Talk:Khotyn Uprising

Inaccuracies that need editing
1. Numbers. a. Population. The article speaks of a "mass exodus of civilian population (about 50,000 people) from Khotin to Soviet Ukraine". Now, Khotyn has never been a large city. In the days of the uprising, its population was of about 24,000. See this link http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/pages/K/H/Khotyn.htm where one may also learn that "Since most of the town's inhabitants were Jewish or Russian, Ukrainian cultural life was insignificant until the early 20th century". It is obvious there were never 50,000 people in Khotyn, let alone 50,000 Ukrainians, as one is led to believe by the article. Also, why would civilians flee to Soviet Ukraine, since the most of the "guerilla fighters" do not appear to have been local people, but "armed bands from Podolia", although "reinforced by the local Ukrainian peasants".

b. 20,000 guerilla fighters. From the only available source that is listed below, the uprising seems to be one of several rather minor skirmishes, which did not require the presence of "the major forces of the Romanian army" (by the way, this does not sound like proper English; perhaps you mean something like "major Romanian forces", or "important forces of the Romanian army". Then why would about 4,000 of the guerilla fighters ("the fifth part") defect to Ukraine? Maybe they "escaped" to Ukraine. "Defect" means to "abandon one's cause or party or country usually to join another". Either these people were not locals and did not defect anything (communism or Ukraine), or they were locals, and then "to defect" would be too strong a word (it is used especially in cases when someone "defects" from a country that does not respect human rights - a common use is for Soviet citizens who defected to the West, not vice versa).

2. Reign of terror. The 11,000 executions are not documented in the external link listed here. Are they documented in the book mentioned here, which was published by communists? How would that be a reliable source. Also, the article speaks of "thousands more ... deported to katorga and labour camps". As for katorga, the wiki link shows it's strictly a Russian term, so it has nothing to do with Romania. Now, in regard with "labour camps", I am pretty sure there were NO labour camps in Romania prior to the installment of communism. I don't have any kind of evidence for that, because one cannot have evidence for something that does not exist. But let me put it this way: labour camps are used by totalitarian regimes (1) to punish opponents and (2) for large state-handled economic projects. In 1919, Romania may not have been heaven, but it was not a totalitarian state, and had no such projects. The state had no projects, since it had no property. Everything was owned by the damn capitalists. The end of the article shows that these damn capitalists were really the bad guys anyway, for the region was finally "liberated" by the Soviet army. Quatrocentu 09:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed, Romania had no labour camps before the Soviet occupation of late 1940s. People that were convicted of certain crimes and considered "dangerous" were sent to Doftana Prison. That prison became famous for housing many of the post-war Communist Party leaders, including Ceauşescu. The Communist Party was banned because at the time it militated for the breakdown of Romania and had some sabotage missions against those damn capitalists. :-) bogdan | Talk 15:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The article is total propaganda. Ukes stole romanian land and now are trying to cover it up with lies.

Changing
Since no one responded to these problems, I consider that the Soviet source is unreliable and as such I'm removing affirmations based on it. bogdan | Talk 17:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Dispute
I see there is a revert war raging on here. What is it with this article that can't be solved at the talk page? Halibutt 12:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's hard to solve the problem on the talk page when one of the parties (User:Ghirlandajo) never looks in here... bogdan | Talk 13:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

"many historians"

 * Many historians estimate that 11,000 people were executed, and thousands more were deported to katorga and labour camps (although some Romanian historians consider these numbers inflated)


 * 1) katorga -- Katorga "was a system of penal servitude in Imperial Russia. It was not in Romania.
 * 2) labour camp -- The state of Romania had no such thing before WWII. Give me one neutral reference that gives a description, or at least a neutral source mentioning such a camp in Romania.
 * 3) "many historians" -- all you have is a reference about a Soviet publication! Give a list of a few from those "many" historians that support this.
 * 4) "some Romanian historians" -- give me one example of a Romanian historian who said that. bogdan | Talk 14:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Reference
Found another reference. I'll see what it writes next week, when I'll get to the library. bogdan | Talk 10:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC) Stănescu, M. C. Hotin - ianuarie 1919. Răscoală sau agresiune? (Hotin, 1919. Révolte ou agression?).'' Magazin Istoric, 1995, 29, nr. 7, p.22-26.''

