Talk:Kuban Cossacks/Archive 2

En mass deletions
I have no problem with more information added about Kuban Cossacks in WWII, however, any and all additions cannot lead to massive deletion of the text as happened here. If there is contested material and pictures, please mention it on the talk page before deleting. En masse deletion of text and picture like happened here is counterproductive and will only lead to the revert war. Any future attempts to delete massive parts of the text will not be tolerated and reported as vandalsim. I am calling on editors to show some maturity and serious approach to editing. --Hillock65 11:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's have a look: image comes from this article which you take great efforts to translate. The article itself has by some S.Drobyazko, has no refrences and sources. It all comes down to WP:UNDUE, and as in the case here to simple plagiarism. This is much more serious than re-wording. Actually I have no objection to the image to illustrate traitors in enemy uniforms, but please find a good one, not some abstract one.--Kuban Cossack 12:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The source does need any references consult (WP:V). It comes from a well respected Cossack newspaper "Вольная Станница", whcich is a reprint from an all-Cossack newspaper Stannits (опубликовано в общеказачьей газете "Станица" №34). There is as much doubt of this picture's authenticity as about a fake 1937 Cossack parade on the "Red Square" with German slogan in the background! Please be specific what do you find objectionable as per (WP:UNDUE). As far as I am concerned, it is indeed severely tilting towards glorifying Cossack participation in the Red Army and severely overlooks their massive membership in Wehrmach and Waffen SS. I am disappointed that you choose to wage revert wars rather than engage in discussion. I will have to tag the article as non-compliant until the issue is settled without revert wars and all aspects of Cossask participation in WWII is covered. Thanks. --Hillock65 12:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well if the Whermach Cossacks were a minority. 2 Corps versus 17 in Red Army is a big difference, plus that does count the ethnic Cossacks who served in the non-Cossack regiments, including sailors, pilots, tankists. If you want to engage in discussion please do, however please keep unrefrenced rubbish such as "liberators" out. --Kuban Cossack 12:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am extremely anxious to see any references to support the claim that Red Cossacks were a majority. During what time? During parade in 1937 or after defecting to the Germans? Sources please (WP:SOURCE). And while you are at it, maybe you can explain why there was no partisan movement in Kuban during German occupation. A phenomenon common to most areas of Soviet Union and conspicuously absent in Kuban. A fact that contradicts the assertion that "most fought in the Red Army". In any sense, sources to support any such claims would be really appreciated. As for the claim that after horror of Collectivization and Decossackization the Germans were greeted as liberators, you failed to notice two academic sources to support that. I will momentarily add the third one if you insist. Wish you'd do the same with your claims. Thanks. --Hillock65 13:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There were partisan activity in the Kuban, however the open steppe has its limitations. New Russia was also spared of partisan activity. 17 Cossack corps (essentially enough to make two armies). I gave refrences already and on demand will provide more. Here: Valery Shambarov, Kazachestvo ISBN 978-5-699-20121-1 p.617. Or here have a read. --Kuban Cossack 13:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am completely astounded at your reference to high school essay cheating site. Сборник рефератов is a credited source per WP:V? I am baffled, I tell you, that you consider this cheating high school site a "reliable" source and yet, you have the nerve to delete my references to published scholarly books on the subject, like this one . This is new, I tell you. Refreshing, but still wrong. --Hillock65 13:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you talk about every source like that what will happen to the "amaturish" hisotrical websites which you've used in your sources. Same argument goes. As for your other sources like the quoted Samuel J. Newland's book, published in 1991 (thus when researching, all he had was sources that were outside the Soviet Union) is equally under question. --Kuban Cossack 14:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know about Hillock65's other sources, but Samuel J. Newland is a respected academician whose works seem much more respectable than the high school school essay cheating site, or random newspaper articles.  Facts backed up by Newland's book should not be deleted.Faustian 14:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Tag mistakes
I was wondering if someone is going to correct the tag mistakes in the text — whole junks of the article ended up in footnotes. I suppose this will be taken care of when the editing or Red Army Cossacks is finished. I don't want to interfere until the tag is still on. --Hillock65 16:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have fixed it, and will finish the section in due course. --Kuban Cossack 17:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

German Liberators?

 * Just in an effort to put the issue of liberation aside, here is a quote from Newland's book: Even today, many in the Western world find it inconceivable, considering Nazi atrocities, that any substantial number of "conqured" people could welcome the advance of the German army, but many Ukrainians, Cossacks, Tatars and Armenians still dreamed of autonony or a state of their own, and naively thought the German invasion offered liberation. (highlighting is mine) Hope this settles the issue, moereover, there are 3 more sources to support that, and it would be unfair to deny a well known fact. --Hillock65 15:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, and we all know that when reffering to Ukrainians, Tatars and Armenians, only the case of Western, Crimean for the first two apply. Unless of course you use the word some, Armenia was never occupied as were most of Tatar homelands. So unless of course you can put together numbers, not author's conclusions into the article it remains as a weasel. --Kuban Cossack 17:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's have a look at your refrences: ''During the summer of 1942, the war between The Soviet Union and Germany was in its second year and the Soviets were losing. The Germans were driving hard, deep into the Russia. Soon they entered the Caucasus and the land of the Cossacks the fierce and noble warriors of storied history. In the years from 1917-20, some of the toughest resistance experienced by the Red Army came from the Cossacks of the Don, of the Kuban, of the Terak, of Orenburg, of the Ural, and of Astrakan; the six federated republics that had been formed by these fiercely independent people. The Bolsheviks showed no mercy, liquidating the Cossack Republics in the most cruel manner. Little wonder that when the Germans arrived they were greeted as liberators, accepting with wonderment the flowers and gifts that descended upon them. As later events would prove, the Cossacks offered more than a glorious welcome — and a German General named von Pannwitz would find himself commanding a quarter of a million of the world's best fighting men. I would ignore the amateurish grammar and the numerous speeling errors in the passage above, the lack of any links to the citations, as well as the same-called cold war vet'' that wrote this, and just in context comment where would quarter of million arise from when Germans themselves quote only 50 thousand men under Helmuth von Pannwitz. Credible source you say... ''When in the summer of 1942 the front in the south was moving fast toward the Caucasus and the Volga, the German armies entered territories inhabited by the Cossacks. Composed of many tribes, these had during the civil war in Russia in 1917-1920 formed six federated republics: the Cossacks of the Don, of the Kuban, of Terek, of Orenburg, of the Ural, and of Astrakhan. The republics had been liquidated by the Bolsheviks with extreme cruelty. The Cossacks, therefore, greeted the Germans as liberators. The entire population of towns, villages and settlements went out to meet the German troops with flowers and gifts of all kinds, singing their national anthems. Cossack formations of the Red Army were coming over to the Germans in a body, new formations were springing up, apparently from nowhere, in traditional uniform and armed with swords, pistols, daggers, and rifles that had been buried for years. '' I am not sure how to call it, but when people copy each others work directly, regardless of who wrote it first and who second, it does give a quarter of a million number, but a source that points only to some Polish newspaper about Ukrainians, and of course the refrence itself- a website that carries the tone of apologetic to those who killed 27 million of our (that's right Hillock, yours and mine) peoples. Reliability... --Kuban Cossack 17:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. - The only paragraph which refers to the Kuban:
 * 2  Oh dear:

''By summer of 1942, the German Army Group South had just completed the conquest of the southern Caucasus and Volga regions inhabited by the various Cossack tribes. By the end of 1942, the Germans managed to occupy almost the entire homeland of Don Cossacks as well as Kuban Cossacks. The Cossacks greeted the Germans as liberators and soon local Cossack volunteers offered their services to the Germans.'' However it does specify numbers again. Also with respect to the passage on Major Kononov it does specify that he was a Don Cossack, not Kuban, so I am wondering on how he is relevant. Are we talking about Cossacks in General or about Kuban Cossacks, for whom this article is dedicated? --Kuban Cossack 17:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3 Your third source specifies only on insignia, and the rest of the history there is unrefrenced and unsourced. In any case:


