnic identity is constantly reinforced through common characteristics which set the group apart from other groups." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.255.146 (talk) 03:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Serge:

Cossack meant a slave from prisoners of war in Ossetian contrary to other languages. This, some authors argue, was the most ancient meaning. Prince Myshetsky, who served in the Sich in 1736-1740, wrote that "Cossack" was Greek misspelling of an original Cossack ethnic name. We do not know the most ancient meaning now. Dear Madam/Sir: One ethnicity does not exclude another. For example, general Karbyshev from a well-known Siberian Cossack starshyna family was a great Cossack patriot, a great Russian patriot, but a Tatar patriot and a Kryashen patriot as well. He had 4 ethnicities simultaneously thus. On another note, probably just Russian ethnicity might be a single one for Mikhail Kutuzov, as long as he joined Zaporozhian Sich Cossacks being an adult officer. Of course, he was a diplomat. Therefore we do not know. Yakiv Markovych, who coined the term "Ukrainian" in the current (more correctly, close to current) sense first, considered "Cherkasy" especially after the Malorussian Cossack regiments disbandment so that Malorussian Cossack co-servicemen could not become "soft" and "feminine" and earlier the requirement that Zaporozhian knights be transferred to family life, very offensive. See Markovych's «Записки о Малороссии, ее жителях и произведениях», Санкт-Петербург, 1798, С. 98. Though Russians explained to Cossacks that it meant a Cherkasy city origin only, Ukrainian Cossacks understood that origin was "Cherkashenin" and saw LGBT accusation in "Cherkasy". This is why Markevych asked to replace Cherkasy with Ukrainians in all documents etc. Renaming of Ukrainian Cherkasy into Ukrainians coincided with renaming of Caucasus Cherkasy into Cherkesy so that not to accuse them as well. Not a single people in either Ukraine or Caucasus and Siberia etc. has ever called itself Cherkasy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.66.248.109 (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I did not say that being an ethnic Cossack precludes another dual (or maybe triple or quadruple) ethnic identity, as was the case of Karbyshev. The Kazarla has a view that Cossacks is a poly-ethnicity. I have a lot of respect for the Ukrainian national identity -- some Cossacks, for example Dmytro Dontsov, played an important role in creating or, at least, reinforcing Ukrainian identity (as nationality and ethnicity). I have read all great Ukrainian writers in Ukrainian, and I have much appreciation for the great Ukrainian culture and the Ukrainian identity. I think one can be both a Cossack and a Ukrainian. There are some people who think of themselves as being both Cossack and Russian (in a very wide sense of the latter word). I also did see people in Cossack forums listing their ethnicity as "Cherkass", emphasizing the link to their precise ancestry; likewise, Cossacks do use "Donetz"  to mean a Don Cossack, "Uralez" an Ural Cossack, or "Khoperez" a Khoper Cossack. There is also a question of nationality (citizenship, national identity) versus ethnicity (ethnic affiliation), which are different concepts, but in Russian the word "nationality" is used to mean "ethnicity". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.170.0.166 (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Dear Madam/Sir, Dmytro Dontsov has never been a Cossack in any sense. He was of a mixed Italian-German-Muscovite origin. In Vyacheslav Lypynsky's opinion, Dontsov "became an Ukrainian to prevent the creation of Ukraine". Dontsov insisted that Ukrainians, Belarussians and and all other people for exception of Russians had been a single biological kind. Russians, including Russian Cossacks, were to be a different biological kind, not Homo Sapiens, not mankind, but waging Darwin's struggle for existence against mankind, in Dontsov's opinion. Ukrainians were to be cleared from all people of Russian descent, i. e. from the vast majority of Ukrainians, to join mankind. There are not so many people of Italian-German-Muscovite origin, like Dontsov, among Ukrainians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.66.239.126 (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure, where you get your information, but I must say that your edits and assertions are extremely odd. Dontsov's family comes from the old Cossack starshina. Please do not push you OWN views POV on the topic and stick to well-known, accepted facts, published in well-regarded academic sources. Also some passages you inserted (for example, about many dissertations written on Cossacks) are in a bad need of editing. I can't edit the paragraph, since I have no idea what you meant to say there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.255.146 (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC) I get information from the works of Dontsov himself. He wrote that his origin had nothing common with Ukrainian starshyna, but he was created as an Ukrainian by Gogol, Storozhenko, Kulish etc. As a spiritual Ukrainian, he had a right to invent his Ukrainian origin, in his opinion. There was a good writer Sat Ok in Poland, who invented his American Indian origin under the influence of Cooper and Main Reed. Dontsov had invented his Ukrainian starshyna origin similar to Sat-Ok and was excluded from the Ukrainian Social Democratic Party for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.66.239.126 (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Please read Dmytro Dontsov's Донцов Д. Дух нашої давнини. Дрогобич, 1991, where Dontsov emphasizes the Nordic race origin of Ukrainians. It has nothing common with any Chercass ancestry. Please do not replace Dmytro DONTSOV's OWN views and opinions with YOUR OWN views and opinions.

I have read Dontsov, and it is clear to me that you are making this up. Read Dontsov here -- this is his self-biography. http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_bio.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.255.146 (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

"Що мене "Вісті" звуть росіянином? Хай собі звуть. Це ж і Липинський писав, що я росіянин, бо "родився в краю, який росіяни звуть Новоросією"... За те Драгоман-ов, Петр-ов, Фітіль-ов, Вєтух-ов, це не росіяни. Глупість це все і злоба тих душевбогих людців... Коли Зінченко оповідає, що її батьки походять з того самого села, що мій батько, то це певно помилка. Мій батько (що вмер в 1894 р.) походив не з села, а з міста, і не з Полтавщини (як Зінченко), а з Слобідської України (укр(аїнської) частини Вороніжчини). Читаючи Д. Багалія "Історію Слобожанщини", я знайшов, що багато свого часу емігрувало звідти в нашу Таврію та що у нас було багато назвиськ, що часто стрічаються в Слобожанщині (Харківщина й укр(аїнська) Вороніжчина, Подоння). Взагалі на Україні це назвисько дуже поширено, в Московщині я його не стрічав. У Багалія ж читав я, що першим колонізатором Слобожанщини (що була й за Гетьманщини державно-московською територією) був полковник Федір Донець (з Правобережжя) та що в XVIII в. його нащадки — коли всі козаки убігалися о признання їм рос(ійського) дворянства — змінив своє назвисько на Донцов та ще й Захаржевський (це, щоб довести свою давню, ще з Польщі, шляхетність). Чи від тих Донцових походив мій батько, я не знаю, в кождім разі для мене це була вказівка, як Донці перемінилися в Донцових..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.255.146 (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Please read the self-biography of Sat-Okh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.66.239.126 (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I have read Sat-Okh's information, but I was not able to deduce from it anything about Dontsov's origins. You asserted that Dontsov claims to be of German-Italian origin. It would be great if you could provide the exact quotation where Dontsov says so. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.255.146 (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC) http://history.lsa.umich.edu/652/Readings/Iordachai.PDF Please read the article of John Paul Himka from University of Alberta, Canada. He emphasizes that Dontsov, though a fascist, has not been a Nazi. The radical Nazi Cherkass theory, according to which Cossacks were untermensche, has nothing common with Dontsov. The Cherkass theory has been recognized as extremist one by Adolf Hitler as well. The German-Italian origin of Dontsov's has been described in his letters. When he befriended with Lypynski, he wrote this to him. But he wrote about this to his family as well. Please read the names of his relatives. Dear Sat-Okhs, do not write your novels to Wikipedia. It is an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.66.239.126 (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC) http://gazeta.zn.ua/SOCIETY/lipinskiy_vs_dontsov_ukrainskiy_diptih_na_fone_epohi.html The articles explains that in spite of largely Italian origin of Dontsov the foundations of Dontsov's national Ukrainian self-conscience have been established by his German grandfather. But Dontsov insisted on the Nordic race, not on any Cherkass... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.66.239.126 (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC) http://gazeta.ua/ru/articles/history-newspaper/_dmitrij-doncov-delil-naciyu-na-rycarej-i-svinopasov/252021 The article describes the largely Italian origin of Dontsov. He understood what Cherkass meant in Romanic languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.66.239.126 (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I clearly asked you a clear question, and instead you change the subject. I don't care what "Cherkasy" might mean in Romanic languages, but to all Cossacks this is an important and great name, which is born by several major regions and towns in Ukraine (Cherkasy) and Southern Russia. Moreover, Novocherkassk is the capital of Don Cossacks. --72.74.255.146 (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC) You had no question at all. You tried to tell that Cossack Dmytro Dontsov had discovered precise Cherkass ancestry of Cossacks. But 1)he proposed a Nordic race origin of Ukrainians instead 2) he was not a Cossack 3) his lover poetess Teliga was assassinated in Babyi Yar according to the request of just those who had discovered the precise Cherkass ancestry of Cossacks. Novocherkassk means new Cherkassk. Cherkassk, the second capital of Don Host, was founded by Cossacks of Cherkasy starosta Mikhail Vishnevetsky, probably from Monastyrsky island. But they were joined by Don Cossacks of other ancestry very soon. Razdory, the first capital, was founded by Cossacks not from Cherkasy. Ivan III asked his sister, the ruling princess of Ryazan, for death penalty to all Ryazan Cossacks, who had been moving on Don run by their own "self-stupidity", in 1502.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.71.0.13 (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I said *none* of the above. Just what are you talking about? You are making no sense whatsoever. I don't want to have any discussions with you at all.

You are absolutely right, because the "Liberty" All-Ukrainian movement won a lot of trials in the Ukraine accusing anybody, who insisted on the precise Cherkass ancestry of Cossacks, in racial hatred and Ukrainophobia. They wanted to share their experience with human right groups in Canada and in the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.66.192.101 (talk) 11:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not a Ukrainian, so I am not sure if I can understand your lines of thought. --72.74.255.146 (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The article's writing
Just came happened to stumble upon this article by chance and I am compelled to say that the writing, at least in the first few introductory paragraphs, seems rather sloppy--perhaps as if written by non-native English speakers. It should be improved.


 * Agree, have been working on editing today. I have known something about the community, but am learning here. I understand they have a long and complex history, but am also trying to compare the article to other articles on ethnic groups, peoples, and history. There are very lengthy commentaries in notes in the Lead, which appear to be 1) POV bordering on OR, and 2) need to be sourced. It is too much information for what is supposed to be a summary; all the arguments do not have to covered in the Lead. Later in the article, there are dismissals of unsourced material, with statements such as "false allegations" were made that Cossacks participated in pogroms. Another editor notes such allegations have been documented with facts. Such allegations need to be sourced, as well as evidence that presents another view. I understand these have been difficult issues, but the article sounds somewhat like a polemic for Cossacks. All quotes need cited sources, even if within the Notes section, and the article would be better if there were not such lengthy notes. The Lead should not be a repetition of an unresolved historical argument, especially as so much is unsourced. If a historian is known for a position that is significant for this topic, the source (with pages) needs to be cited, not just the historians' name. Am just going through this first for writing, editing, format, use of citations, etc. It's great that someone can read Russian but that doesn't help the English readers on English WP, and sources in English should also be used. Russian specialists in the West likely use those Russian sources, but also publishsought.Parkwells (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Given the lengthy discussion about the terms Cossack, Khazar, etc. in different languages, maybe there should be an "Etymology section" - this is typical of articles on peoples, providing a place to discuss what others called them, what they called themselves, what the words refer to, etc.