On top of all of that mentioned above, which I honestly think is just the result of the creative mind of some old Bolshevik, I think that the last phrase "returned to the Soviet Union" is wrong since the territory never before belonged to the USSR.Constantzeanu 17:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The dispute
Ghirlandajo, until the issues in the inaccuracies section added by User:Quatrocentu are not solved, one way or the other (prove that they're not inaccuracies or remove from the article), I'll keep the dispute tag. bogdan 09:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It looks like User:Bogdangiusca formally right here. We can remove the tag either if all the parties agreed to remove it, or if there is a RfC or something similar with the significant majority for the removing of the tag. It seems to not be a case, thus, I restore the tag. I do not have the expretise in the history of the Khotin uprising to decide who is factually right here. abakharev 10:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Who ignited the rebellion
Just came across these sentences"

"Bolshevik agitators from the Ukrainian SSR tried to use manifestos to incite a revolt"

"This largely unsuccessful attempt was followed in January 1919 by the insurrection of armed bands from Podolia, reinforced by the local Ukrainian peasants."

And "організований виступ населення Хотинського пов. проти рум. окупації. Керівником X. п. була «Хотинська Директорія», зформована з 5 чл. (гол. М. Лискун, секретар Л. Токан); вона співпрацювала з Директорією УНР, представник якої І. Маєвський допомагав повстанцям зброєю." which means: UofK - organized revolt by Khotyn region agains Rom. occupation. The leader of UofK was "Directory of Khotyn", that was formed from 5 people (chief M. Lyskun secretary L. Tokan); it collaborated with the Directory of UPR, who's representative I. Mayevski was providing rebellion with weapons.

You may like to research more on this topic and explain "armed bands".--Bryndza 16:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * According to Clark, 1927:
 * [...] after a distribution of manifestoes early in January 1919, armed bands were sent in from Podolia at midnight Jan. 10, O.S., and it took ten days' fighting and the death of Gen. Stan Poetash before the invaders were driven back and the local Bolshevist uprising quelled.
 * bogdan 16:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Protection
I've protected this. There seems to be a large-scale edit war going on. Please discuss...
 * Semi protection would be sufficient I think. --Irpen 18:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd rather not. This edit warring involved old editors too William M. Connolley 19:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Protection removed. A single troll is not the reason. I believe the "old editor" Bogdan is pretty much reasonable person, and I believe he and Irpen can find common language. `'mikka (t) 20:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy tag
Since the article is based solely on the sources from one side of the conflict, there is a natural doubt raised regarding the accuracy of the descripotion. However if the Romanian side will not provide its version in near future, the tag will be removed. `'mikka (t) 20:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

For future tagging, please keep in mind that you cannot tag an article just because you don't like its content, even you have serious reasons to believe that something is wrong. YOu must present a solid evidence of the wrong. Otherwise what is the difference between you and next best troll who can run around and slap NPOV tags here and there at will and disrupt the whole wikipedia? Most of wikipedia articles are not perfect and formally you can place half a dozen tags on each of them, which would bring nothing but annoyance. `'mikka (t) 20:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree with tag's justification. The article is based on several sources, which all agree with each other regarding the numbers and facts. There is no accuracy dispute unless someone is able to impeach the sources themselves: two are post-Soviet academic publications, the third, a modern historian's article in a non-tabloid newspaper. If another position is underrepresented, it is not an accuracy dispute per se. As long as the facts are referenced and the sources are not impeached, the accuracy tag is inapplicable.