 * Good point about references 1 and 3, although some of the sources you have provided in the past were not much better. The second reference was written by Władysław Anders, certainly no Nazi.  Which web site the passage appeared in is irrelevent.  The first source probably just used Anders' work as its reference.  At any rate, info supported by a reference from the book by Samuel J. Newland should not be deleted.Faustian 18:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am glad we moved away from revert wars to discussion. I am sorry I am not quite sure what the objections are. Could you list them in point form so that I can address each of them in deatail. Regarding Don and Kuban Cossacks I believe this is nitpicking. We are not discussing if Romanians or Italians occupied Kuban. Even as a Don Cossack Kononov is still relevant as he established a precedent follwed by thousands of Kuban Cossacks, the date of defection is important too - beginning of the war, his defection was followed by hundred of thousands (Cossacks as well) and he was instrumental in fermenting resistance to Stalin if you will as around him gathered Kuban and Siberian cossacks. I don't think there was such strict division between types of Cossacks. The division was established later in particular Wehrmacht units, not at the beginning of the war. I will comment more later. --Hillock65 18:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposition

 * Like I said, this article is specific about Kuban Cossacks, I can suggest we condense this section, and that of the Red Army as well and move some of the material to History of the Cossacks or create Cossacks in World War II. In any case I am right now drafting about the actual reception the Germans got in the Kuban (and I assure it was not flowers or bread and salt), based on real literature, not internet sites. And Hillock, there was no division between them in the sense that they were traitors, but to think that a Don and a Kuban Cossack are the same people...a very WRONG assumption. --Kuban Cossack 18:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if this article is specific about Kuban Cossacks then the same principle should be applied to Red Army Cossacks. Where do you draw the line, which where Don, Siberian, Terek or Kuban Cossacks in the Red Army? It is just as mixed as with Nazi Cossack collaborators. I think it is a wise decision to condense both sections, because right now it looks like the WWII was the biggest event in the history of Kuban Cossacks, which is not true. I will expand the article on History of Cossacks and Cossacks in due time. If the article is to be condensed, I believe participation in both armies should be equally reflected and supported by pictures. We cannot return to the situation that was here before — two sentences on Nazi collaboration and the whole paragraph on Red Army exlploits plus two pictures. Equal means equal coverage of both events supported by sources. --Hillock65 22:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree on the 1:1 ratio. In any case 17 regiments in the Red Army versus two is evidence alone. What makes you decide on this?--Kuban Cossack 23:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine, as you wish. If you want to make it the biggest section in the article, be my gusest. Just make sure you support your allegations with sources, preferrably not from teenage essay sites, but from reputable published sources. --Hillock65 00:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't you worry, I will. --Kuban Cossack 15:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In answer to Faustian, I agree, however in this case it should be Some military historians such as Samuel Newland and Władysław Anders believe that this and that happened and so on. --Kuban Cossack 18:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree, it is not some, this is a well known fact supported virtually by every textbook except Soviet ones. I will supply as many sources as you need, there is positively no denying the fact that Germans were greeted by many Kuban Cossacks as liberators. There is an overwhelming body of evidence to this effect. Secondly, Samuel Newland is not some historian but an eminent authority in the field, I would be very cautious about brushing him aside. I suggest we don't waste time on disproving undeniable and concentrate on the quality of the article itself. --Hillock65 22:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Supply sources to make a point? Why do that, there is evidence that Holodomor was an act of genocide, but we don't include that category, because there is also like evidence to challenge that. Like I said I will also expand on the Red Army section, and on the million of Cossack people who fought in the Red Army, but not in Cossack units. Also no need to label a person who has never been to a Cossack stanitsa as an authority. The true authorities are the Cossacks themselves and noone else. --Kuban Cossack 23:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree, it is the third impartial party that is most trusted. For example, an American historian Robert Conquest, and not Soviet or Ukrainian that is an unquestionable authority on Holodomor. It is the same with every topic, as long as sources stand up to WP:V it is good enough reason to be included here. --Hillock65 00:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Most trusted by whom? After all wikipedia is not a slave to one man's opinion. In any case all you need are sources that challenge this I am fine with keeping it, but in the sense of saying this person believs this, however this person challenges him and according to him this and that happened instead. --Kuban Cossack 15:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is getting tedious. Present your sources from reputable academic publications, not from high school essay cheating sites and there should not be any problems. Equally, if there are concerns about the validity of the sources, valid and serious reasons should be presented. That way misunderstanding and concerns for all kinds of sources will be cleared and revert wars prevented. Thank you. --Hillock65 16:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually the sources that I cited in the article are all as you say, reputable academic publications. --Kuban Cossack 16:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, if you say so. We will get to them once you are done editing that section. In the meantime you might find it interesting to read this article: Soviet historiography. Hope that helps. --Hillock65 16:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Commissars killing each other and erasing each other from photos. What does that have to do with the Cossacks? --Kuban Cossack 19:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I take it from your comment, you didn't read the article and just looked at the pictures. It is about historiography, not about Commissars — is has to do with many things, not just Cossacks. --Hillock65 19:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I did not find any refrences to Cossacks in that article, so I guess I will read the comment as - is(it?) has to do with many things, but not Cossacks. --Kuban Cossack 19:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian Population Sub-Group
The migration of the Kuban cossacks from Ukraine to Kuban, their Ukrainian dialect balachka and cultural expressions (bandura playing, pysanky, etc.) all point to their status as a Ukrainian population subgroup. Their self-identification as Russians, which follows from the Russophilic ideology that ultimately triumphed there in the early 20th century (at the time of the revolution Kuban's loyalties were still divided between Russia and Ukraine), does not change the fact of their ethnicity. Just because the people are Russophillic does not mean that they aren't a Ukrainian population group. For example the Galician Russophiles certainly weren't ethnic Russian in spite of their ideology. I can become a patriot of China, renounce my American citizenship, but still not be ethnic Chinese. Of course the Kuban Cossacks have mixed with Russians and others, so they should also be considered a Russian ethnic subgroup. And of course it would be absurd to describe Kuban as "occupied territory" because the people seem to be quite patriotic towards Russia. But this doesn't erase their Ukrainian ethnicity and heritage.Faustian 20:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, not all Kuban Cossacks are Chernomortsy, the Caucasus Line Cossack Host made part of the Kuban Host descends from Terek Cossacks.


 * Well, this was a more recent occurance. Historically (19th and early twentieth centuries) most of the Kuban cossacks were descendents of those who left Zaporizhia.Faustian 15:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Second, in addition to the Chernomortsy there was a strong amount of non-Cossack settlers, and part of them did come from Ukraine, however these lived distinct from Cossacks (and, I am not denying, had frictions with Cossacks). 200 years is a lot of time to interract with each other. You are not going to add Ukrainian diaspora and population groups to Sibiriki, or modern Moscovites are you? So why pick on us?


 * Because, as I said, until about 80 years ago at least half of Kuban self-identified themselves as Ukrainians, and stated that they spoke the Ukrainian (Little russian Russian)language. The cultural links with Ukraine are undeniable, from the folk songs, the language, customs such as pysanky, etc.  These things aren't true of Muscovites nor Siberians.  As you yourself admitted, a large part of Kuban cossacks' ancestry is Ukrainian.Faustian 15:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Give a link, Without a link what you say is worthless. M.V.E.i. 19:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Finally in addition to that there were Circassian influences that make our culture unique, and certainly not found anywhere else in Russia outside the northern caucasus. Where does Ukraine fit into this I do not know.