POV
Some editors seem to have strong POV, but not so much should be reflected here. From Talk above, for instance, it appears there is no academic consensus on the development/origins of Cossacks. That statement can be written - and then should be followed by major points of view. But this topic should not overwhelm the Lead, as it currently does in Notes. Parkwells (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Religion?
Suggest a "Religion" section, as this is a hard thread to follow, and it would likely provide another historical thread. For instance, in 20th century sections, there are references to Cossack opposition to Catholics, Orthodox and Jews, and a brief note that some (most?) they were Old Believers, but not an explanation of what that meant at the time, or how that would have affected their relations with other groups or the state.Parkwells (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Repatriation and ethnic expulsion
The huge population transfers after WWII have been getting increased attention by historians, including the expulsion of ethnic Germans from the East. Editors should look for sources that address the British acts related to repatriating Cossacks and their families. This needs to be sourced. (How did their families end up in the West? Did they flee during the war? Will read article again, but this was not clear.) It is known that Soviets treated prisoners of war as the enemy, executing so many or sending them into the gulag. Parkwells (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Cossacks preventing pogroms
The article rather prominently mentions Cossacks being used to prevent/put down pogroms, based on a short story by Sholom Aleihem. For the benefit of other editors the full text of the short story, machine translated into English, is included here. Just open the compressed block of text and you'll find it. I don't for a second doubt that Cossacks were used to perform police duties in Russia, just like other units were (and just like military units were used to perform police duties in most other countries at the time). The question is whether prevention of pogroms should be singled out or not, or just included in unspecified police work. IMHO a source that puts a bit more emphasis on the "anti-pogrom work" would be needed for singling it out. Preferrably also a source that says that Cossacks did more of that kind of work than other military units in Russia did at that time.

- I think I promised to tell you more about the miracle that happened to our " runabout ": how thanks to this " loitering " we were saved from the great disaster. If you want to listen, please go to this bench , and I 'll go to that. Here are uncomfortable talking.

Would be a wedding, so there was no music

Railway Stories - 09 Notes of a Salesman

- I think I promised to tell you more about the miracle that happened to our " runabout ": how thanks to this " loitering " we were saved from the great disaster. If you want to listen, please go to this bench , and I 'll go to that. Here are uncomfortable talking. So once told me all the same Gaysinsky merchant, sitting with me in the car railway, trains, which in these parts called " loitering ". A. Since this time our car was only two and stood through the warm, we are sorry, took off his jacket , unbuttoned vest and settled as the father in the vineyard. At the same bench he was on the other - I am. He was, as usual , gradually , slowly said , and I listened attentively , memorizing every word , only to pass it all in his own words. - It is, that they do not recur in the time of the constitution * , when we started the so-called " most excellent favors " for the Jews. However, in our Gysin, I must tell you , we never pogroms were not afraid. Do you think why? Just because we have no one to beat Jews. However, as you know, when you come to look, and then we have there are those who do not mind a little air out us, or, quite simply, how to count the ribs. And here is the proof. When everywhere until we started to get " nice " to conduct some of our vile lords a big secret where to write : "It would be very useful to create something like that and Gysin . However, there is no one to do it here . Therefore we ask for help and for God's sake hurry to send us "people" ... And imagine, in less than twenty-four hours , as the news came , again a big secret that the "people" are . Where from? From Zhmerinka of Kazatin of the Split , Popelnia and similar places , characterized by their goons . The question is how to check on us about a secret secret ? To this we have , you see, there is a "source" , his name is Noyah - crested . Who is this man ? You are coming to our shores , therefore it is necessary for you to imagine that you knew him . Noyah - crested in length, certainly more than in width. The Lord gave him a pair of legs , and he uses them all, either by hour does not rest , it rarely ever find him at home. Thousands of cases care about it, and more and more other people. He printer. And thanks to the printing press, the only one of Gysin, he has entree to the authorities , dealing with pans , connected with government officials and knows all sorts of secrets. It is from this "source" and found out we are " nice " news. Actually, the "source" to trumpet about it all over town. Clearly, each one individually, he secretly whispered in his ear : " I ​​say this only to you, the other would not say ... " And so the whole city , from end to end , I found out that in the rush to Gysin bullies and worked out a plan mayhem. Even know when, what day and time will beat the Jews , from where and how to begin to beat the bully will go - all designed as a calendar. In the city, as you know, started doomsday. And where do you think? First of all, those who are victorious. Strange thing, if you hear , with these poor ! Well, when the rich man is afraid of such a thing, it's understandable. Unhappy afraid, as if it, God forbid , do not suddenly turned into a beggar. But you, the eternal beggars, what are you trembling ? The more you run the risk ? No, you would see how they threw all their belongings, grabbed the kids and let's hide. Well, where, for example, hide Jews ? Who's the good of the Russian people in the cellar, who is a notary public in the attic, and who is the director of the factory, each has its place. I alone who I am on there, did not want to hide. I say this not because I want to show off in front of you, I 'll show you a kind of argument that I'm not entirely wrong. First, they ask, why should we be afraid of the mayhem ? Let come what may ... Second, do not say anything, I could , and he would leave the pride and tried to hide in order to ride out a hot minute. But the question is - where to hide ? Do you understand ? In addition, as is generally to leave the city to fend for themselves ? Yes take away - it's not the focus. We have to try to do something. But they can, so to speak , the Jews do? Here are the bosses ! .. That's right, and you have the city has some influential person, who graces of the boss ? We have a Gysin is one such. His name Nahmen - scythe. He contractor. He has a round beard, velvet vest and own a house. And since he and the contractor operates in the highway, the entree to the police , drinking tea with him at the table. A police captain, imagine if we had quite a good man. Golden Man ! Why ? Not waive ruble. But taking everything through Nahmena - skew. That is, he took each. Why not take it? But after he took Nahmena willingly. As the contractor, you know? In short, people to see Nahmenom , made ​​the list , and had the money , and , as you know , decent money. How did indeed come at a time to master, and he does not gild the handle so that, as they say , fingers burned ? Clearly, sir immediately reassured us. He stated firmly that we can sleep peacefully, there will be nothing ... Well after all , is not it ? However, we have a Gysin "source" for which open secret secret. So he dissolved, Noyah - crested throughout the city hearing , in secret , of course, that of the Black Hundreds have already received a telegram , swears that he saw her, he would be seen as happiness in the world ! What is there in this dispatch ? A dispatch in just one word : " Let's go ." Nasty word! Of course, rushed to the police : " Master, and in fact the situation is bad " - " What's wrong ? " - He asks. " Dispatch received ", - answer. "Where ? " - Asks. "Out of those places ," - he said. "What is written in the dispatch ? " - " Let's go " - they reply. Police captain laughed and said, " You idiot decent . Yesterday I was called out of Tulchin hundred Cossacks ... " We have heard about the Cossacks, and immediately came to life. The Jew, on seeing the Cossack , once it becomes a brave , ready to show the world absolute value. No joke, this protection ! The matter is the one who will be used - the Cossacks of Tulchin or thugs from Zhmerinka. Clearly, the Black Hundreds expected to arrive early, because it is sent by train, and the Cossacks - on horseback. All hope for " loitering ." Maybe the great god work a miracle and " vagrant " at least for a few hours late. But this is his usual thing that happens to him almost every day. But, imagine , this time with him such a miracle has happened. As luck would have it moved from station to station exactly on the hour. Can you imagine how much it cost us blood and which rose in panic when the visit is, of course from the "source" that from the last station telegram arrived : " Let's go ." And there was not just " go ", but "cheers" ... News of this, of course , immediately attributed to the police , fell at his feet and begged not to rely on the Cossacks , who once more yavyatsya of Tulchin , and send to the police station , at least for the species - even those do not think that there is no law, no court can not and do arbitrariness. At this time, the police captain did not take long to ask to please the city, did even more than was expected of him. What is it? Of full-time and in full regalia in person at the head of the entire police force was at the station to meet the train. But those few despicable lords, for his part , also on alert. In a festively dressed up and wearing a order, they brought with them the priests and also came to meet the train. The police asked them, " What are you doing here ? " But they asked him the same question : " And what are you doing these days here ? " Word for word - and the police captain gave them to understand that their work is in vain. While he was here ispravnik, he said, in a pogrom Gysin will not. So firmly and said. Those listened to him with a grin, and then boldly said, " But we now have a look ! .. " Before they pronounce it in the distance there was a dial tone. From the tone of all of us, as you know, have one's heart in one's mouth. Following this, we expect to hear a second dial tone, and then the cries of "Hurrah." What follows in this "cheers", we have already reported from other cities. And what happened? Soon there was a really horn, but it was a futile horn. And here's why. This can only happen with our " loitering ". Listen to this ! Rolled up to the station, the driver braked locomotive and calmly came to the platform , and there out of habit went to the buffet. Then it stopped and " Dude, where's cars ? " - " What are coaches ? " - " Can not you see that I came on the train with no cars ? " The driver opened his eyes, then said, " What do I care ? Team responsible for the cars . " - "Where is the team ? " - " How should I know ? - Re- engineer replied . - The conductor gave a whistle to know that he was ready , I told him the whistle , which is also ready, and let the machine. On the back of the head I no eyes to see what is behind . " Here is some sort driver said , and like he has a point. In short, to sense what you want - " runabout " here , and no passengers. As they say, there would be a wedding, but the music was not. As it turned out after, we went to a great company , so you know , selected parnyugi , one to one, with all the instruments of the beating - batons, rubber bands and all sorts of other accessories. They drank vodka, fun and joy in full, at the last station in Krishtopovke , as it should have laid the collar and at the same time , and gave thee drink brigade - conductors , fireman , policeman. They forgot about one little thing - attach to the engine structure. So he went into the allotted time Gysin, and all the " runabout " remained in Krishtopovke. And that wonderful ! No one - not good company, no team , no other passengers - did not notice that they are , and everyone kept tilting the bottle after bottle. Finally, the station master suddenly realized that the engine was gone, and cars are, and made ​​a fuss. Only then all came out, and went to a rugotnya that hold on. Well done tiled brigade, the brigade - stalwarts. It lasted as long as everyone finally they decided to take the legs over his shoulders, eyes and hands - let's go to Gysin. Where will they really go? So they did. Gathered up courage and walked along the tracks to Gysin. As you know, they came into the Gysin, of course, singing and , of course, with cries of " hurray " - as God himself commanded. Only they are a little bit late. In the streets already Cossacks rode on horses and armed with, ie with whips in their hands. In a matter of half an hour from the Black Hundreds and mention left. Fled like rats from hunger, melted away like snow on a sunny day. Well, now I ask you, is it not worthy of our " runabout " to put it into gold, or at least have dedicated a special story of his deeds ? End of story number 9. O N E Y