 * The lack of balance, if anyone sees such, is a matter of neutrality and not accuracy. By all means, add alternative versions of the events, referenced to other sources. If those who disagree are too lazy, they should list their sources at the talk, at least. If souces are not online, or not in English, the disagreeing editors should describe at talk exactly what their sources are saying and how it is different from the presented version. I do realize, that since my sources are in Ukrainian, I have an obligation towards the editors who can't read them as well. I will soon provide the translations from the sources and the context in the form of the inline refs. Until then, those who can read Ukrainian are welcome to check that the facts of my version are not made up and agree with the sources listed. --Irpen 00:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Irpen, please keep in mind that the tag serves the purpose wider than dispute between 2 edit parties. It is quite possible that someone third will see the article and, alerted with the tag, contribute something else. As I wrote, the tag will not hang there for long. Also, neutrality and accuracy go hannd by hand. In this particular case is you say 50,000 and Bogdan says 500, the primary issue is accuracy, rather than neutrality. "Neutrality" is the issue of interpretation of facts.
 * I repeat: my main reason of tagging is no matter how many sources you quote, they all come from one side. No offense, but the post-Soviet Ukrainian historiography forced one to be cautious. While it brought up some real issues, in many places it was far from being perfect, to say it mildly. (The same applies to post-Communist Romanian and all other recent rewritings of history). Therefore I don't see any particular offense in these tags to be placed for some reasonable time (I say, 5 days, as it is normally used to collect more opinions).  `'mikka (t) 01:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could used "Template:Unbalnced" then? But fine with me either way if we don't allow the tag to stick for weeks or months as the last time. I will try to find time to translate the information soon. --Irpen 01:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There indeed is a serious problem with this article. Especially that it not only uses Soviet sources as its main background, but also seems to present their POV only. I tried to remove some more prominent NPOV vocabulary from the text without going into too much arguing with anyone. Whether it was liberation or not is a matter of dispute, so I changed it to clearing of enemy forces and did more of such fixes.
 * I also added a number of proper fact tags in places I saw fit. I assume that people around here have enough sources to replace them with proper in-line citations.
 * In one place I added a dubious tag. The article currently states that the rebels were local Ukrainians fighting against the Romanian yoke. However, at the same time the article suggests that only some revisionist Romanians believe the uprising was started and fought by alien Bolsheviks. Apart from the fact that Charles Upson Clark was hardly a Romanian revisionist, I definitely find the rebel forces' composition cited in the article highly dubious. If they were ill-equipped partisans without help from the outside, then how the hell were they able to create a division of artillery? I understand that the divisions in the region were significantly smaller than in other parts of the war, and especially so for partisan forces, but still, a division is a huge unit.
 * Besides, the exodus of Ukrainians seems to be much overestimated here, to say it mildly. In Russian census of 1897 there were roughly 373,000 (18,9% of the entire population) of Russians (in fact Russians and Ukrainians combined) in the entire Bessarabia. By 1930 their number rose by 178,6% dubious to 666,123 (again, Russians and Ukrainians combined), as compared with the native Romanian's rise by 147%. My question is: would that such a rise be possible if some 70,000 Ukrainians were indeed killed or forced into exile?  // Halibutt 16:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You much free manipulate the number. See Ukrainian_language In Bessarabia (1897) there was 379,698 Ukrainians and 155,774 Russians (Σ 535,472) and 124% increase of the population for 33 years. (Romanians - 147%) Difference between supposed by increase (Demographic losses) - (535,472*147/100)-666,123=121,020 --Yakudza 00:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * At that time, the town had about 25,000 people of which as many as 40% were Jews. I think that the whole region where the uprising was spread had in all around 70,000 people, Romanians, Ukrainians, Russians and Jews... bogdan 17:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yakudza, I took the numbers from the article on Besarabia, where they are cited as such. So, your accusations of manipulation are directed to the wrong person, I believe. Besides, that page lists people by nationality in the 1897 census, while your link lists them by declared language, so you're comparing apples with oranges.  // Halibutt 05:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I you not accuse, simply you possible was compare the numerals. Otherwise from your numerals follows that in Great Romania was a genocide Romanian. Insofar I know in Russian Empire was not a census on nationality - was or religion or language. In XIX century nationality was defined on language. On data brought by me there is reference to the source. Additionally majority of the questions, which beside you appeared on article, answers were in brought source. Wrong also that Irpen uses Soviet sources as main background. The broughted  sources - modern ukrainian, as well as "Encyclopedia of Ukraine", which rested in west sources. You may look this article in Ukrainian Wikipedia, which is written on base "Encyclopedia of Ukraine". --Yakudza 12:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Move to Khotin uprising
I don't think such move would change anything but would like to quickly inquire here first. Objections? --Irpen 18:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