 * I agree, which is why, of course, Kuban cossacks cannot be considered to be exclusively a Ukrainian ethnic group and should also be listed as a Russian one. Thinking of analogies, consider the Alsatian people, categorized as a Germanic one even though their region is in France and everyone there speaks French (less than half still speak German or the local German dialect).Faustian 15:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As for Balachka, have you heard the Don Balachka, it too has Ukrainisms, yet noone seems to have any claims for the Don Cossacks, even though, unlike Kuban, part of their territory actually lies in modern Ukraine (southeast corner of the Lugansk Oblast). I await to see how this semi-OR masterpiece will end up, before I edit it, but please for a population group who refuses to identify themselves as Ukrainians don't stir up a pointless edit-war.--Kuban Cossack 23:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, I think that your are confusing Ukrainian political orientation with Ukrainian ethnicity. I am not doubting modern Kuban's patriotism towards Russia (I wonder if your attempots to portray them as superpatriots betrays some insecurity about that from you?).  You should not equate the two.  Just because most of Kuban identify themselves as Russian and are patriots of russia, has nothing to do with whether or not they are ethnicsally Ukrainian.  Ethnicity is not an ideology or a political choice, it is a fact based on ancestry, customs, language, etc.  Due to the Kuban cossacks' ancestry (not completely as you correctly pointed out, but largely Ukrainian), balachka language, customs such as folk songs the bandura, etc. they are correctly identified as a Ukrainian ethnic subgroup.Faustian 15:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You on purpouse try to miss-translate whay Kuban Cossack said. That's not what he said. M.V.E.i. 20:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What is wrong to ascribe this article to Ukrainian diaspora? Even you admit there is one there according to the Russian census and some are, indeed, Cossacks. So why do you engage in these pointless revert wars? --Hillock65 00:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You read only what you want to read. Read what Kuban Cossack explained (i think that a man who belongs to that group and enthusiasticaly learned about it all of his life knows a little more then you and Faustian about it). M.V.E.i. 18:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I knew one 100% Kuban cossack who was a Ukrainian nationalist. So what?  Stick to what historians, anthropolgists or ethnographers say, not the claims and conversations of individuals who may have political agendas.Faustian 18:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ouuu, and imaginery friend, how nice. Do you at least understand the things you say?? No Kuban Cossack will call himself a Ukrainian. Your a Ukrainian, and so is Hillock, so if someone has a political agenda it's you. M.V.E.i. 18:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If you would learn the case you would know that those Cossacks came from New Russia, which historicaly has nothing to do with Ukraine. About the dialect. Every Russian Oblast has it's own dialect, some mostly not understood to an urban Russian. Finaly, most of their blood is Russian, and the rest from Zaporojian Cossacks. Nevertheless, they consider themselves Russian. Its the same thing as placing the Icelanders article in the Irish diasspora category due to the fact they have Irish blood. M.V.E.i. 18:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * All modern Russian dialects are very close to one another and mutually intelligible. Moreover, far from every oblast has its own dialect in any meaningful sense. As to the rest, it is certainly a very interesting discussion, but you guys need sources. Lengthy talks never help here. Colchicum 19:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is a quick link, look at page 22 "anthropologists note that Ukrainian ethnographic territory extends into the present-day southern Russian region of Kuban"; I will provide planty more references as time permits.  The history sections of this article describes the numerous links between Kuban and Ukraine.Faustian 20:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. Not every Ukrainian in the Kuban is Cossack. 2. I never said they dont have Ukrainian blood (just like the Icelanders have Irish blood), but they still have a Russian blood majority. Their a mixture. And they consider themselves Russian. M.V.E.i. 20:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Unlike Icelanders and the Irish, Kuban cossacks' dialect balachka is a Ukrainian one, and they have at least as much if not more Ukrainian as they do Russian blood. Note that I do not remove the category of Russian ethnic group, because the Kuban cossacks can be considered both Ukrainian and Russian.  As for self-identification, it is largely irrelevent.  I can proclaim myself to be Chinese.  So what - it doesn't alter my ethnicity.  You are mixing Russian nationalist politics and ethnicity.  Anthropologists agree (see the link above) that the Kuban cossacks are ethnic Ukrainian.  That the majority seem to identify themselves as Russians nowadays just means that they are a Ukrainian ethnic subgroup that has adopted a Russian orientation.  Not much different from the ethnic Germans of Alsatia, another border region, who have taken on a French identity.  Please, leave nationalism out of this article. Faustian 21:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * They have more Russian blood, just read the article. Their dialect has more Russian then Ukrainian. I as a Russian speaker can tell. And the Icelanders have meny celtic words. M.V.E.i. 21:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The article states that the Kuban cossacks resulted from the merging of the Black Sea, Azov and Caucasian line hosts. Two of those three are from Ukraine, and the dominant one was the BLack Sea (former Zaporozhian) cossacks.  As for language - your personal claims are Original research and can't determine what the article states.  Anthropologists and linguists agree that balachka is a Ukrainian dialect, and that's what counts.  I have provided the reference for you.  Your comparison of Icelanders to Irish is absurd.  Icelandic does not have as many Celtic linguistic elements as balachka has Ukrainian.  Please, leave your Russian nationalism out of this.Faustian 21:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You forgot that they also mixed with the local Russian population. P.S. You can also read the Expansion section. M.V.E.i. 21:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The local population was itself at least half Ukrainian; so a mixture wouldn't dilute the Ukrainian blood. So, he have a population that is at least half Ukrainian if not more by blood, and whose speech linguists and anthropoligists agree is a Ukrainian dialect.  Yet for some reason you deny that they are a Ukrainian subgroup, I suspect for purely political reasons. Faustian 21:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Maximum 1/3 at it's peak. Plus a modern census shows that there are less then 2% Ukrainians there. M.V.E.i. 21:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, according to historian Stanislav Kulchytsky,deputy director of the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Science, the 1926 census showed 2/3 Ukrainian . In 1926 census 3.1 million people living in Russia north of the Casucuses claimed to be Ukrainian .  The self-identification of Kuban's people as Russian is a recent phenomenon (last 50-60 years).  As I've been saying, the evidence shows that the people of Kuban are largely, perhaps mostly, ethnic Ukrainian who have taken on a Russian identity in the last generation or two.  Sorry, what this generation says about itself doesn't erase the history of its grandparents.  And what I've been claiming is backed up by evidence that I provided.  You offer only your opinions or anecdotes.Faustian 22:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed irish have little to do with Iceland. You are very wrong with regard to Kuban ethicity. Just look at the folk songs they sing and you will se that they are in Ukrainian. They are written out using Russian orthography and they contain some words which are not used in literary Ukrainian, - but they are in Ukrainian. Your perspective of Kuban history is also somewhat scewered. In 1926 55% of the population in Kuban atested to being Ukrainian. they did not all disappear over night. Now according to this article there are fewer Ukrainiaan in Kuban than there are in Russia in general. What poppycock. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandurist (talk • contribs) 18:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There are some Ukrainian songs in Russia to, or more directly, ancient Rus songs in all east-Slavic languages. Icelanders are a mix beetwen Celts (mostly Irish) and Skandinavians. M.V.E.i. 19:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you need to read some history. New Russia came into existence in the late 18th century, afterthe Zaporozhians were driven out, according to all historicals sources including Encyclopedia Britannica .  The Zaporozhian Sich was never part of New Russia.  The rest of your "information" is likewise misguided.  Please read some history before throwing around "information".Faustian 18:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You are the one throwing aaround information. You ignore the fact that the Zaporojian blood is only a part of the Kuban Cossacks blood, and the rest is Russian. Go place the Icelanders in the Irish diaspora category and leave this article alone. AND STOP THIS REVERT WAR. THERE AIN'T A CONCENSUS ON YOUR CLAIM. GET A LIFE. M.V.E.i. 18:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for confirming that you don't know much history but are basing your writing on emotion. Please calm down, read something more before placing your "information" on wikipedia.  Your claim about blood means little, given your glaring ignorance regarding the history of New Russia and the Zaporozhian Sich.Faustian 19:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Unlike you i do know history. Zaporojian Sech is only one of the hosts that eventualy compiled what is called Kuban Cossack. You cant force people to become Ukrainian. M.V.E.i. 19:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I left MVEi one more time a strong advise to calm down. His hot-headedness is not helping any reasonable discussions to occur. But now, let's review WP:CAT, item 7.


 *  Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article ; a list might be a better option.

Now, that Kubanians are Ukrainians is a sourced opinion and it should be presented in the article as such. But this is not an obvious fact, not uncontroversial and should not be slapped into the categories. In annotated and referenced form such view can be included into the article's body, but it should not be used in categories or navigational templates. I am removing the categories and I hope we can proceed with article development rather than warring about cats. Thanks, --Irpen 02:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I also think of Item 1, "Categories are mainly used to browse through similar articles. Make decisions about the structure of categories and subcategories that make it easy for users to browse through similar articles. " Looking at the category "Ukrainian population groups", we have the articles Danubian Sich, Poleszuk (a transitional group between Ukrainians and Belorusins), and others (Ultimately the Ukrainians in Kuban article may need to be integrated with the Kuban cossacks article, or a seperate article devoted purely to the military unit of Kuban cossacks should be created - but that's another topic).  Kuban cossacks fit in with that category.


 * With respect to the controversy, evidence is pretty unequivical about the heavy historical Ukrainian presence in Kuban (the census of 1926 gives about 62% of western Kuban as Ukrainian, with Ukrainians dominating the rural areas), the origin of the Kuban cossacks largely in Ukraine, historical behavior such as uncertainty between allegience to the Ukrainian People's Republic, Denikin or the Bolsheviks during the Russian civil war described in the body of the article, and finally as posted by Bandurist below, the clearly Ukrainian language of the Kuban cossacks. Babel's diary even describes the Kuban cossacks that he fought with quite clearly and explicitly as "Ukrainians", and compared them favorably to the other, Russian cossacks.  These things are just not controversial among mainstream historians; Taras Kuzio among others refers to Kuban as historically Ukrainian ethnographic territory.