Thomas.W  talk to me  18:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your both assertions. First, "featured prominently" and being mentioned in a footnote is definitely not the same thing, not even close. So I would firmly disagree with the deletion of a footnote based on this argument. Second, an earlier version of this Wikipedia article claimed that Sholem Aleihem wrote exactly the opposite of what is written in his story (whose machine translation you kindly provided).  Somehow editors did not even bother to read the original source. I had read it long time ago, and was appalled by the assertion when I have read it (as well as by other edits by editors who evidently have not studied the subject of the article at all.)  Second, it is one of the current cliches and stereotypes that Jews and Cossacks never got along.  I think any examples of positive cooperation between the two ethnic groups should be mentioned in the article in order not to perpetuate the stereotypical thinking. In fact, Sholem Aleihem's story presents a completely different stereotype of a Cossack than the said stereotype. I think people wanting to learn about the topic should have the right to access a footnote that mentions what a prominent Jewish writer wrote about them. 74.104.168.24 (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization
Is there a reason why Cossack is often not capitalized in this article and in other articles? As the name of a people, I'd think it should be capitalized, but I often see it lower case. Thanks, SchreiberBike talk 02:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My guess there is a confusion here related to conversion of Cossacks as an ethnic people to a military estate. So there is a mixup concerning the ethnic vs. military use. I am not sure what capitalization rules are appropriate in this case.173.76.253.77 (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by a "military estate" or "military use". I couldn't find cossack used as a military unit or anything like that. There is the article Registered Cossacks which sometimes capitalized Cossacks and sometimes doesn't. SchreiberBike talk 02:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess "cossacks" might designate irregular cavalry units serving the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Muscovy. In contrast, Cossacks designates a people, ethnicity. The problem is that it is hard to separate the two.  In medieval Latin a similar problem existed with respect to the pair of words "slave" and "Slav"; the first term designates a slave, and the second term designates a person of Slavic ethnicity (a stereotypical slave back then was a Slav). http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=slave  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.253.77 (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Orthodox Catholic
I know that "Orthodox Catholic Church" is an official and accepted name of the Eastern Orthodox Church, but used repeatedly in this article it merely engenders a lot of confusion. Perhaps we should change it to read "Eastern Orthodox Church" or "Russian Orthodox Church" or whatever appropriate name for the context. Unless a preponderance of reliable secondary sources are using the term Orthodox Catholic Church, which I sincerely doubt. Elizium23 (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, your edit makes perfect sense.173.76.253.77 (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Contemporary vs. Historical Cossacks
The reputation of the Cossacks is legendary, as were the Samurai and as are the Gurkhas. However, I (along with a great many other people) was stunned to learn that Cossacks were part of the security detail at the Sochi Olympics. In the past week or so, I have been engaged in various discussions about the current Olympics games in Russia and I must say, that everyone (and I mean everyone) I have met has been quite surprised to learn that there are Cossacks at the games. It is "common knowledge" (if incorrect or incomplete) that the Cossacks were routed by the Bolsheviks.

As is, this article has an excessively long lede, which dwells predominately on the historical record. It requires great patience to wade through and, even then, it is not clear what the legacy of the pre-Bolshevik Cossacks is today, and/or what legitimate lineage contemporary Cossacks have to their precursors. While I feel strongly that the article as is, is awkward, with an excessively long lede, and little or no description of the current title of Cossack and how that class or position was restored since the Bolshevik revolution. I would respectfully submit that much of the lede could, and probably should, be merged into the main body of the article; and that the lede could and should be condensed to a more concise contemporary and historical summary.

I freely admit that I am not knowledgeable nor qualified to make such edits. I therefore recuse myself and hope that others more qualified can help to make the article more informative from a NPoV. Enquire (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear Wikipedian Enquire,


 * Firstly, "Cossacks" that beat up "Pussy Riots" are a part of a fringe effort by the President Putin and Kuban Governor Tkachev to "restore" what they thought the pre-revolutionary Cossack forces were -- "defenders" of the Empire and its cruel ways; in fact, they were not, as the lead of the article nicely summarizes. There are many people of Cossack descent who consider Cossacks to be an ethnicity, an Eastern Slavic people. As the Russian Population Censuses of 2010 and 2002 show, indeed, there are roughly 150,000 people in Russia who list their ethnicity as Cossack.  This is in fact reflected in the lead, at the very end of it. These people do not dress up in the uniforms, they don't beat up girls, they are ordinary people: farmers, students, teachers, medical doctors, professors, engineers, etc.    Many of these people do object to the use of the term "Cossack" as a name for the quasi-police force organized by Tkachev; and many were deeply embarrassed by the actions of these quasi-policemen.  Moreover, to the best of my knowledge, most people in the quasi-police force are not of Cossack descent and have no relation to historical Cossacks. There is no "title" Cossack in modern day Russia; according to the Russian law (which is vague on this point), the term "Cossack" simply means a member of a Cossack community.


 * Secondly, I am surprised that you have "strong views", while admitting to be "not knowledgeable". Yes, the article is long, but, if you are not knowledgeable, perhaps you could reserve your judgment for a while. You may be bored from a long lead, because you may think Cossack is a "title" and the article should nicely summarize the term as such. Well, Cossacks is not a title and the article provides a summary of what Cossack people were and are. The article is very far from ideal, but it takes so much effort to keep it from falling apart completely, defending it from various random editors who happen to have "strong views".  The article is similar to other articles, e.g. Ukrainians, Russians, Jews, Armenians, etc.   It is hard to argue that those articles are overly long.


 * Finally, I apologize for being a straight shooter. I am just trying to make our life efficient here. All of the best wishes and with best regards. ViktorC (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that the Cossacks have been somewhat resurrected in part for political optics at the Sochi Olympics, but as far as I can see from reading this page, the process of restoration of the Cossacks goes back even before the break-up of the Soviet Union. I have also learned that there is dispute between different editors as to whether Cossacks are restricted to a specific ethnic group or not, etc..  I do not have "strong views" on this subject because, as I freely admit, I am a lay-person on this subject.  I merely visited the page because I was seeking to understand what a Cossack means, particularly in the contemporary context, not only at the Sochi Olympics.  However, I do feel strongly that the article as is could benefit from NPoV editing, taking into account the various strongly held opinions on this subject.  I am sure that with good will on all sides, it should be possible to craft a concise lede (lead) paragraph or two that is considerably shorter that what we have now, and which lucidly and concisely outlines both the historical context as well as the contemporary understanding of "Cossack" today ... for the benefit of lay persons like myself; the detail of the differing opinions can (and should) be left in there, but more thoroughly debated within the main sections.
 * Enquire (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I am a bit puzzled here. If you are "not knowledgeable" on the topic, how can you "strongly believe" that the article can benefit from NPOV editing? For instance, I don't edit the Wiki article on the quantum entanglement, as I have no knowledge of the topic, and therefore I really have no idea whether the current lead of the article is NPOV or not. Also, it does not matter what POVs the editors have. What matters is the systematic, encyclopedic sourcing of the key facts pertaining to the topic.  For example, Russian Censuses 2002 and 2010 list Cossacks as one of the ethnic groups. This is a fact. Whether editors agree on this or disagree is a matter of POV.  Kind regards. ViktorC (talk) 04:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, ViktorC, for your response. I have already discussed the topic with Enquire, resulting in mutual agreement on the fact that the area is best left for those who have specialised knowledge of the complexity and diversity of the subject. I think it has been understood that there is no linear narrative (ethnic group 'Cossacks' originated in region 'A' and have now become the regiment which have been given the title of 'Cossack' in the military infrastructure in the contemporary Russian Federation).

P.S. Enquire, I'm sorry if you have formed a disparaging view of who the cossacks were and are. Bear in mind that this article brings in a lot of less-than-neutral traffic. Editors who are normally civil, co-operative and genuinely excellent contributors start to get a little curt when the same issues are brought up week in, week out, year in, year out. Best regards. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you Iryna Harpy. I never represented myself as an expert on this topic, nor expressed any "strong" PoV.  I simply visited this page (as I am sure many have recently) in light of the recent and well publicized and spectacular whipping of the Pussy Riot by "Cossacks" at the Sochi Olympics.  If you search "cossacks sochi olympics" on Google (for example) then you will see about 70 million hits.  My only comment is that, as is, this article does not shed much light on the perceived legitimacy of contemporary "Cossacks" viz-a-viz the historical (pre-Bolshevik) Cossacks.


 * For the record, I certainly do not "strongly believe" any particular point of view and never represented any "strong" beliefs on this subject, period. I just (simply) visited this page to try to understand what relationship (if any) contemporary "Cossacks" have to the historical "Cossacks".  Period.  I have no input to this, I simply comment as a reader of the page seeking guidance and understanding of how contemporary "Cossacks" fit in (or not).  There are a couple of lines at the end of the article lead mentioning that many ethnic Cossacks have returned to Russia in recent years, but not about the apparent restoration of their role as adjuncts to security.  Just to be clear, I have no interest or intention to edit this page at all ... but would hope that in due course, that the page would be more helpful in describing the apparent resurrection and restoration of Cossacks in recent decades and what role that Cossacks would play in Russia post Sochi.


 * I wish ViktorC, Iryna Harpy, and all the other devoted editors my best wishes on maintaining this article, especially now that I do understand that it is a challenging and, at times, vexatious subject matter.