'Khotin Massacre'
What sources refer to the uprising as 'Khotin Massacre'? Google search gives 45 hits, all of which appear to be wiki and our mirrors/forks. This term is also not used in print. Same with 'Massacre of Khotin' --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please make sure you understand the difference between the title of the article and the usage of the term within the article. Multiple sources confirm that massacre ideed took place but it is usually put into a wider context of the surrounding event and called the Khotin or Khotyn (or Hotin) Uprising, although the term massacre is also sometimes used in English as well. Ukrainian and Russian language sources use the term more often. As such a redirect for the Ukrainian/Russian native user who is likely to enter the term makes sense.


 * However, there is no issue here because unlike some colleague Wikipedians' inclination to create the articles with massacre and martydrom titles (Massacre of Poles in Volhynia, List of Polish martyrdom sites (now merged but still noteworthy), Massacre of Lwów professors, Katyn Massacre, Koniuchy massacre, etc.), here the article was created under the neutral title and it is left to the reader to make a well sourced judgement on how to call this event. I commend the Romanian Wikipedians for the fact that the article about the horror in Fanta Alba does not have a massacre talk in the title either, unlike all those mentioned above. Neither are massacred the titles of the articles about other tragedies that took place in Ukraine such as Babi Yar, Bogdanovka and Talerhof. --Irpen 03:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not debating whether this was a massacre, it's plain obvious it was (at least, part of it). The question is such a term used in the English literature? If not, than the lead should not mention it as an alterantive name (but it can certainly state it was a massacre, i.e. 'Khotin uprising involved a massacre of...'). And of course if in some non-English historiography the term massacre is often used, than by all means this can be noted, too. However we should avoid inventing names if they don't exist in the first place (and yes, I'd support renaming of the above articles if you can show any of them are under 'invented' names).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

MAJOR rewrite needed !
This is by far the worst article I've ever read in Wikipedia. It is written such that it reflects only some inflamed Ukrainian nationalistic point of view. It also makes very little sense: I do not doubt that there happened something then and I would like to know what. This article however is a joke. The fact that it stays in Wikipedia like this makes it a bad joke.
 * 1) 1 The region of Khotin was part of the principality of Moldavia for almost 500 years before it was occupied by the Russians in 1812. It stayed Russian for less than 100 years in which time Ukrainians arrived there in large numbers in an attempt to change the ethnic composition of the region. Therefore the term 'annexation' with respect to Greater Romania is misplaced.
 * 2) 2 The article sounds like this: a raping-shooting Romanian army fell over the poor peace-loving Ukrainian immigrants in the Kothin region, who bravely fought them, before being forced over the border. After this, the victorious Romanians started an ethnic cleansing of Ukrainians...aaa wait, which ones? because "4,000 fighters and up to 50,000 refugees (sic!) crossed into Ukraine during the 12 days of the uprising"! How many inhabitants had the Kothyn region then? Wait a minute, consider also that "The number of people killed in action or executed by Romanian authorities is estimated to be up to 15,000"! Anyway, the Romanians are responsible not only of ethnic cleansing, but also for "large scale maraudering, torture and rape", here the author forgets something, the Romanians also killed Mahatma Gandhi... and John Lennon too. In the end they nevertheless allowed those Ukrainians that fought them to escape unharmed as "Most of them returned several months later, when the Romanain authorities, under pressure from local Ukrainian civilians whose husbands fleed, (sic!) declared an amnesty". This makes me ask: are the Ukrainian women from the Khotin region that good that they convinced the Romanian rapists to allow their husbands to come back?

Best regards, C


 * The problem is, this article became at some point the "property" of a couple editors who won't tollerate any POV dissending from theirs. Interestingly, not a single on of them was/is Ukrainian! Info was taken from some Soviet sourses, and the word "communist" was replaced by "ukrainian".