 * The only "controversy" seems to be an artificial one, driven not by data from historians or ethnographers or linguists, but by politics. If the fact that some nationalists with political issues (rather than historians or ethnographers or anthropologists) can veto categorization by making controversies, than we might as well strip the Ukrainian population category of Lemkos, Rusyns (this group's inclusion might actually be controversial), Poleszuks, etc.  Or even remove Kuban cossacks from the Russian categorization, too, because the "controversy" goes both ways, some Ukrainian nationalists can claim them as a purely Ukrainian ethnic group.


 * Basically, the evidence seems to support inclusion into both categories. Given the political connotations of diaspora, I do not oppose exclusion of Kuban cossacks from that particular category unless we consider them to be historically a diaspora, if currently self-identified Russians.  I'll wait for your response before making changes.Faustian 04:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that ethnic Ukrainians constituted a big part (and sometimes even a majority) of the Kuban and neighbouring territories' population is easily verifiable. Is it also true with respect to Kuban cossacks? If it is I see no reasons not to include this article in the Ukrainian population groups category. Alæxis¿question? 05:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok here is what I am going to say. First of all, Cossacks were by far not the only ihabitants of the Kuban. A large part of migrants came from peasents, some originating from Ukrainian Little Russian Guberniyas, as confirmed by Magosci. In fact as Kuban Host was mostly a line host, as the lines went deeper into the mountains, the empty lands were given to peasents. Only stanitsas were left for the Cossacks, like my Varenikovskaya. In fact Line Cossacks would serve a more of a constant watch over the borders, whilst we would be sent to the distant lands where our Empire chose to set foot.
 * Second, Ukrainian national sentiment would develop only in the turn of the 20th century, yet it would never arrive into distant regions such as Siberia, Urals, Kazakhstan and Kuban. (Well 100 years later it still has not reached New Russia, Taurida, Donbass and Zakaraptia I am wondering if it will at one point reverse direction, and let's hope it will...шутка ;). In this case, being a speaker of a Little Russian dialect (NOT Ukrainian) meant nothing, provincial dialects were much stronger than now, and the fact that Kuban Cossacks were entrusted as a personal convoy to the Empror is something that goes against the image of "opressed" Ukrainian population in the Russian Empire that certain individuals try to paint (like this AMAIZING example).


 * This is the heart of the problem. You seem to be confusing the politics with the ethnicity.  Just because they politically identify themselves as Russians does not mean that ethnically they are only Russians.  Galician Russophiles (some of my ancestors, btw) did not think of themselves as Ukrainians but as a western branch of the one Russian nation.  That's their political or ideological choice.  Does that make them any less Ukrainian from an ethnic standpoint?  Does that make them a Russian rather than a Ukrainian population?Numerous sources attest to the Ukrainian, or if you will Little Russian (same thing ethnically) nature of the Kuban cossacks.  I will quote you a lot more data, probably tomorrow morning, when I have more time. But the main point is, please do not base your opinion on whether or not Kuban cossacks are considered a Ukrainian population group, based on their current Russian patriotic ideology and self-identification.  Look to anthropology, history, language, etc.  That's what I have doen, and the consensus among academicians is rather clear.Faustian 15:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thirdly, the 1897 census only recorded language, not ethnicity. However there are Ukrainians in Ukraine who speak only Russian. Do you not allow an opposite taking place?


 * You are implying the Ukrainification of a significant portion of the Russian population? Any evidence for this bold claim?Faustian 15:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Fourthly, for us Cossacks, ethnicity never mattered, we brough war brides, we had volunteers, who would later become Cossacks through good service and adoption of Orthodox faith, and a substantial part of us are Line Cossacks, and of course we intermix.


 * This is anecdotal. The actual census shows about 5% of so Cauicasians amongst the population.  Enough to add spice but not enough to dramatically alter the ethnic picture.Faustian 15:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What am I saying all of this for? Because we need a no-double standards of categorising. If you include this article into your diaspora, then it has to go for pretty much all regions of Russia in which Little Russian peasents settled in 19th century such as Siberia, Far East and others. As for Ukrainians in the Kuban I would either rename it as Rose Ukraine or merge it into Ukrainians in Russia which I invite someone to write. Those cats can be applied to thsoe articles, but not this one. --Kuban Cossack 13:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You've made a valid point about what the 1897 census recorded. Of course if there are no reliable sources that confirm that most of Kuban Cossacks were ethnic Ukrainians the article shouldn't be in the disputed category. Alæxis¿question? 15:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I will provide more referenced data about ethnic origins either tonight (eastern standard time) or tomorrow morning.Faustian 16:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. I'll look forward to it as I know almost nothing about it and don't have an opinion yet. Alæxis¿question? 16:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ukrainians in Russia is a great idea for an article. However, IMHO the revert war regarding the Ukrainian sub-group, allowing only the Russian population Subgroup to exist for this topic, and constantly removing the Ukrainian subgroup distorts this article considerably. The very fact that Ukrainian and Ukrainian folk songs still exist in Kuban demonstrate how incorrect your views are. One can only conclude thatyour POV is tragically distorted. Bandurist 15:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Kuban's Ethnic Identity
I've just found a scholarly article on the subject, from Europe-Asia studies journal, whose information should be integrated into this article. By the one one of the authors, Georgi Derlugian (a professor at the prestigious Northwestern University in Chicago) is himself of Kuban cossack descent through his mother. Here is his biogrpahy :

The full article is here:

Here is the abstract:


 * The contemporary cossack revival since the turn of the 1990s has been one of the most fascinating and controversial socio-political phenomena of the immediate post-Soviet era. In this case study of the neo-Cossack movement of the Kuban region, an example of an ethnonationalist movement that faced the curious choice of its ethnic identity is discerned.(1) Owing to the rather mixed and intricate historical legacies of the region, it could have become Russian, Ukrainian or neither: presumably a new Slavonic (or even multi-ethnic) nation of Free Cossacks. The main intention of this study is the investigation of how the ultimate choice - or choices (since all three possible options were adopted by different Cossack organisations) - was developed in recent post-Soviet history.(2) The socio-political factors that affected the choice are evaluated, with particular attention devoted to the historical circumstances, the social background of the key participants, and current political conjunctures in Russia, Ukraine and within a diaspora abroad, as the determinants.

Among the bits of information from the article:


 * Yakiv Kukharenko, Kuban Cossacks's ataman (leader) in the first half of the nineteenth century, belonged to a Ukrainian circle in St. Petersburg and was close to Ukraine's national poet Taras Shevchenko.


 * Symon Petliura, Ukraine's revolutionary leader, spent 1902 in the Kuban where he catalogued the archives of the Kuban Cossack Host. One of the earliest political parties in Kuban was the Ukrainian Revolutionary Party.


 * Most cultural production in Kuban from the 1890-1910 period, such as plays, stories, etc. were in the Ukrainian language.


 * "In the summer of 1917 the liberal Cossack autonomists in the Kuban formed a local political body, which they significantly called a Rada, adopting the Ukrainian word for council. The Rada entertained a project of a Cossack republic. Met with scorn by the White Russian chauvinists, the Kuban Cossack autonomists tried to establish closer ties with the newly independent Ukrainian state, but the latter proved too weak and unstable to render any tangible assistance. Ukrainian was briefly adopted as the language of the Kuban Cossacks, confirming the pro-Ukrainian leanings of local intellectuals and public figures. Eventually, the supreme commander of the White armies in Southern Russia, General Denikin, disbanded the Rada and even executed several Cossack leaders for treason."


 * The director of the Kuban Cossack State Choir and professor of musical anthropology, Viktor Zakharchenko, "indisputably the most gifted and renowned propagator of Kuban Cossack folk culture" is also an "open Ukrainophile."