 * Sincerely, Enquire (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Post script. Here are a couple of citations that others may find helpful, they certainly helped me to better understand the controversy over the so called "Cossacks" at Sochi:
 * Unarmed Cossacks use racial profiling to identify Sochi threats, The Globe and Mail, 2014-02-06
 * Cossacks In North Caucasus Demand Increased Support from Moscow Institute for Security and Development Policy, 2013-08-09
 * The Cossacks Ride Again: Vladimir Putin is drafting these warriors of Russian lore to provide their brand of law and order at the Sochi Olympics, Slate, 2014-01-31
 * I trust these citations are helpful.
 * All the best, and good luck, Enquire (talk) 09:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Map?
It would be very nice if some knowledgeable person added a (clear, in English,) map of modern and/or historical distributions of where the Cossacks live/lived. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.71.172 (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Colonel Lobo (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups (+ map)

Yes please this article badly needs a map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:5E94:400:EC80:1086:9E1F:73F7 (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Mess/Analogy
This article reminds me of a halfway-decent house, which started small and was added to and remodeled numerous times, almost always without a permit. It's ramshackle, disorganized, and has no narrative thrust. It requires several knowledgeable editors with no agenda to pursue. I am not such a person. Let's hope at least one or two show up and do some good work. Tapered (talk) 05:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Cossack involvement in eastern Ukraine war
I strongly oppose the revert of my edit today. 2 sentences were my edit and both were taken out, incorrectly, I will maintain, and should be put back in. The first sentence discussed Cossack involvement on the rebel/Russian side. This has been noted and reported for months by almost every major news agency and newspaper. It was taken out under the pretense of "Recentism" and "Wiki is not a newspaper". The subject is not recent and has been discussed by multiple reliable sources; its notability meets all notability criteria, and should be retained. My second sentence discussed the reprisals against those Cossacks that do not belong to regular units. Recentism and "what Wiki is not" were used. I disagree. In the guidelines used to delete my edit it clearly states: "Recentism is a symptom of Wikipedia's dynamic and immediate editorial process, and has positive aspects as well—up-to-date information on breaking news events, vetted and counter-vetted by enthusiastic volunteer editors, is something that no other encyclopedia can offer." I maintain that I have a good faith edit that is allowed; the edit is not "created on flimsy, transient merits." The article is not overburdened with documenting controversy; and, there is no "muddling or diffusion of the timeless facets..." As far as not being a newspaper, guidelines clearly state that: "information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate..." Hence, there is no absolute prohibition on using recent newspaper article. Noted is that this not an entirely new story; multiple accounts of the assassination of Cossack leader Aleksei Mozgovoi have alluded to the same internecine battle I discussed. I recognize there are devoted editors of this page, and I await their replies.Mwinog2777 (talk) 02:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that mentioning of participating of Cossacks in the War in Donbass is significant and added this to the article. Whether some Cossacks were reprimanded or not for their participation is IMHO not important enough for this high level article. We might need Cossack formations in modern Russia to explain convoluted relations between different Cossack organizations, Russian government, criminal underground and their involvements in international affairs including War in Donbass. Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, the 2 references of your edit was a backdoor way to get in the same information I had discussed. Agree with you that there should somewhere be a discussion on the convoluted entanglements you describe; these have been noted in both of your references, and a few words in the article would likely suffice.  Their involvement in the Donbass affair opens a window to much more.  This is not just another simple military exercise on the Cossacks part, it is not comparable to the others listed with it, as pointed out in the 2 references and in many other articles.  This is what I felicitously tried to add in my second sentence.  Thanx for at least putting some back, and adding to the discussion.Mwinog2777 (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that Cossacks fight on both sides. The Azov batallion in Ukrainian army has Cossack and Russian nationalist volunteers, while Cossacks lead by Kozytsin took part in the war on the side of the Lugansk People's Republic, but were purged/subjugated/disarmed, once they tried to assert a creation of Lugansk Cossack Republic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.4.249.66 (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Cossacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150210081345/http://www.ukrterra.com.ua/developments/history/modern/zolotarevsky-kub.htm to http://www.ukrterra.com.ua/developments/history/modern/zolotarevsky-kub.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✔️ Redirect to commercial site (must have bought out domain) archive replaced with correct archive version. Thanks, u|Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Genocide of Ukrainians?
In the (I agree, much too long!) lead, it is stated that: "This uprising, which had been preceded by genocide, enslavement, and major depredation of the Ukrainian population, culminated in purging and pogroms against Polish and Jewish communities." I am not an expert on Ukrainian history, but isn't "genocide" a little over the top? Wikipedia's definition of "genocide" is: "the intent to systematically eliminate a racial, ethnic, religious, linguistic, cultural or national group. Well-known examples of genocide include the Armenian Genocide, the Holodomor, the Holocaust, the 1971 Bangladesh Genocide, the Cambodian Genocide, and more recently the Rwandan Genocide and the Bosnian Genocide." Was this what happened in the Ukrainian population in 1648–1657? I've tried searching for "Ukrainian genocide" on Wikipedia, and am redirected immediately to the Holodomor (an undoubted genocide). That's all I get when I google it too. Also "enslavement" - too vague for me: is it literally meant (captured by Tartars and sent south down the river) or is it perhaps a metaphor of serfdom, or just an indication that they had a hard time? Filursiax (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The phrase "had been preceded by genocide, enslavement, and major depredation of the Ukrainian population" is idiotic. Either enslavement (BTW by "Ukrainians" like Wiśniowiecki family) or genocide and "major" depredation - you don't murder your slaves, if you aren't Joseph Stalin. And there was no Ukrainian population in 1648. Orthodox or Ruthenian.Xx236 (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Jewish Encyclopedia anno 1906 as a source
I notice that the JE 1906 is often quoted in this and related articles. This source may be a good enough for some purposes, but it should be used with some caution. A lot has changed in history since 1906. Thus, the cited JE entry states: "According to the chronicles, the number of Jews who perished during this time (1648-58) exceeded half a million." This is the only discussion of the number of deaths the JE provides, so presumably it's at least approximately correct, though it comes with the caveat "according to the chronicles". What chronicles, the reader asks? And what are their status as historical sources? In this particular case, it's easy to see that they are outdated: just go to the Khmelnytsky Uprising entry, where it is stated that "[e]arly 20th-century estimates of Jewish deaths were based on the accounts of the Jewish chroniclers of the time, and tended to be high, ranging from 100,000 to 500,000 or more [...] From the 1960s to the 1980s historians still considered 100,000 a reasonable estimate of the Jews killed and, according to Edward Flannery, many considered it 'a minimum'. [...] Orest Subtelny concludes:


 * Between 1648 and 1656, tens of thousands of Jews—given the lack of reliable data, it is impossible to establish more accurate figures—were killed by the rebels, and to this day the Khmelnytsky uprising is considered by Jews to be one of the most traumatic events in their history."

Maybe some qualified person should take a look at the citations from JE 1906 and check if they are still in accordance with our present understanding of history? Otherwise, it is a fascinating article, and it would be great to get it in proper shape. Keep up the good work! Filursiax (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

poorlyritn:((
+far2long.. 81.11.218.194 (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are going to make changes to article content, plus leave comments on an article's talk page as to perceived problems, please ensure that you leave a coherent comments. You are not SMSing a friend, or leaving comments on a blog or forum. You've already added multiple red links (here and on other articles) to articles that are not likely to ever exist, plus have created red links to articles that do exist in some form or another, but using different nomenclature and making it difficult to decipher which article you wished the wikilink to point to. Rather than make up names as you go along, please make the effort to find the relevant articles and learn how WP:MOSLINK works. Thanks for the effort, nevertheless, and feel free to ask for advice. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1.ivRSS2.bUSRFRENDLY(nowondrthisart.SUX!81.11.218.194 (talk) 08:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

RONA weren'r cossacks

 * RONA weren'r cossacks
 * If you inssist to keep them here, describe their cruelty.Xx236 (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Cossacks. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/unavy/aCossack1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221220502/https://adjudant.ru/captive/bes06.htm to http://adjudant.ru/captive/bes06.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cossacks. 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 tag to http://www.kazarla.ru/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130606012617/http://ngkub.ru/news/old_265 to http://ngkub.ru/news/old_265
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/unavy/aCossack1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090415061251/http://www.hailerpublishing.com/cossack.html to http://www.hailerpublishing.com/cossack.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) 03:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

At the moment this article is missing information about "Modern-day Ukrainian Cossack identity"
I don't want to repeat a "Ukrainian Cossacks" discussion. But currently while there is a excellent section in the article about "Modern-day Russian Cossack identity" there is not one on Modern-day Ukrainian Cossack identity. I currently have no time to work on it but here is a (scholarly and lengthy!) source that I (or you) can use to expand the article on "Modern-day Ukrainian Cossack identity". It turns out that various Ukrainian governments since 1991 have tried to rebuild a Cossack identity in Ukraine. It is interesting for me why Cossacks stayed folklore in current Ukraine while in current Russia they do seem to have some real power and state duties. An answer to this question seems to be found in this Ukrainian newspaper article here (Cossack organisations in Ukraine are apparently always splintering). —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  16:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

szlachta/schlahta
For no good reason that I can see, the article constantly alternates between the spellings "szlachta" and "schlahta". The link from the oddly spelled "schlahta" takes us to an article entitled "szlachta", which is the correct Polish spelling. But this spelling is repeatedly used for non-Polish szlachta, and "schlahta" (which looks half-German because of the "sch", but the "h" would be silent in German - SHLAH-ta) for Polish szlachta - which simply makes no sense. The Russian and Ukrainian spellings are both "шляхта", which should be transliterated as "shlyakhta" and rhymes perfectly with Polish "szlachta". Unless anyone can provide a justification for a mangled half-German spelling in an English article, I strongly suggest it be replaced everywhere by the Polish spelling. I'd make the changes myself, but at least one of the words is a link, which I'm afraid to damage.213.127.210.95 (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cossacks. 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/20150826055134/http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/cossack/cossack.htm to http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/cossack/cossack.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151004003218/http://historydoc.edu.ru/catalog.asp?cat_ob_no=15249&ob_no=16146 to http://historydoc.edu.ru/catalog.asp?cat_ob_no=15249&ob_no=16146

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) 22:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Specify Turkic people, not Turks
"descending from Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Turks, Tatars, and others who settled or passed through the vast Steppe."

Turkish people leads to a wiki page of Anatolian Turks, Anatolian Turks did not pass through or live in the steppes of Russia. Anatolian Turks are of Oghuz background and arrived during Seljuk. But Kipchak Turkic people (Khazars, Bulgars, Avars, Cumans, Pechenegs and others) have been in Russia for ages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiNutt (talk • contribs) 04:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Your quote does not state Turkish ... it says "Turks" - which by itself does not denote the Turkish people in modern-day Turkey. 50.111.49.173 (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * They were all remnants of the göktürk empire including ohguz tribes some of them took the caspian route over to the ukraine steppes :"
 * According to Soviet archaeologist and ethnographer Sergey Tolstov, part of the Kayi tribe moved in the Middle Ages from Central Asia to modern day Ukraine, they are known in the Old Russian Chronicles as kovuy and kaepichi as one of the tribes that formed the Turkic tribal confederation called Chorni Klobuky (or Karakalpaks) who were allies of the Rurikid khaganate of Kievan Rus. Although they are mentioned among the member tribes of Turkic Chorni Klobuky confederation together with other Turkic tribes such as Pechenegs, Berendei and Torks as “Kaepichi” or “Kovui” in the contemporary chronicles of their age and there is no other mention of a Mongolic or para-Mongolic tribe around Ukraine in the 12nd century, Golden however considers the Kaepichi to be descendants of the para-Mongolic Qay instead. According to the famous Soviet and Russian linguist and turkologist A. V. Superanskaya, the origin of the name of the city of Kiev is associated with the Kayı tribe:
 * "As ethnographers testify, ethnically “pure” peoples do not and cannot exist. On the contrary, new peoples arise from ethnic mixes of two or more peoples, usually assimilating the best features of each. There are many folk legends that the beginning of a nation was laid by two (or several) brothers ... Apparently, something similar lies behind the legend of Kiy, Schek, Horev and Lybed. The tribal name Kyy (Kiy) belonged to the ancient Turkic peoples. It is still present in the names of tribal structures of modern Turkic peoples ”. 46.114.170.35 (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Cossacks as ethnicity
This article must have a section that discusses the statement that Cossacks is a separate ethnicity. The sources must come from reputable ethnologists, not just from politicians and modern "Cossack revivalists", who often talk weird fantasies. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Given that the cossacks was originally a name for the slavic nomads of the pontic-caspian steppe, and then became a name of military units, it would seem that whoever is truly culturally descended from the cossacks would have assimulated into the ukrainian and russian people. However, I do agree that this article focusses too heavily on the romanticised image of these people and not the historical people who were given the name. 125.237.30.118 (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Unreferenced notes
The article text contains a huge amount of unreferenced notes (some of them are dubious). This significally differs form the style wikipedia article are written.