 * Some info from the article is true: for example, it was not communist uprising.


 * Hotin county had 160.000 Ukrainians in 1930, of which 2/3-3/4 in those localities that were affected by the uprising (1918), which was on a lot of land approx 10 km deep and 50 km wide along the Dniester. The uprising lasted just over one week, in some localities 2 days. In some, there was no uprising altogether. For example, there was a battle for Ocnita rail station (One Romanian company conquested it from a group of 100 people who came 3 days yearlier from across the Dniester, speaking Russian, not Ukrainian. True, about 70 of them were killed.), 5km from the town, but never in the town. Yet, the town is listed as a place where the uprising took place. And so on.


 * 10 km from Hotin across Dniester is the city Kamenets-Podilski, capital of gubernia of Podolia, and a small regional center of Ukrainian national movement in 1917-1919. Naturally, some from the Ukrainian minority across the river wondered if they could not make the border a little more south. After the uprising was put down, only the fighteres left, a couple months later an amnesty was declared and all came back. Of course there were victims during the fighting. For example, Romanian army could not take Secureni for about 1 week, and then one day a new commander comes and orders shelling the village itself. In one hour villagers force the fighters to leave and come out to Romanian army to say: every fighter has left, don't shell the village. But several civilians were already killed and some homes distroyed. And so on.


 * The problem is that it was not yet possible for a couple Romanian and a couple Ukrainian editors to come together, exchange the sourses they have, and produce a good article. Eventually this will happen, but until then the "owners" of the article will attack you for anything you propose, good or bad. Just because you don't "own" it.


 * If you have some sourses to add about the issue, could you, please share them with the others.:Dc76 21:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"The region of Khotin was part of the principality of Moldavia for almost 500 years before it was occupied by the Russians in 1812". Yes, it is right, but before that, this region belonged to Halych-Volyn, Halych and Kiev principalities, being inhabited by Slavic people, ancestors of modern Ukrainians, and not by Romanians. The Moldavian population started to increase when Stephen the Great took this land from Poland. It means, that ancient Ukrainians were displaced by Moldavian rulers. This region´s history doesn´t start 500 years ago, but this is a thing that a lot of Romanian historians and authorities don´t want to see or directly deny it. This is extensible to all northern Bukovyna. For them, the history of the region starts in 1775, or, when is more convenient, during the principality of Moldavia. None of them says that this region belonged to Halych-Volyn and Kiev pricipalities before, predecessors of modern Ukrainian state. Nobody says that Khotyn fortress was built by Prince Vladimir Sviatoslavich, from Kiev, and archaeological researches show that this place was inhabited by Slavics, not by Romanians or even Moldovans. A lot of them when Ukrainian sources critizice Romanian authorities about their behaviour towards Ukrainian people, they call "propaganda", just to hide what they did and justify their territorial claims in Ukraine. They think that only they have the reason and the trouth, and never accept a critical point of view. Of course This is not extensible to all Romanian researchers, but that point of view is the predominant in mass media.
 * First Moldovans are Romanians and Romanians are Moldovans. The separation is the work of Soviet propagandists and the fact that you use this dichotomy shows where you get your general information and your heavy bias. Actually, the Bolschevic theory asserts that Moldovans are more related to slavs than to Romanians, in which case, as descendants of slavs they have the same rights as the Ukrainians to Khotin, even more so if you consider that the region belong the longest to the Moldavian state :-). However, before the slavs, the Dacians were there and therefore, the Romanians as their descendants, have according to your logic even more rights to 'the region'. If we think like this, we will never end this.
 * "before the slavs, the Dacians were there and therefore, the Romanians as their descendants, have according to your logic even more rights to 'the region'". Well, you are making other mistakes. Romanians are not the unique descendants of Dacians. Romanians are descendants of latinized Dacians. Slaviced Dacians became later into Ukrainians. Romanian oficial history says that Ukrainian´s history beggins with Slavics to justify territorial claims. However, the fact is that Ukrainians are descendants of several peoples, not only of Slavics, but also Cimmerians, Sarmatians, Scythians, Celts and of course Dacians. Even (and archaeological proves show that) some of those peoples inhabited the area before Dacians. Romanian nationalist historiography use Dacians to justify territorial claims. It is truth that modern Romanians are descendants of Dacians, but if we use Dacians as justification, so Ukrainians and even Slovaks and Poles could do the same, because they have Dacian elements too. Dacian elements are present in Ukrainian culture, not only in genetics, but in language, for example. Dacians were that, Dacians, not Romanians. To be descendants of Dacians does not mean to be Dacians. --190.55.113.49 (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Even by the current form of the article that contains mainly Bolshevik/Ukrainian propaganda, the region was inhabited by Vlachs from the very beginning and the Ukrainian-speaking population has emigrated there mainly during the time the region belonged to Imperial Russia. So the Ukrainian-speaking Dacians' descendants arrived there only around 1800 A.D., while the latinized-Dacians' descendants were always there...Octavian8 (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article is heavily biased towards a Bolshevic rather than Ukrainian perspective and needs to rewritten from scrap. From what I know modern Ukrainian historians have also a problem with the soviet/bolschevic way of writing history.  From the Romanian perspective (interwar), the "Khotin massacre" was nothing more than a Bolschevic attempt to use the fact that the Romanian army was reorganizing and was concentrated in Transylvania at that moment and grab some more land. Currently, to my knowledge, it is admitted that there was some fighting in the region and in some cases civilians have to suffer. However there was also an amnesty at the end - mentioned even in this version of the article, but in a rather funny way, as instead of acknowledging the wish of the Romanian administration to heave peace, the amnesty is presented as the did of the "Ukrainian civilians whose husbands" weere involved in the fighting...