 * Interesting about competing ideologies:


 * "The apparent contradiction was resolved by importing the arcanely ethnological term 'subethnos' (subetne), explained in more popular terms as 'Cossacks are Russians, only better'. The neo-Cossack propagandists insisted that the Rada itself was the people, a community seeking to revitalise its traditional way of life and return to the religious moral order uprooted by years of communist rule and threatened by the newest cosmopolitan liberals. They were pleased to explain the existence of formal organisation and command structures by references to the 19th century definition of Cossack uniqueness, which had described them as 'people-qua-army'.(18) Two competing formulations were rejected and henceforth became heresies espoused by smaller splinter groups - that Cossacks were a separate Slavonic nation which must acquire a state of their own (the hypothetical Kuban-Black Sea Republic), and that the Kuban Cossacks were a branch of Ukrainians subjected to relentless imperial Russification. These would become minoritarian agendas."

"The extent of rural support for the neo-Cossacks is most controversial. Theoretically, the countryside should be the home base of a folklore-inspired farmers' movement. The idea of Cossack revival was met with strong sympathies in the old Kuban villages where Cossack culture was surviving at the ethnographic if no longer at political and economic levels: in family legends, folk songs, life-cycle rituals, indeed in the very presence of old men and women. These were also the villages where the inhabitants still largely spoke Ukrainian."


 * "A Ukrainophile Cossack movement, with potentially more significant ramifications, also appeared in response to the rejection of the Kuban Cossacks' Ukrainian roots by the Rada...At the forums of the Rada in the course of 1990 local Ukrainophiles endeavoured to secure inclusion of the matter of the revival of Ukrainian culture in the statutes of the organisation. The Rada leader, Vladimir Gromov, informed them in October that there would be no place for this in the Rada agenda, and that they should themselves be responsible for such cultural needs.(25) In response, in June 1991 the Ukrainophiles founded their own organisation in the city of Krasnodar called the Kuban Ukrainian Cultural Society.(26) The Society elected Viktor Zakharchenko, the director of the Kuban Cossack State Choir (the region's most famous cultural ambassadors), as its leader, but he later resigned, apparently, according to one of the Society's leading members, because of the pressures the Society was encountering from unsympathetic local officials.(27) In 1993, after Zakharchenko's withdrawal from the leadership of the organisation, the Ukrainian Cultural Society claimed 40 active members.(28) In the seaport of Sochi another Ukrainophile organisation, the Ukrainian Cultural Centre, was founded almost simultaneously with the one in Krasnodar (and with which it has maintained firm contact), and claims 56 members and 200 more sympathisers.(29) Other Ukrainophile organisations soon followed, most notably in Novorossiisk (the Black Sea Cossack Council), in Goryachii Klyuch, and the Starominsk stanitsa (the Starominsk Cossack Brotherhood)."


 * "Kuban Ukrainophiles participated in the World Forum of Ukrainians in August 1992, which the then Ukrainian president, Leonid Kravchuk, attended. The organisational committee of the World Forum of Ukrainians included Yurii Pelypenko, the otaman (the Ukrainian spelling equivalent to the Russian ataman) of the Black Sea Cossack Council in Novorossiisk on the Black Sea coast, southwest of Krasnodar.(32) At the Forum, a Ukrainian delegate from the Kuban, Hryhorii Prylous, circulated a copy of a decree issued by the Presidium of the North Caucasus Territory Executive Committee on 26 December 1932 to eliminate the policy of Ukrainianisation in the Kuban.(33) Following the Forum, four Ukrainian organisations in the Kuban (the Kuban Ukrainian Cultural society in Krasnodar, the Ukrainian Cultural Centre in Sochi, the Black Sea Cossack Council in Novorossiisk, and the Starominsk Cossack Brotherhood) addressed an appeal to Russian President El'tsin in which the matter of the decree was once again raised and a copy enclosed. The appeal called the decree an illegal action and demanded the restoration of a Ukrainianisation programme, which 'would confirm the indigenous roots of the Kuban'."


 * The presence of the Ukrainophile movement in the Kuban has ensured that a debate on the identity of the Cossacks will continue and, given its links with organisations beyond the region, that local affairs are accorded a still wider profile, including, potentially, as an object of Russo-Ukrainian relations. One particular incident in 1993 serves to illustrate this notion. It concerns Evgen Nogai, a Cossack activist, who was detained before he could board a flight to meet with government officials on matters relating to Cossacks rights. Arrested on charges of fomenting a Cossack uprising, Nogai's detention prompted a so-called Committee for the Return of the Kuban to Ukraine, headed by General Siverov, and other Cossack sympathisers (including members of the Black Sea Cossack Council) to threaten armed resistance and to appeal to Ukraine, 'the historical fatherland', the Ukrainian diaspora, and the American and Canadian governments to intervene in protecting the rights of the Cossacks if such persecution persisted.(37) This pressure was sufficient to secure Nogai's release, though he was subsequently ordered to stand trial on other charges.

-

Okay, does anyone still claim Kuban to be as Ukrainian as Iceland is Irish?

I will add the census stuff from the Encyclopedia of Ukraine tonight or tomorrow morning (I didn't take it to work today). Suffice to say, it looks prety clear that this is a Ukrainian population group.Faustian 19:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

From Ukraine: A Concise Encyclopedia, published by the University of Toronto Press (1963):

Subcaucuses:

"...As we know, Ukrainian Kozaks settled in the western Caucuses-Kuban area in the end of the eighteenth century; Russian Cossacks settled in the eastern Kuban and Terek areas also. In both these Kozak (Cossack) areas - the Kuban and Terek - an influx of peasants occurred; in the western parts it was almost exclusively Ukrainian, but in the eastern parts both Ukrainian and Russian peasants came.  The former guberniya of Stavropol was populated mainly by Russians, but in the second half of the nineteenth century almost all of the peasants who came to settle in that area were Ukrainians...The western Subcaucuses, which is mainly Ukrainian (remember this book is a snapshot from 1963), includes the western part of the Kuban and the western part of the former Black Sea guberniya (or the present administrative Krasnodar Krai) and the  neighboring southwestern part of the former region of the DOn COssack HOst (part of the present ROstov oblast). The Ukrainians, according to the 1926 census, comprised 63.8% of the population (68.4 percent in villages, 34.8 per cent in cities). Russians and Russian-speaking Cossacks constituted 28.4 percent and there were small groups of Caucasian mountaineers (1.4 percent), Armenians (1.4 percent), and Greeks (1.0 percent)."

"The far larger eastern Subcaucuses includes...the eastern part of Krasnodar krai, almost all of the krai of Stavropol, parts of the Rostov oblast, and small parts of northenr Ossetia, Kalmykia," etc. In The census of 1926 the Ukrainians formed 33.4 percent of the population here, Russians and COssacks 57.3 percent, others at 9.3 percent.

"We must add that the Kuban land in its historical boundaries, according to the population censuses of 1897 and 1926, was 47.0 percent Ukrainian, 41.0 percent Russian, 5.0 percent Caucasian mountaineer, 7 percent others."

And here is from Isaac Babel's diary, August 10 and 11, 1920:


 * Night - an unusual night, the high road is brilliantly lit, my room is bright, I'm working...the Kuban cossacks are singing with feeling, their fin figures by the campfire, the songs are totally Ukrainian...


 * Toward evening, rain. Kuban Cossacks are staying the night in my room, strange: peaceful and warlike, domestic, and peasants of obvious Ukrainian origin, not all that young.


 * About the Kuban cossacks. Camaraderie, they always stick together...at night Kuban cossacks come to visit.  Ceaseless rain, they dry themselves and eat their supper in my room...they are decent, friendly, wild, but somehow more sympathetic, domestic, less foulmouthed, more calm than the Cossacks from Stavropol and the Don.