Next week I am going to move all of them here.

Please do not restore them without referencing. Also, I would strongly suggest to incorporate them into plain text, because "overfootnoting" greatly reduces readability on mobile devices. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Cossacks were Russian and Ukranian...
...it doesen't matter which language is first here on Wiki (--88.70.148.187 (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

section 'popular image'
this sentence:

"The Russian military also took advantage of the patriotic feelings among the Cossacks and as the hosts become larger and more organised; it has in the past[when?] turned over some of its surplus technology to them."

seems like a translation perhaps from russian. the word 'technology' in this context seems to be a mechanical translation of the russian word "tehnika" meaning technical assets, that is weapons / military equipment /tecnical equipment for military use, eg: military vehicles, etc. since the word 'technology' does not corresond with this meaning and the english sentence makes no sense in its current form, i be bold and correct the word to 'military equipment'. feel free to further improve the wording if you find a better one. 89.134.199.32 (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC).

Genetics section
What is the point of having a section on genetics? Lets discuss..---- Work permit (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The restored section now makes the point clear. However, the conclusions and relevancy appear to be wp:or. Discuss? ---- Work permit (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


 * So, the only source cited is a database of haplogroups of the Y chromosome by ethnic group.  Per the website: "This section presents the frequencies of haplogroups of the Y chromosome in individual peoples. Frequencies in various regional populations of one nation are averaged in one record for the entire nation, which is why this section is called “average ethnic frequencies”. Of course, part of the information is lost during averaging, but the table becomes visible and understandable not only to geneticists, but also to colleagues from related fields. The development of a full version of the information system (with information on individual populations and on STR haplotypes) is planned for 2011-2012."


 * This is raw data from which a scientist could publish a paper on the question of cossack ethnicity. If such a source exists, we should cite it.  Or else the entire section should be deleted, either as original research (if a conclusion is made), or irrelevant trivia (if a conclusion is not made).  Thoughts?---- Work permit (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The section in genetics was added by an IP in this 2016 edit. . He tried his same armchair geneticist edits in the Hungary article  but it was reverted.  ---- Work permit (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

For the reasons above, I've deleted the section. Discuss if you disagree.---- Work permit (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Multiple vandalism
This article has been vandalized multiple times since August 30. At least three users have largely disfigured the page. Vandalism has consisted mostly of altering parts of the text (including the introduction) in which likely ethnic origins of the Cossacks are described. These users have not provided any bibliographic reference to support the unlikely direct relationship between Cossacks and Crimean Goths. Edits from those users cannot be undone, if not manually. --Aihotz (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Aihotz, Yes, I already indicated the problem earlier to a valuable member of our community, it seems really it is the time to discuss this thorougly.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC))
 * There has been similar vandalism attempts at a less watched sister article, History of the Cossacks. In one case an editor actually added a citation to a jstor article. I happen to have had access to the reference, and found it did not back up the statement.---- Work permit (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, than all of these events have to be thorougly investigated and do the needful to keep only proper content of these articles.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC))
 * Looking through the types of changes being made, it seems that the primary area being targeted is DNA. Without reiterating copious arguments over the years as to the overabundant use of - and the WP:WEIGHT assigned to DNA in defining 'ethnicity' - I'm still dubious about the prolific use of DNA studies in ethnicity articles. It is a highly convoluted science still in its infancy, is easily misinterpreted (therefore is a breach of WP:NOR), and is even falsified (perhaps out of fantasy?) as has occurred both here and the articles mentioned. Anything unsourced regarding DNA should be removed without hesitation. If DNA is introduced into the article, it must be from top quality scientific publications (as with medical articles and other sciences in Wikipedia): even there, the proposed content tabled on the article's talk page in order that editors have the opportunity to discuss how compelling the new data is, and its significance within the context of the article. Is it truly groundbreaking information, or is it minor/controversial/WP:FRINGE? We may have limited say over what happens to other ethnic group articles, but local WP:CONSENSUS is still primary. To be honest, I'm not aware of any extensive or comprehensive DNA research into these areas. When/if they take place, I have no doubt that there will be plenty of reliable sources reporting on the findings. Until such a time, I would suggest we keep imaginary content/DNA out of the equation. Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Iryna. You are correct, there was alot of vandalism in a DNA section.  After careful investigation, it turns out the entire section was wp:or.  The section never even cited a study.  It cited a database, and editor made their own conclusions. I believe  was referring  to edits such as this one .  Simple edits making unsupported claims of different ethnicities.  There were a host of such edits at the history of cossacks article that can be seen here, , .  The last editors edits were pretty insidious, claiming in their edit summary a reference to a jstor article.  I engaged the editor in the article talk page and his own. The one common theme amongst these edits is that they are made by different editors all signing up roughly at the end of august and making single purpose edits.---- Work permit (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * -- Work permit, yes, along my main concern as expressed more times as well to Iryina, the so-called Slavo-Germanic designation holds? For the details you may check Iryna's talk where I presented my concern more broadly.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC))


 * Having gone through various unsupported changes on articles surrounding the subject of Cossacks, I haven't actually found any research into DNA other than the worldwide Genographic Project, and the results are many years from coming in on that one. Outside of DNA research, the only historical information as to ethnicity remains unchanged: i.e., theoretically, the Cossacks were probably formed from remnant groups of the Golden Horde and attracted predominantly local (Eastern Slavic) runaway serfs, particularly during times of upheaval (which, given the geostrategic placement of traditional Cossack lands, happened very, very regularly). Other 'recruits' came in sporadically as the result of other events further afield (such as refuges from the Jacobite risings), and on a more regular basis from runaway slaves from the Ottoman Empire, recruits from other local tribes and ethnic groups. All in all, however, the Cossacks were made up predominantly of locals.


 * I don't know where this 'Germanic' designation comes from, but will make an educated guess that there's some sort of 'Viking' conflation happening here. I also work on Rus' people - and other articles surrounding the broad subject of Kievan Rus' - which have attracted confused attention from contributors mistakenly perceiving the Norse connection within the ruling elite during the inception of Rus' as somehow translating into Norse (Germanic) DNA in the broader Eastern European Slavic population. Now, there are DNA studies of Eastern Slavs, and the results place any 'Germanic' theory into the 'somebody is watching too much contemporary popular television programming, playing too many video games, and confusing pop culture with reality' bracket. The Vikings were an interesting lot, but they did not take over and rule the world in the manner implied by pop culture.
 * To the point, none of this 'Slavo-Germanic' business is attested to in any of the sources. Rather than tag-bombing the article for reliable sources to prove inserted content which which was falsified in the first place, we should simply remove the changes. The WP:BURDEN has always been on an editor who introduces content to prove it, and this burden of proof simply wasn't met. Readers are entitled to what is verifiably to be found in the sources. Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed!(KIENGIR (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC))

Proposed deletion of Category:Slavic countries and territories
It is currently being proposed that Category:Slavic countries and territories be deleted. This article is related to that category. The relevant discussion is located at Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 8. The discussion would benefit from input from editors with a knowledge of and interest in Cossacks. Krakkos (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits
DanielLerish,

CLCStudent, just reverted an edit, as I did. Not necessarily I'd have started a discussion, and no problem if you involve Iryna, whom I already worked together on other pages regarding the Cossacks. But as I see, you should as well discuss here with Nicoljaus. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC))

New levels of banality and time wastage as well as selective justice
As previously stated, whilst a "consensus" or "majority opinion" was not needed for KIENGIR to change "predominantly located in modern-day Southern Russia, southeast Ukraine and the Eurasian Steppe" to "predominantly located in Southern Russia in the steppes of Russia,[1] as well as in Eastern and Southern Ukraine within the borders of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth" than a corroborated fact doesnt need to be. Anyone who is aware of the answer on how to retain this factual edit please enlighten me, I have now initiated a discussion on the talk page, do bribes now need to be paid to gain a consensus? A gang mentality is it hand whereby the interests of one party is favoured over the other at the detriment of the truth.

Professor of History at Harvard University, Serhii Plokhy-"There were Dnieper Cossacks, Don Cossacks, Volga and Yaik Cossacks and, finally, Siberian Cossacks. The first to organize themselves were the Dnieper or Ukrainian Cossacks"

Henry Krasinski, Polish Academic writing in 1848 to Victoria I of Great Britain-"the country lying south of Kiow, and traversed by the Dnieper up to the Black Sea, was the principal birthplace of the Cossacks"

William P Creeson, Cossacks (published 1919)-"The country known as the Ukraine, where the characteristic Cossack civilization arose and developed"

Britannica-" In the 15th century a new martial society—the Cossacks (from the Turkic kazak, meaning “adventurer” or “free man”)—was beginning to evolve in Ukraine’s southern steppe frontier. The term was applied initially to venturesome men"

Brian J Boek (holds a doctorate in Russian History from Harvard University) "When Ukrainian Cossacks led by Bohdan Khmelnytsky staged an uprising to protest Polish restrictions on Zaporozhian Cossack military actions and polices perceived as prejudice against the Orthodox faith, a mass rebellion broke out in Ukraine"

If a corroborated factual edit is now subordinate to one that doesnt make grammatical sense, has one citation, and NEVER gained a consensus then there is a serious problem with this page. If anyone is aware of a way to appease those that have a problem please inform me, as facts will prevail, if another reference is needed please ask.DanielLerish (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)DanielLerish
 * Had you attempted discussion here on the talk page first, your version would have been retained in the protection. El_C 15:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * DanielLerish,