 * Currently I have access to books and documents containing the interwar opinion of Romanian historians which I would gladly share if some Ukrainian or Romanian editor contact me, as currently I have no time to write an article myself. RegardsOctavian8 (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, didn't the Romanians impale the Ukrainians from the Khotin region as well? According to the well informed Ukrainian sources, besides marudering and rape, the elite Romanian vampire battalions suck all the blood of the poor Ukrainian non-communist rebels. Why is this not mentioned in this otherwise soooo well written and documented peace of marvelous historical work... This type of one-sided propaganda-style contributions give justification to those criticizing Wikipedia for its poor performance with respect to history. Just erase this crap and get one sensible Ukrainian and one Romanian editor and let them do the work. 85.233.19.97 (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * @Anonimu - to edit a Discussion page and remove content that you dislike rather than comment it (or not) is against the principles Wikipedia stands for. Rather than stick your head in the sand and say the problem is not there try to solve it, in this case by improving this awful article.85.233.19.97 (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Bias
The article is based almost exclusively on ukrainian sources and is hence strongly biased. This is another point that needs improvement, possibly from Romanian editors.85.233.19.97 (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite
We try to organize the rewrite. We will rewrite the article from scratch, as we believe that editing this version is pointless. We have access to both old and modern Romanian sources. We lookfor an Ukrainian (or someone who can provide ukrainian sources and can read Ukrainian) editor to help us with the new article. Pls. contact me on my talk page also if you have additional materials. RegardsOctavian8 (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is your name perchance Legion? Also "old Romanian sources" are as useless as Ukrainian Banderist ones.Anonimu (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is my name Legion... are you trying to be funny, or just play intelligent? If you can help with the rewrite, than say so, otherwise, hold thy peace.Octavian8 (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Khotin Uprising. 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/20060720092245/http://www.vesna.org.ua/txt/dov/istukr/IIIh.html to http://www.vesna.org.ua/txt/dov/istukr/IIIh.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060720092245/http://www.vesna.org.ua/txt/dov/istukr/IIIh.html to http://www.vesna.org.ua/txt/dov/istukr/IIIh.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060720092245/http://www.vesna.org.ua/txt/dov/istukr/IIIh.html to http://www.vesna.org.ua/txt/dov/istukr/IIIh.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) 12:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)