--

So there it is. Clear and convincing evidence, I think, of Kuban cossacks' Ukrainian origins and the appropriateness of their inclusion into the Ukrainian population group category. I didn't find and write all of this only for the sake of the category. This info will be integrated into the body of the article too, by me or others, as time permits.Faustian 03:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I posted this stuff about 24 hours ago. I see that nobody is trying to argue that black is white.  I am restoring the category Ukrainian population group.  I am leaving the category Russian population, because in this case the two are not mutually exclusive.  Kuban Kazak has made a good case for their Russian aspect, and the large amount of referenced information I provided adequately demonstrates their Ukrainian aspect.  I am not including the diaspora category because it is controversial; some scholars (Kuzio) suggest that because Kuban is Ukrainian ethnographic territory (the Ukrainians were the first ones there, among current peoples) it is not diaspora, while the word also carries political connotations that may not be appropriate; the Ukrainophile movement there -though still alive - is weak and most of the people are generally pro-Russian now, as Kuban Kazak has demonstrated Faustian 03:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Your own refrence Faustian Russians and COssacks57.3 percent, . Therefore Kuban Cossacks do not fit the category. I am in process of collecting my own sources, as shown by you, so be patient I shall post them today or tomorrow.--Kuban Cossack 10:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Amazing. You are reading selectively, picking out only those pieces of information that fit your non-nuetral POV.  I am including all info I come across, in the interest of objectivity.  My goal is not to score political points or win a propaganda war, but for the wikipedia page to be accurate.  I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect that this is not your motiviation as we see in your selective reading of what I had posted.  Is this what you will do with your sources? (and btw I hope you use academic works, not ideologues' statements).  "Russians and Cossacks 57.3%" was true of eastern Kuban, such as Stavropol.  If you had read everything I posted, you would have seen also that: "The western Subcaucuses, which is mainly Ukrainian (remember this book is a snapshot from 1963), includes the western part of the Kuban and the western part of the former Black Sea guberniya (or the present administrative Krasnodar Krai) and the  neighboring southwestern part of the former region of the Don Cossack Host (part of the present Rostov oblast).  The Ukrainians, according to the 1926 census, comprised 63.8% of the population (68.4 percent in villages, 34.8 per cent in cities).  Russians and Russian-speaking Cossacks constituted 28.4 percent and there were small groups of Caucasian mountaineers (1.4 percent), Armenians (1.4 percent), and Greeks (1.0 percent)" and that in Kuban as a whole, the ratiop was 47% Ukrainians and 41% Russians.


 * Keep in mind that I am not arguing that Kuban cossacks are exclusively Ukrainian and that the Russian population category should be removed. I am arguing that they are a Ukrainian as well as a Russian population group.  So, I don't have to prove (nor could I) that there isn't a lot of Russianness about them.  All I have to show, which I have shown extensively, is their links to their Ukrainian background and culture.Faustian 13:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If they view themselwes as Russian, and only Russian, and if most of their blood is Russian (local Russian poulation and the Russian Cosacks constitute most of their blood), they are Russian, and thats it. What you try to do is nothing but political propoganda. What if i start labeling west-Ukrainians as a sub-group of Hungarians (haven't you noticed that in Lvov their national closing is Hungarian, and many have the dark charactaristics of Hungarians? And they were part of Hungaria. Honestly? They are Hungarians and Poles to me, i dont see in them nothing Ukrainian). I'm really tempted to do that, and i can. I have the links for those things i said, but i dont do it. Why? Because, maybe only a little part, but a part of their blood is Ukrainian, and they view themselves as Ukrainian. M.V.E.i. 21:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct ethnonyms
I feel that you are incorrecetly mixing up citizenship (which is Russian) with their ethnicity which in 2/3 of the cases is Ukrainian. Here is a link to an article on Folk Songs of Kuban by the director of the Kuban Cossack Choir published in 1997. The intro is in Russian but all the songs are in Ukrainian, despite the fact thatthe orthography is in Russian. No wonder it isn't understandable to most Russians. Its all in Ukrainian. 00:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Bandurist 00:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Ой сив пугач а на могыли 2. Як сив пугач на могыли (вариант) 3. Зийшла хмара з-за лымана 4. Вышла хмара з-за лымана (вариант) 5. Чорна хмара з-за лымана (вариант) 6. Чорна хмара з-за лымана (вариант) 7. А в субботу пид нэдилю орда наступае 8. А вже лит бильш двисти 9. А вже лит бильш двисти (вариант) 10. А вже рик бильш двисти (вариант) 11. Рэвуть, стогнуть горы, хвыли 11а. Прощай слава, город риднэнькый (вариант) 12. Ой вы галкы, галкы чорнэсэнькы 13. Зажурылысь чорноморци 14. Зажурылысь чорноморци (вариант) 15. Ой, стойить явир 16. Ой шо ж то воно та й за чорный ворон 17. Ой виють витры, та й виють буйни 18. Як запоем з горя песню 19. Загулы орлы стэпом литючи 20. Йихав козак на вийноньку 21. Як я выйду на лужок 22. Ой колысь була роскишь-воля 23. Ой гук, маты, гук 24. Ой гук, маты, гук (вариант) 25. Ой гук, маты, гук (вариант) 26. Зибралыся вси бурлакы 27. Зибралыся вси бурлакы (вариант) 28. Ой на гори ячминь 29. Ой наступае та чорна хмара 30. Здумав Стэпан у нэволи 31. Тыхый Дунай 32. Прощай, станыця, прощай, Кавказ 33. Прощай, станыця, прощай, Кавказ (вариант) 34. Йихав козак долыною 35. Калына-малына, чом нэ процвитаеш? 35а. Калына-малына, чом нэ росцвитаеш? (вариант) 36. Йихав козак за Дунай 37. По-над лугом, вой да, шлях-дороженька 38. Вылитала чорнэсэнька галка 39. Ой лытила бомба з москивського краю 40. Спы ты, любый наш Мыкола 41. Тыче Кубань аж у лыман 42. Лэтить орэл над Кубанью 43. В субботу пизнэнько 44. А туман яром котыться 45. А туман яром котыться (вариант) 46. Ой кубанци-кубанци 47. Ой на гори снижок трусэ 48. Ой на гори огонь горыть (вариант) 49. От опушкы до сэла
 * And? We haven't said they dont have Ukrainian blood, and those Ukrainians brought those songs, but a fact is that most of their blood is Russian (Russian Cossacks and local Russian population).


 * You keep saying this but neither you nor anyone else has provided any evidence of this claim. I already posted the census data - 2/3 of western Kuban near Krasnodar declared themselves Ukrainian in 1926, the total for all of Kuban was 47% Ukrainian versus 41% Russian.  The language data was exactly the same in 1897 so the 1926 results can't be blamed on Ukrainization of the 1920's.  This ratio makes sense - the Kuban cossacks formed from a merger of two Ukrainian cossack groups and one Russian group, as the article states.Faustian 23:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You ignore your own statistic. 47% Ukr. but 41% Rus.


 * Yes, more Ukrainian than Russian.Faustian 16:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You forgot that after that data many Russians immigrated there. Plus what's important is what the census says NOW, not then. M.V.E.i. 13:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Since this article is about Kuban cossacks many Russians immigrating there afterward is irrelevent. We are talking about the original inhabitants and their descendents.  As for current census results, this article is about the history as well as current situation.  Since obviously, for 120 years Kuban was undeniably more self-described Ukrainian than Russian, the category is appropriate.  And as I pointed out to you earlier, self-desceription doesn't define ethnicity.  Language, customs, and blood do that.  I may declare myself Chinese - that doesn't mean I become ethnically Chinese.  The Galician Russophiles declared themselves Russians - which doesn't mean they were in thee thnic sense.  Just because most of Kuban's Ukrainians today declare themselves Russians doesn't change their background.  Please leave politics out of this page.Faustian 16:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the article is about Kuban Cossacks, a group which exists today, everything is relevent, and that includes today. Most of their blood is Russian. Language is mostly Russian. Customs are mostly common with oll Cossacks. You are the one using politics. Actually, any Belorusian or Ukrainian can declare himself Russian. They were once the same people, Rus, and the only Reasson Ukrainians and Belorusian have some seperate things is because they wereoccupied and taken from Russia. I view them as Russians who were under occupation a long time, but i dont insert them to a Sub-Russian groups categories, why? Because i respect self determination. M.V.E.i. 20:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And not all Ukrainians in that region were Cossacks by the way. M.V.E.i. 13:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Nor all Russians there are cossacks, as even you admitted may moved there afterward.Faustian 16:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Exacly, so dont abel them as Ukrainian. Russians? They themselves label themselves this way, so they are Russians. M.V.E.i. 20:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What if i start labeling west-Ukrainians as a sub-group of Hungarians (haven't you noticed that in Lvov their national closing is Hungarian, and many have the dark charactaristics of Hungarians? And they were part of Hungaria. Honestly? They are Hungarians and Poles to me, i dont see in them nothing Ukrainian). I'm really tempted to do that, and i can. I have the links for those things i said, but i dont do it. Why? Because, maybe only a little part, but a part of their blood is Ukrainian, and they view themselves as Ukrainian. M.V.E.i. 21:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Have a reread of what you wrote. Do the Ukrainians in Lviv speach Hungarian? - No. Did they ever? No. However in Kuban they do speak Ukrainian and they do sing Ukrainian songs, and they do play the bandura. I feel that you are quite wrong here. For a comparison of Ukrainian to "balachka" go to Balachka Bandurist 21:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you seen their (West-"Ukrainians") "national" dressing? Have you seen their streched eyes (i remind you that Hungarians are a Finno-Ugric nation)?