 * please read WP:BRD and maybe you will understand what means reverting status quo ante and consensus is regulated by the rules of WP (not necessarily majority opinion), as well mind El_C's words. Your Hungarian sentence in the edit log A magyarok törődnek egymással, kérlek hagyd el :) is unintelligible on the whole (seems it was automatically generated by a translator program, however the both part of the sentence is synctactically correct, but semantically unclear).(KIENGIR (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC))
 * New levels of banality and time wastage -- This is not at all the beginning of a conversation that is conducive to cooperation.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

EL_C as I have now attempted a 'discussion' on the talk page I hope this misunderstanding can now be rectified and the edit can be retained once the protection policy is lowered. As I stated before facts should not be discarded and subordinated due to 'club rules', however, I apologise if I did not follow the correct sequence in editing the page though I was simply following the example of those that edited after me. If there is any further references, citations, information, suggestions you wish to make I am willing to accept them within reason, as I will continue to stand by the edit particularly after engaging in the talk page. RegardsDanielLerish (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)DanielLerish

KIENGIR 'bold, revert, discuss, cycle' is an optional policy and not mandated by Wikipedia who encourage users to make edits when factual and corroborated with substantial evidence and citations of which my edit was. If you subscribe to this poicy so fervently why did you not initiate a discussion with me when I reverted your edit that had been made without consensus? As for my Hungarian sentence I am not here to engage in dialectics over the Hungarian language, as you can tell it is not my first language and as I can tell from "in Southern Russia in the steppes of Russia" English isn't your first language. I am here to correct this page and balance the interests of two parties and prevent cultural appropriation. If you need any further information, references, citations to substantiate my edit please ask. Regards DanielLerish (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)DanielLerish

Nicoljaus With all due respect its not really that conducive to success for you to scroll all the way to the bottom of this page just to criticise the title of this new section. If you have any more appropriate suggestions for a title throw them my way.RegardsDanielLerish (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)DanielLerish

Hi EL C, have been following this quietly from the sidelines for a while, have to concur and agree with DanielLerish in this case. The user has made an edit to the page and backed it up with numerous citations. The currently accepted version now protected, as well as the references used to back up KIENGIRs edits are highly alarming, not quite sure how a German tourist company that spreads Russian disinformation/propaganda inviting tourists to the "6th anniversary of the coup in Kiev" and how "the Ukrainian president is unconstitutionally deposed and a transitional government is set up at America's grace" is being used over the Harvard published books being given by the other user. Not only is linking company websites against Wikipedia policy (advertising) but this is a huge red flag. Ironically, the second reference validates DanielLerish's edit-""and the Zaporozhian, Ukrainian and Slobodsk hosts were established in the Ukraine". Hopefully this will get resolved but the current version is definitely not appropriate, at least from my POV. Noah221 (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Noah221 strike sock--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would suggest the expression "north of the Black Sea", as, for example, in this article. It is more neutral: "The Cossacks first appeared in the Pontic Steppe north of the Black Sea along the Dnieper and Don rivers in the fifteenth century". Attempts to prove that Cossacks are direct descendants of the Khazars, and only Ukrainian Cossacks are genuine primordial Cossacks, and so on, are all fringe theories.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Noah221, greatly appreciate your support, completely agree the current version now protected was created on the 30th of January, without consensus and with multiple errors, and amazingly as you have correctly pointed out uses a German language travel company's website that promotes conspiracy theories. Anyway, thankyou again for your backing.

Thank you Nicoljaus for the suggestion, however, the same author of which you have quoted states- "[The Cossacks] demonstrated to those masses that an alternative and viable social order did indeed exist. This was to prove far more threatening to Poland-Lithuania or Muscovy and the Russian Empire than the cossack swords and muskets on their own could ever be." The quote effectively stating that the cossacks were an entity independent of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Russian Empire and distancing them from those two polities. I would suggest "East Slavic-speaking people who became known as members of democratic, self-governing, semi-military communities, emerging in Ukraine during the 15th century and later establishing themselves in Southern Russia along the Don, Volga and Eurasian steppe." I am certainly not trying to imply or make an edit stipulating that Cossacks are direct descendants of Khazars, similarly I am not implying that Ukrainian Cossacks are the only genuine primordial Cossacks, I am also not implying that Ukrainian cossacks are the only genuine cossacks, and I am also not implying that the first cossacks to arise were Ukrainian, I am, however, implying that the first Cossacks we know of were Tatars living in Southern Ukraine who spread the practice to local slavic Ukrainian people hence the identity and lifestyle originating in Ukraine. Hopefully this impasse can be broken, I really believe the truth should never ben sacrificed because of nationalist pressures. If cossacks originate somewhere it doesnt matter who it may embitter, it is the truth and as Wikipedia editors we must ensure it is spread in the most sensitive way and stand by it. I hope I can have your support in this. RegardsDanielLerish — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielLerish (talk • contribs) 13:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The quote effectively stating -- No, it doesn't.
 * emerging in Ukraine during the 15th century and later establishing themselves in Southern Russia along the Don, Volga and Eurasian steppe." -- With all due respect, I am forced to reject this offer. Most sources (except Ukrainian) do not claim that the Cossacks appeared in Ukraine and only then spread to the Don and further east. In 1444 Cossacks already fought against Tatars near Ryazan in Russia. I strongly doubt that they had came from Ukraine, not Don. As I see, Britannica says that Cossacks are "people dwelling in the northern hinterlands of the Black and Caspian seas." I think this is a good wording, without unnecessary modern political-motivated debate.--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

It is not completely clear what is a subject of the dispute: the word, the social group, or a subethnic group? Obviously, the word "Qosaq/Kazakh/Kazak/Cossak" is older than both Great Russian or Ukrainian nations, and it is of Turkish origin. The social group of Zaporozhye Cossacks did not represent some sub-ethnos, and it hardly had anything in common with, e.g. brodniks (an autochtone population of the Don and Terek valleys, who are considered ancestors of Don Kazaks/Cossacks). In my opinion, the core issue is in the modern Ukrainian nationalism, who claimed ownership of the word "Kozak", partially because their national anthem says so. By definition, Cossack were a very unhomogeneous Slavic-Turkish groups of population that had no (and couldn't have no) uniform social structure. The fact that some group of Cossacks formed some bigger proto-state entity (Sich') does not mean no Cossacks/Kazaks existed before that. To claim that would be tantamount to the claim that all East Slavs originate from Kievan Rus, whereas the opposite took place in reality: some of East Slavs formed Kievan Rus', which is younger that Slavs themselves. Therefore, it would be correct to totally disconnect the discussion of origin of the term "Cossack/Kazak" from any currently existing state entities, and to discuss a geography instead. Yes, Cossacks originated from the valleys of great rivers that flow to Black Sea, and currently this territory is divided among Russia and Ukraine (or Ukraine and Russia, whatever; alternatively, we can just not mention the names of these two rival states at all). If sources are needed, I can provide them, but it may require some time to find the best sources. To summarise, I support Nicoljaus proposal--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * contrary to your statements, 1. I initiated a discussion with you after your revert 2. My edit has not been made against consensus, it was yours. 2. My edit did not have any connection to the fact if English is my first language or not - reasons has been already explained - as well this argumentation does not annihilate my argumentation that the Hungarian sentence you formed in unintelligible, so until it is not clarified I cannot do anything with it. On the other hand, I support Nicoljaus and Paul.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC))


 * In an attempt to emulate the principle of good faith I have refrained from engaging in the talk page and allowing the passion of the argument to subside. Effectively means paraphrased or in others words, premordial means prehistoric, here are two articles in which the quote supplied are associated with the Ukrainian national movement and Russo-Polish-Ukrainian relations

https://www.thedailybeast.com/caught-between-empires-ukraine-cant-rely-on-the-west-for-its-independence https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/nine-lessons-of-russian-propaganda. The quote 'implies' that the Cossacks politcal and social entity were a threat to both Russian Empire/Muscovy and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth through both the ideology they were based on as well as a physical threat. I have supplied 5 different sources none of which are 'Ukrainian' stating the origins of the Cossacks to have been in contemporary Ukraine disproving your statement thatMost sources (except Ukrainian) do not claim that the Cossacks appeared in Ukraine. In my list of references I have an American, Polish-English, American, Britannica and American. On the other hand you have given me a source from one person who specialises in the history of Don Cossacks. As for I am forced to reject this offer, not quite sure what that means, who is forcing you not to? Curiously you chose not to mention the wording after the Britannica quote you gave-"Originally (in the 15th century) the term referred to semi-independent Tatar groups, which formed in the Dnieper region". As well as this I will once again supply another quote from BRITANNICA-"In the 15th century a new martial society—the Cossacks (from the Turkic kazak, meaning “adventurer” or “free man”)—was beginning to evolve in Ukraine’s southern steppe frontier". Agree with you that north of the Caspian sea could be a could provisional compromise, would also greatly appreciate if you could supply me with a source in which Cossacks are said to be fighting in Ryazan in the 15th century. RegardsDanielLerish (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)DanielLerish


 * Their is no dispute over the word, the social group or the sub-ethnic group. No one is trying to say that the Zaporozhian Cossacks are a sub-ethnos however they could obviously understand each other and had a mutual language, according to records from the Pereyeslav Agreement of 1654 could not understand emissaries of the Tsar Alexei and needed translators and their identity has undoubtedly contributing to the formation of Ukrainian nationhood of which this article is clearly trying to avoid. It would be unncessary for any Ukrainian nationalist to claim "the word Kozak" as their own considering it is a Ukrainian word as as you very kindly pointed out the Russian and Tatar word for Cossacks are 'Kazak'. The numerous sources of which I provide some which predate 1900 retort the claim that "Cossacks originated from the valleys of great rivers that flow to Black Sea, and currently this territory is divided among Russia and Ukraine" but rather solely along the Dnieper region. As previously stated a geographical origin could be a great temporary solution and I back your diplomatic suggestion, yet ironically the geographical area in which Cossacks were referred to as living by both the gentry of Muscovy and Poland-Lithuanian was 'na Ukraini', the lines between Ukraine as a political entity and geographic area were blurred in the 16th and early 17th century.DanielLerish (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)DanielLerish


 * My edit was made without gaining a consensus, as was yours, instead of returning my edit to the status quo ante you made a new edit, you changed "predominantly located in modern-day Southern Russia, southeast Ukraine and the Eurasian Steppe" to "predominantly located in Southern Russia in the steppes of Russia,[1] as well as in Eastern and Southern Ukraine within the borders of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth" without consensus, its pretty simple to grasp. Not really able to understand the rest, apologies. DanielLerish (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)DanielLerish
 * It is not clear whom you refer, however in my behalf I did not make any new edit, I just reverted to status quo ante.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC))


 * Am reverting the version of Cossacks to that the promoted by Nicoljaus and Paul and that holds the current consensus until further compromise is reached. This version purely mentions the nearest predominant geographic boundaries and bodies of water, very broad, but great temporary compromise. Hope this is ok for all. DanielLerish (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)DanielLerish


 * Regarding Kazak vs Cossack. Both Russian and Ukrainian languages use Cyrillic, so Kazak and Cossack are just two different transliterations of the same word. "Kazak" is closer to real phonetic in most Russian dialects (except in Central Volga region, where they pronounce that word "Kozak"). The difference between pronunciation of the first vowel in that word are smaller than the difference between pronunciation of vowels in New York English and RP.


 * Second, I would like to see a confirmation from a reliable secondary source that Dnieper Kozaks really experienced problems with understanding old Russian. I strongly suspect that was not the case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh apologies all, I was refering to you KIENGIR, this is the last time I am writing this, you did not revert back to the status quo ante, the status quo ante as can still clearly be seen by going back to the version of the 29th of Janaury is not that of 17:28 of the 30th of January, once again instead of reverting the page back to "predominantly located in modern-day Southern Russia, southeast Ukraine and the Eurasian Steppe" you added "predominantly located in Southern Russia in the steppes of Russia,[1] as well as in Eastern and Southern Ukraine within the borders of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth". This was done without consensus, yet because of personal grievances held by some editors you edit was allowed but the one I inserted was not.


 * Kazak and Cossack are not two different translitertions of the same word but two different transliterations that share the same meaning. Kazak is the Russian transliteration of the Russian word 'казак' and Cossack is an english version of the Ukrainian transliatorion 'Kozak' steeming from the Ukrainain word 'Козак'. Not quite sure what 'old Russian' you are referencing, not in the field of academy I have been referring to is there an 'old Russian language' other than the anachronistic and incorrect description that has been phased that previously described

https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/eieol/oruol Old East Slavic. Below are some very brief references indicating the need for interpreters and translators between the Zaporozhian Cossacks.

Now intend to update article to that the current consensus proposed by the group. DanielLerish (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)DanielLerish
 * "The protocols of the Pereiaslav “agreement” preserved in the Ambassadors’ Chancellery at Moscow are limited to envoy Buturlin’s report to Moscow, the Muscovite translation of Khmel´nyts´kyi’s proposed terms — the 23 “Articles of Petition” delivered to Moscow on 12 March — and the responding “March Articles” issued by the tsar later in the month and delivered to Khmel´nyts´kyi by Bohdanovich-Zarudnyi and Pavlo Teteria.56 The original of Khmel´nyts´kyi’s Articles of Petition has not been preserved, nor is there a final and binding copy of a treaty, leading many historians to argue that the original text of the Articles of Petition was suppressed and even the tsar’s original March Articles removed and these articles doctored in 1659" https://journals.openedition.org/monderusse/9725
 * "According to the decision taken by the Council of officers at Pereyeslav, the Hetman in February, 1654, sent an embassy to Moscow and entrusted it with this urgent task. The embassy was accompanied by Yakiv Ivanovych, an army interpreter, Sulvestr, the abbot of the Spassky monastery" (Treaty of Pereyaslav, 1654) pub 1954
 * “Ukrainian documents of the seventeenth century had to be translated into the Muscovite language and negotiation with Ukrainian envoys were conducted with the aid of interpreters" (The Second Soviet Republic) pub Rugters University Press in 1964
 * Ukrainian linguistic elements in the Russian language, 1680-1760: with special reference to the writings of Dimitri Rostovsky, Theofan Prokopovich, Stefan Yavorsky, Aleksandr Sumarokov and Mikhail Lomonosov published by the University of London. Also covers the need for translators and interpreters during the 17th century and onwards.
 * https://academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Treaty_of_Pereyaslav (such basic sources as these write that translators and interpreters were necessary and used)
 * https://euvsdisinfo.eu/report/ukraine-is-part-of-russia-both-territorially-and-demographically/


 * No way, you don't understand what means status quo ante. I made two reverts, one revert to the revision of ClCStudent 18:15, 29 January 2020, and another one, the other time I reverted you with the revert button, so both cases I had zero involvement on the content, but I reverted to an earlier revision (= both are status quo ante). Moreover reverting a bold additon could never harm consensus, since it is restoring the content to the previous status quo ante (= as well a consensus), so please analyze the editing rules before you recurrently draw false conclusions and state falsities of the happenings. Thank You. (on the other hand, I fail to see your current additon would reverting the version of Cossacks to that the promoted by Nicoljaus and Paul and that holds the current consensus until further compromise is reached, El_C already indicated what is the last stable version, and your recent addition I did not find i.e. with identical i.e. Nicoljaus's any former revision, as I also did not see a new consensus would have been formed in the talk, Nicoljaus's last engagament in the talk was in 6 February...)(KIENGIR (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC))
 * Hello, . It seems to me that the recent edit is quite good where it changes the Lead. But I'm not sure whether it is worth further expanding the section about Zaporozhian Cossacks in this way, it seems to me that it is disproportionately large. P.S. With you tried to ping me, you were doing it in the wrong way!--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for your feedback! What did you mean pinging in the wrong way? (as far as I know, this way not necessarily the ping will go trough by experience...?) If I do like this is good?(KIENGIR (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC))
 * Yes, it worked now! Ping must be in the same edit as the signature, otherwise it will not work.--Nicoljaus (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The hypocrisy on this page is pretty astounding, I too have just been watching from the sidelines but there is definitely a clique here. Nicoljaus is “no way, you don’t understand what means status quo ante" a conducive way of building a dialogue or will you not pull that one up because he is following your agenda.
 * It does not matter what version of the past you reverted back to, it needed a consensus which you did not gain, I could make an edit without a consensus, you could then revert it and then a person could edit the one I did back as going back to the 'statue quo ante'.
 * User EL C actually did not "indicate what is the last stable version", as any protection template will tell you, upgrading the protection policy of a page is not an endorsement of the then current version.
 * Also KEINGIR you need to familiarise yourself with WP:RV, one of the links being to WP:STATUSQUO

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_ante_bellum The meaning being "the state existing before the war" hence in our case the state of the page before the edit war occurred. As for the current edition I recommend you scroll back over the comments, the edit made by DanielLerish was approved by Siebert and Nikoljaus. Please also familiarise yourself with the following policies of Wikipedia: PavloTreiter 16:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)PavloTreiter (talk)
 * 1) Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits.
 * 2) The Wikipedia edit warring policy forbids repetitive reverting.
 * 3) It is not appropriate to use reversion to control the content of an article through status quo stonewalling.

Wow, thankyou for your concurrence PavloTreiter. As for "occupy Moscow in 1618? In dreams, may be" what a coincidence you went straight for that part. However, I do regret not citing this claim further. The information was a reference to the Polish-Muscovite war. "Some of Godunov's other enemies, including approximately 2,000 southern Cossacks, joined Dimitry's forces on his way to Moscow. Dmitriy's forces fought two engagements with reluctant Russian soldiers; his army won the first at Novhorod-Siverskyi, soon capturing Chernigov, Putivl, Sevsk, and Kursk, but badly lost the second Battle of Dobrynichi and nearly disintegrated. Dmitry's cause was only saved by the news of the death of Tsar Boris Godunov." (Quote regarding Cossacks fighting on the side of Polish representative)

"His forces initially included 7,000 Polish soldiers, 10,000 Cossacks and 10,000 other soldiers, including former members of the failed rokosz of Zebrzydowski, but his force grew gradually in power, and soon exceeded 100,000 men. He raised another illustrious captive, Feodor Romanov, to the rank of Patriarch, enthroning him as Patriarch Filaret, and won the allegiance of the cities of Yaroslavl, Kostroma, Vologda, Kashin and several others. " (Second Polish invasion and the participation of Cossacks)

"Polish units consisted primarily of cavalry, primarily the Polish hussars, with about 400 Cossack infantry on the left wing.[2] Another 200 infantry and two cannons would arrive later, and did not participate in the first part of the battle" (Cossack paticipation in the Battle of Klushino on the side of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, that precipitated the occupation of Moscow by the Commonwealth).

"In 1618 Petro Sahaidachny's campaign against Tsardom of Russia resulted in sacking numerous forts such as Putivl, Kursk, Yelets, and others. Together with Chodkiewicz he laid siege to Moscow in September 1618. Due to unclear reasons, both Hetmans failed to take the city. Negotiations began and a peace treaty was signed in 1618." (The Zaporizhian Cossacks were the last to end the Polish-Muscovite war, fighting on the side of Poland). These quotes are all from wikipedia, please reference if need be.

Please as per the Wikipedia guidelines, if you feel opposed to something in a pargraph there is no need to wipe the whole paragraph, just remove the pieces of "vandalism or other disruptive edits" as PavloTreiter very kindly pointed out.I intend on returning the paragraph with the problematic parts altered and corroborated further. DanielLerish (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)DanielLerish
 * , Instead of this large text, it would be a rather short apology for spreading fakes. None of the above quotes says anything about the "occupation of Moscow in 1618".--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not quite sure what "fakes" your referencing, however, I do apologise if I did not clarify clearly enough what was written. Whilst the provisional statement of origins remains and that dispute is calming, I wish to revoke my edit of a 'Ukrainian Cossacks' section. I think this article risks being highly one sided and adapted to one party's interests if whilst cossacks arguably contributed greater to the creation of a Ukrainian national identity there remains only a 'Russian Cossack' section, alarmingly also a 'Russian Cossacks' section that includes Cossacks that were neither linguistically or ethinically Russian. If Yaik cossacks which incorporated Mongolic, Finno-Uggric and Uralic peoples into their ranks and Terek Cossacks that incorporated Caucasian peoples into their ranks are placed under the current description, this page must be assuming the formula of state boundaries, whereby even if a Cossack Host was predmoninantely Tatar because it is located within Russia it falls under Russian Cossacks. I argue in the spirit of fairness that the same should apply for Ukraine and Zaporizhian Cossacks. Please find attached numerous citations, references and examples of esteemed academics, professors and historians referring to the Zaporizhian Cossacks as not only being confined within the boundaries of Ukraine but also ethnically, linguistically Ukrianian.