 * This is really absurd. There are no links between Hungary and Lviv.  The place was under the Hungarians for about 40 years in the 14th century.  This is about as silly as your earlier claim that Kuban has as much in common with Ukraine as Iceland does with Ireland, though.Faustian 16:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you seen their dark hair and traits? Have you seen their "national" dances? Those Lvivians are Hungarian to me.


 * Well, that about says it for your credibility as a researcher and expert on ethnicities.Faustian 16:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No Lviv beetwen Hungarians and Lviv? How about it being for a long time part of the Austro-Hungarian state? Dances, clothing, fyshycal traits all could be used as a research, haven't you thought why in studying ethnic groups and with who they are reletive Folklorism is always used? Thats it. P.S. About the Kuban Cossacks, they dont speak Ukrainian, they speak Russian, only some of the words they use are Ukrainian. Same thing about songs, only some of their songs are Ukrainian. You can judge by some things but ignore the others. M.V.E.i. 13:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Their dialect is recognized as a Ukrainian one, they sing equally (at least) Russian and Ukrainian songs. They belong in both categories.Faustian 16:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The language they speak is Russian with about 20% Ukrainian words. They belong only to the category they view themselves in. M.V.E.i. 20:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Linguistic forum discussion about Balachka and comparison to Ukrainian

Example of Balachka:
 * "А грэць його зна! У нас в станыци на нэй кажэ багато людэй, хоч потрошкы йийи и забувають. Ось и я вжэ нэ вмию дужэ швыдко балакать, так, дви-тры фразы кажу, нэ бильш, писля на русскый пэрэстрыбую, бо и в Краснодари дужэ довго вчився, а колы в станыцю вэрнувся, багато позабував."

The same paragraph in contemporary Ukrainian:
 * "А грець його зна! У нас в станиці на ней каже багато людей, хоч потрошки її й забувають. Ось и я вже не вмію дуже швидко балакать, так, дві-три фрази кажу, не більш, після на русский перестрибую, бо і в Краснодарі дуже довго вчився, а коли в станицю вернувся, багато позабував."

(Non standard Ukrainian words are in bold font.)

The most striking difference is that Balachka uses Russian orthography for transliterating the language rather than using the common orthography used in Ukraine. Occasionally, the speaker may use a Russian term for words they may not know or use in their day-to-day speach in Ukrainian, and may also use more common Russian spellings rather than directly transcribing from their speach. The reason for this is rooted in the fact that all Ukrainian language schools in Russia were closed in 1932, and as a result most Ukrainians in Russia have never learned to write in modern Ukrainian orthography.

It is only your opinion. I'm not opposed to having the Russian population group there. However I feel that the Ukrainian population group catagory should also be placed there. That is the discussion we are having. You have on numerous ocassions mentioned the Ukrainian population there however you deny the use of one of the categories. Bandurist 14:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've heard on TV a few times real Kuban Cossacks speaking, and out of 10 words they have only 2 Ukrainian. P.S. The letter "і" was also used in the Russian language once. You cant place them in the Ukrainians categories due to the fact that at the census they themselves declared on themselves as Russian. Self-declairing is the reason i havent placed Lviv residents in the Fino-Ugric peoples and Hungarian diasspora categories (now i dont say that that the Ukrainians categories should be removed...). The Kuban Cossacks today have both Russian and Ukrainian blood, but they view themselves as Russian, so thats it. What you say is already written, the article clearly states that they are partly Zaporojian Cossacks, we haven't deleted that. But thats where it ends, because you cant place a group that sees itself as Russian in the Ukrainian diasspora category. I mean, how could they be Ukrainians if they see themselves as Russian, and how could they be Diasspora if they see themselves living at home, Russia? They are Russian, and thats it.

M.V.E.i. 15:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that Ukrainian diaspora category is inappropriate because the term diaspora has a political implicating which most Kuban cossacks today do not ascribe to (although a minority still do, and many did historically). However population groups is an apolitical category.Faustian 16:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't feet to due to the fact they dont view themselves as Ukrainian and most of their blood is Russian. M.V.E.i. 20:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We have already proven that at least half, and perhaps more, of their blood is Ukrainian. I have alreay presented evidence of this.  You have not presented evidence to the contrary.  As for what they say they are - tell me please, if tomorrow you decide to call yourself Chinese will you cease belonging to the Russian ethnic group?  Ethnicity is not political, do not make it so.Faustian 02:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Citizenship 0- Russian - yes. Ethnicity is a different thing though. I have in my class Chinese kids who don't speak chinese. Only english. Are they ethnically English because that is the only language they know, or are they ethnically Chinese? I was born in Australia. I have Canadian citizenship. Both of my parents were half Ukrainian. Ukrainian was the ligua frac at home. I associate my ethnicity with Ukrainian culture.Bandurist 15:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You try to confuse things on purpouse. In Russia nationality is Ethnicity, and citizenshup is Citizinship. The census talks about ethnicities. They consider themselves to be ethnicaly Russian, this has nothing to do with citizenship. You cant decide for other who they are. You keep on ignoring all my other statements, many of what i said remained un-responsed. M.V.E.i. 16:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Tell me - Have you been to the Kuban. I have. I spent a month there touring and giving concerts at all the Stanytsias on the invitation of Viktor Zakharchenko. I have performed with the Kuban Cossack Choir. They visited the home of my parents and grandfather in Australia during there tour there specially to record materials from them. You POV is quite distorted. Bandurist 16:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My POV? You have MET Kuban Cossacks, while user Kuban Cossack IS a Kuban Cossack. You have spent their a month, while he spent their all of his life. Yet you allow yourself to argue with him on that. M.V.E.i. 17:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So if a Ukrainian claims that Ukrainians are all Chinese, his claims are more valid than those of non-Ukrainian scholars, even ones who have visited Ukraine, who claim they are Slavs?Faustian 18:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No but i think that if a man is half Chinese and half Ukrainian, and he wants to be consideret Chinese, then he has the complete right to be considered a Chinese. M.V.E.i. 20:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * He is both Chinese and Ukrainian, no matter if he wants to be one or the other. The article clearly states Kuban cossacks' recent mostly undivided loyalties.Faustian 02:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And what do you think about all the information I posted? What do you think about the Kuban Rada in 1918 declaring Ukrainian the state language?  Isthat something that a non-Ukrainian population group would do?  Actually you hasve not offered rebuttals to any of the lengthy information I posted.  Nor has Kuban Kazak (other than cherry-picking one piece of data), and it has been several days already.  At some point I will re-add the category, because the mountain of evidence supports doing so.  I would still like Irpen's feedback, as well as that of any other observers.Faustian 18:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have responsed to any claim. We have to judge by TODAYS cencus, by which the Kuban Cossacks declair themselves Russian. You cant re-add the category due to the fact that there ain't a concensus on it, we have a Kuban Cossack and a present-day census saying the opposite of what you say. Dont forget that after 1918 many Russians immigrated to the Kuban and mixed with the local Cossacks. M.V.E.i. 20:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As an answer to why thay chose Ukrainian, go here. First, most haven't excepted Ukrainian being offical and left to the Red Army or Denikim.