Boeck, Brian J. (2009). Imperial Boundaries : Cossack Communities and Empire-Building in the Age of Peter the Great. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-51463-7. OCLC 876231947. Boeck, Brian J. (2009). Imperial Boundaries : Cossack Communities and Empire-Building in the Age of Peter the Great. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-51463-7. OCLC 876231947. U., J. F.; Rudnitsky, S. (1920-11). "Ukraine: The Land and Its People". The Geographical Journal. Plokhy, Serhii, 1957- author. The Cossack myth : history and nationhood in the age of empires. ISBN 1-107-44903-0. OCLC 885909257. (Warfare in Eastern Europe, 1500-1800) (Warfare in Eastern Europe, 1500-1800) (Warfare in Eastern Europe, 1500-1800) Russia's First Civil War: The Time of Troubles and the Founding of the Romanov Dynasty (Chester S. L. Dunning) Russia's First Civil War: The Time of Troubles and the Founding of the Romanov Dynasty (Chester S. L. Dunning) Warrior Kings of Sweden: The Rise of an Empire in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Gary Dean Peterson) Warrior Kings of Sweden: The Rise of an Empire in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Gary Dean Peterson) Warrior Kings of Sweden: The Rise of an Empire in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Gary Dean Peterson) DanielLerish (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)DanielLerish
 * "When Ukrainian Cossacks led by Bohdan Khmelnytsky staged an uprising to protest Polish restrictions on Zaporozhian Cossack military actions and polices perceived as prejudice against the Orthodox faith, a mass rebellion broke out in Ukraine"-
 * "The Dnipro (Dnieper) borderland became a battleground between Ukrainian Cossack factions, Russia, Poland, and eventually the Ottoman Empire"
 * "If it were similar to the great seventeenth-cenutry wars between the Polish aristocracy and the Ukrainian Cossacks"
 * "The Ukrainian Cossack Host came into being south of Kyiv, along the middle and lower reaches of the Dnieper (Dnipro) River, in the course of the sixteenth century "There were Dnieper Cossacks, Don Cossacks, Volga and Yaik Cossacks and, finally, Siberian Cossacks. The first to organise themselves were the Dnieper or Ukrainian Cossacks"
 * "ally with the Ukrainian Cossacks in their six year-old struggle against the Poles. Muscovy declared war against the Rzeczpospolita in October"
 * "Real innovation in the evolution of the military lay with the organization of the border garrison troops. Ukrainian Cossack landmilitia, the equivalent of the Habsburg Militargrenzer, became regular army regiments under Rumiantstev."
 * "they required much larger continents of artillery and inozemskii stroi infantry and often direct support from regiments of Ukrainian cossacks."
 * "His associates managed to gather together a force of approximately twenty-five hundred men, about eleven hundred of whom were cavalry and infantry forces drawn from men in service to the magnates and approximately fourteen hundred of whom were so-called “cossacks”. About two-thirds of the latter group were, in fact, Ukrainians; only about five hundred of Dmitrii’s “cossacks” were true Ukrainian cossacks.
 * "Gudonov also managed to stir the hatred of many Ukrainian cossacks who had fled to Russia’s southern frontier in the aftermath of the failure of their rebellions in Poland-Lithuania during the 1590s."
 * "The November vote placed John Casimir, brohter of Wladyslav, on the throne. The new king assembled an army and in 1651 defeated Ukrainian forces at Berestechko."
 * "At the time of the expiration of the truce, the Polish king was grappling with Turkey in a war for Christendom. A Polish army had been crushed at the Battle of Cecora in Moldavia where the king’s brilliant general Zodlkiewski was killed. Now he had 45,000 Poles, Lithuanians and Ukrainian Cossacks defending a five square mile fortified camp at Chocim against a force of Turks twice that size."
 * “the Ukrainian Cossacks were looking for an opportunity to secure Ukrainian independence from Russia and Poland. It was a time for Karl XII to move”

Remember to sign your comments on the talk page DanielLerish, as for your edit I don't see a problem with it. If there exists a 'Russian Cossack' section and in-light of the numerous references you have given it would be only fair. I support you going forward with that edit. Nikolaus please try avoid facetious edit summaries pertaining to "occupy Moscow in 1618"? In dreams, may be" and "Putivl and Kursk? Oh, those sweet dreams". Its repetitive and unnecessary. Please refer to WP:ES "An edit summary is a brief explanation of an edit to a Wikipedia page." and "Avoid incivility. Snide comments, personal remarks about editors, and other aggressive edit summaries are explicit edit-summary "don't's" of the Wikipedia Civility policy." PavloTreiter (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)PavloTreiter

Oh thanks PavloTreiter, fixed it now.DanielLerish (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)DanielLerish I agree with PavloTreiter, if anyone has a problem with these two parties being on equal footing on this page than they are most likely harbouring nationalist tendencies for one or the other party. This page needs to balanced and make concessions to both in order to prevent further disruptions to the page. I support DanielLerish in going forward with the proposed edit, there are a lot of references to substantiate and back up the edit hence it should be allowed.Noah221 (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)Noah221 strike sock--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I have to refuse your remarks, I know very well the policies you referred, and my argumentation was flawless, I have almost 10 years experience on that. Both cases I reverted a version before the concerned edits of the subject. It is also a fact the Nicoljaus did not made a feedback until DanielLerish's edit, thus your statement is false, and he as well corrected the revision after his edit, that seems you missed. For the other directives you highlighted, I know all of them, repetitive reverting has to be considered on a current frame regulated by other rules, but appropriate on BRD. Moerover, no stonewalling has been made, I made two legal reverts and initiated a talk as per policy, it had nothing to do with controlling the article's conten. El_C indicated what is status quo ante, that in this case it equals with the last stable version. So please, better you should gather more experience in this platform.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC))


 * Note that I've struck through the comments by as they are a ✅ sock of .--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Fringe theories about Don Cossacks
Now the article claims that: "In modern view, Don Cossacks are descendants of both Slavic people and Khazars, which assimilated Goths, Alans, and possibly of Rugii, Roxolans, Alans and even Goths-Alans of the Black Sea Rus". This is an extraordinary level of fringe. The reference is given to a very controversial dissertation, however, in this dissertation the origin of the Don Cossacks is not considered at all. Any objection to the complete removal of this text?--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "Brodniks (steppedwellers), and Chervlenoyarians (residents of forts along the upper Don and Khoper rivers in the 12th century) are considered to be predecessors of Don Cossacks. " (G. I. El’chinova1, N. V. Kriventsova, S. S. Amelina, and R. A. Zinchenko. Medical Genetic Study of the Rostov Oblast Population: Changes in Reproductive Parameters with Time. Russian Journal of Genetics, Vol. 40, No. 11, 2004, pp. 1305–1307. Translated from Genetika, Vol. 40, No. 11, 2004, pp. 1576–1579.) This fact is supported by Viktor Shnirelman (The Fate of Empires and Eurasian Federalism: A Discussion between the Eurasianists and their Opponents in the 1920s, Inner Asia 3 (2001): 153–73), who mentions brodniks in passing.


 * "There are two main theories of the origin of Cossacks on the Don: autochthonous and migration. And despite the fact that the migration theory is supported by the majority of reputable historians, different variations of the autochthonous theory appeared throughout the existence of Don Cossacks even up to this time, having a great popularity among Cossacks themselves. These theories attempted to link the origin of Cossacks with the ethnic groups living in the Don steppes in different historical periods (with Alan-Jassy and Brodnici) or with the peoples of the Caucasus (Circassians), or with steppe Turkic speaking peoples. (....) Thus, the gene pool of Upper Don Cossacks (according to the data on Y chromosome STR markers) was formed mainly by the East Slavic component;among the steppe populations, only Nogais had a certain noticeable impact, and no influence of the peoples of the Caucasus was traced. These genetic results are in accordance with the migration theory of the origin of Cossacks, although they do not deny the possibility of a limited impact of the steppe populations represented by Nogais." (M. I. Chukhryaeva, I. O. Ivanov, S. A. Frolova, S. M. Koshel,O. M. Utevska, R. A. Skhalyakho,  A. T. Agdzhoyan, b, Yu. V. Bogunova, E. V. Balanovska, and O. P. Balanovsky, The Haplomatch Program for Comparing Y Chromosome STRHaplotypes and Its Application to the Analysis of the Origin of Don Cossacks. ussian Journal of Genetics, 2016, Vol. 52, No. 5, pp. 521–529)


 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I changed Cossaqs to Cossacks in the heading to accord with the spelling in the section's text. Mcljlm (talk) 03:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Does not belong in "popular image" section
I removed the following paragraph from the "popular image" section. If you want to reinstate the information, please find a more appropriate location:

Roman Catholics, especially Poles, could be Zaporozhian Cossacks up to 1635. A lot of landless Polish szlachta converted to Eastern Orthodoxy to divide the lands of Ruthenian szlachta together with Cossacks during the Khmelnitsky uprising. After this, Cossacks used to convert Poles, especially Polish children, to Eastern Orthodoxy to turn them into Cossacks. Many Polish, and Polish Jewish, children were adopted into Cossack families. All Poles captured by Russian forces in the 1812–1814 campaign were enlisted in Cossack hosts for 25 years, though without the obligation to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy. Those who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy, however, might escape Cossack service and other exile. Thus, "Polish Cossack" became synonymous with 1814 Polish Roman Catholic patriots.

Helenlace (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

In popular culture / in literature
I notice that books that portray Cossacks have been discussed in the section "Popular Image". I think it's perhaps more typical to have a short section by itself "In popular culture" or "In literature, film and radio" (Claudius), that focuses on fictional portrayals. Maybe this could be moved or there's room for both. Thoughts? AshSIreland (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Response to AshSIreland: Interesting suggestion. While I'm not entirely opposed to the change you suggest, I would like to mention some factors in favor of the current organization, which merges disparate kinds of information under the heading of "Popular image." For one thing, this allows the article to compare and contrast fictional, political, and historiographical portrayals. It also allows us to examine and interrogate the ways in which these categories can influence one another. In the case of the Cossacks, whose markers of identity are the topic of some debate (whether correctly or not), this is an important discussion to allow space for. I will admit that this section is not yet living up to its potential, however.

I'm interested in knowing more about which pages you would cite as having a more useful organizational principle, and why you prefer them. Helenlace (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Repatriation after WWII
It would seem that information about the forced repatriation from the West made in secret deals under the Yalta Agreement should be included 64.136.215.230 (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Флаг Семиреченского казачьего войска.png

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * KubanCossacks1945.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Kuban Cossacks 1937.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Kuban Cossacks 1937.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * KubanCossacks1945.jpg

This article seems to whitewash antisemitism
This article seems to systematically ignore or whitewash the history of antisemitism associated with the Cossacks. It seems odd that the article makes only two brief mentions of pogroms committed by Cossacks against Jewish communities, both of which are obscured and sandwiched between positive portrayals of Cossacks. 2A06:C701:9A25:2300:C049:540E:AC17:46CA (talk) 10:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * It's fine. Not every article of every european nationality, past or present, can have a detailed depiction on the antisemitism in that time. 125.237.30.118 (talk) 11:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Cossack as a social/ historical entity
Dear Wiki contributors, I clicked the article on Cossack out of curiosity as I was born and raised in Ukraine, visited sites where these “ warriors” used to live. The issue with this article… the VERY FIRST pictures which are supposed to portrait Cossacks are absolutely misguiding. Yes, there might be some “ descendants of Cossacks” in the US or some “ ancestors of Cossacks” among those marching through the Red Square. However, The first and second referred above are wearing Cossacks’ costumes, my dear fellows. Please do more research and remove these degrading images of “Cossacks”. Thank you 188.47.115.237 (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)