 * Wrong. Reread the article.  The Rada was not overthrown by local Kuban forces but by Denikin's forces.  Moreover, the division within the Kuban cossacks corresponded with their ethnic origin: "June 1918 friction began to grow between the head of the Rada and the Cossacks. In particular the main focal point was between the Chernomortsy and the Lineitsy. The former, disappointed with ineffective attempts of different authorities decided on attaining full independence for the Kuban. The latter however, continued to believe in a re-created Russian state."  The Chernomortsy were from western Kuban which according to the census was 62% Ukrainian, 25% or so Russian.  The pro-Russian Lineitsy were from territories that were 57% Russian and 30% Ukrainian.  The overall population of Kubanm was 47% Ukrainian, 41% Russian.  .So, the Kuban cossacks were collectively about 50% for Ukraine, 50% for Russia.Faustian 02:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Second, by those who it was chosen, they chose it only because they haven't seen a choice but a union with Ukraine after the Whites had lost the place completely. M.V.E.i. 20:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Really, can you please try to read more carefully? The latter event occurred in December 1919, a year after the declaration of Ukrainian language.Faustian 02:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You still have not addressed the data showing half Ukrainian population in Kuban, and have not explained away the fact that the Kuban Rada declared Ukrainian its official language. Are you saying that the Kuban leader Kurgansky, hanged by Denikin for wanting union between his people and Ukraine, was a Russian?  Nor have you explained away the fact that up through the 1920's Kuban's language was still Ukrainian, nor that the balachka is considered by linguists to be a dialect of Ukrainian.Faustian 02:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what was then but what it today. M.V.E.i. 07:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, you'd better remove all of the history from the article. Two points about it.  First, the category needs to reflect the entire article, not just a part of it.  Since the article is about the Kuban Cossacks for all their history, the category is appropriate as for most of their history at least half considered themselves Ukrainians.  Second, the Ukrainophile sentiment among the Kuban cossacks, although currently a minority, has not disappeared.  For example, the director of Kuban's most internationally famous institution, the Kuban Cossack Choir, considers himself and his people to be ethnic Ukrainians.  So far, sorry, you haven't contributed anything positive to this conversation.  You haven't provided any info to bolster your claims (other than gems such as Lviv people actually being Hungarians, or the Zaporozhians being Russians because they left New Russia, etc.).  I am waiting for further comment or review from Irpen or Kuban Kazak.Faustian 14:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Dialects of Ukrainian

 * Found a great map on the Siberian Rusian Wiki * Dialects of Ukrainian language. have a look at it. Great article there as well. Bandurist 01:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thay speak Russian with a partly Ukrainian dialect. Most of their words are Russian. M.V.E.i. 07:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What are you saying? Do you know Ukrainian? Do you know the differences between Ukrainian and Russian? Do you have any idea of the differences between standard literary Russian and Ukrainian and the various dialects? To you it may seem like Russian, but to me, a person who speaks both Russian and Ukrainian plus a person who can recognise by the speach one uses the area where you come from it is Ukrainian with a number of Russian words.Bandurist 19:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This guy does not seem to know much at all when it comes to these issues. It speaks poorly for wikipedia that a wikipedia page involving cultural groups and history can essentially be held hostage by a guy who thinks that the people of Lviv are Hungarians.  I will give knowledgable people like Kuban Kazak or Irpen a chance to respond in the next few days but if they don't I'll readd the appropriate category.Faustian 19:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all who made that map? It has no source, and it looks hand-drawn to me! From nothing else but Siberian wiki, which if people have any history of its made-up langauge (which you can look into here. Just follow the links, particularly about Hamlet...:). Now here:http://litopys.org.ua/ukrmova/mapadial.jpg is a map of Ukrainian dialects that paint a completely different picture.


 * Not really, it just limits itself to areas within the Ukrainian political border.Faustian 13:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Besides note that the refrence has certainly much more authority than a Siberian wikipedia.
 * Second of all, subgroup question, it says Ukrainian population groups. Well how come you want include groups like Kuban Cossacks, who live outside Ukraine, whilst forgetting to include groups like Crimean Tatars who live in Ukraine? Did I misinterpret the category?


 * It seems that they meant Ukrainian population groups in an ethnic as well as political sense. For example, if someone were to write an article on Russian Old Believers in Alaska, this group would belong to the the Russian population groups according to the logic of the Ukrainian population groups category.Faustian 13:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know what they meant, but for an average Joe or Ivan, such example as with Crimean Tatars above is nothing but misleading. Categories are NOT meant to cause confusion, and if they require additional specification then its simply bad categorisation. --Kuban Cossack 14:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well others can interpret the category like that. Per WP:CAT, there should not be any confusion in the categories, so either we have an author who did not read Category naming. Shall I list it for deletion because it is confusing people?--Kuban Cossack 12:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

1) Two different maps. One of Ukrainian dialects in general (which includes areas which neighbour the cirrent bolitical boundries including Ukrainian grops in Slovakia, Rumania, Poland, Russia). The other is the of Ukrainian dialects in general in Ukraine period. The first (whose link I found on the Siberian wiki) looks like the work of Kubiyovyc and from the English two  volume encyclopedia of Ukraine. The other is a Soviet map which confines its study of Ukrainian dialects to the borders of the Ukr SSR. 2) Ukrainian population groups. Note that it is writtien Ukrainian population groups and not population groups of Ukraine. If it were population groups of Ukraine you would see numerous ethnicities. In Ukrainian population groups you are looking at Population groups of ethnoic Ukrainians. Bandurist 15:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1)All work has to be properly attributed, and if an image has no source, it violates WP:V and hence can be questionable. In any case the second map actually points out the dialects in much more detail and accuracy, as for Uk SSR dates, the city of Lugansk says its modern (otherwise it would have read Voroshilovgrad).
 * 2)I am sorry, but for someone to get lost in this crazy category will not need to be explained about this. Again the name fails completely, because by a population group, one can easily consider articles such as unemployed in Ukraine, as a population group. Again as Population group does not exist the term is WP:OR. Categories must be clear meaning before articles can be added to them.--Kuban Cossack 16:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You've made some good points, and I agree with your latest edit to the article. best,Faustian 16:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Red Army Cossacks
I find information on Cossack partizan activity in Kuban highly dubious. In all the English language sources there is not a word about that. The cited source Kuban Today, Vol.7 В годы суровых испытаний is curiously enough is not available for verificaition on line. Given unanimous absence of corroborating evidence of this in Western sources, I find this information dubious and will tag it as such. Perhaps there is a reference to an online version where even this suspicious Soviet source can be checked? --Hillock65 18:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why look no further. --Kuban Cossack 18:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Now we are talking. Thanks for the source. The only thing left is to show how numerous this partizan movement was. --Hillock65 18:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Latest edit and Zakharchenko
There is no evidence that the end of the Ukrainization is the reason why Kuban's population has identitifed itself as Russians. Secondly, there is no evidence that at one time 80% or so identified themselves as Russians, so the verb reidentify is inappropriate.

With respect to Zakharchenko, two points. I have included a referenced statement about him. If you feel that he says differently now, please back up your assertion with a reference. Secondly, given that he is a director of Kuban's most well-known cultural institution, his attitude is important, and the fact that he was an open Ukrainiphile for many years is worth noting in the section on ethnic identity.

Also, I'm curious why you consider the director since 1974 of the Kuban Cossack Choir to not be a Kuban cossack. Do you equate the identity of Kuban Cossacks with the specific military formation formed in the late 1980's, or with the people descended from the Kuban cossacks?Faustian 13:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well he hold no rank in the Kuban Cossack Host, and the "specific military formation", since 2004 is a legal and formally recognised Cossack Host, and linear successor (de jure if you like) successor to the Kuban Cossack Host which ruled those areas in 1860-1919, which in turn is a successor to the Black Sea Cossack Host, who recieved our land from Matushka Yekaterina for "eternal use". So it forms a full circle.


 * Sorry, the attitude of the 25,000 or so Kuban Cossacks who are part of the modern "Kuban Cossack Host" political project do not have the monopoly on attitudes of the 100,000s of descendents of the Kuban Cossacks. Zakharchenko was directing the Kuban choir for 15 years before this modern political project even existed.  If you want an article specifically about the attitudes and history of this political project, than write a separate one titled "modern Kuban Cossack Host".  With time, I will add more info on the creation of this state-sponsored modern project in the appropriate section.Faustian 13:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not a political project, the 30,000 only refer to combat-able men. Not the Starshinas or the kazachkas, or the thousands of children who would be cossacks in the future. Moreover the structure of the Host is almost identical to the old one, save the technological and administrative innovations, such as the Rada elects the Head Ataman, Vladimir Gromov, rather than the Tsar appointing him. Also I do not know why you disregard it, but for a Host, who thanks to its efforts, when the rest of the population of Russians decreased in the 1990s, in Kuban it rose both numerically and proportionally. Or how about the recent return of Cossack regalia to the Host Rada? Or how do you explain our modern Combat Record, the whole of Abkhazia withstood Georgian onslaught thanks to thousands of Kuban Cossacks who volunteered, my older brother was part of whom? That was before the 2004 law btw. That's the point the Cossack Host existed even in the Soviet times, as did the Cossacks (so much for deportation cat,) the mere existance of the choir confirms this. And yes, as all stanistas and khutors subordinate to the Kuban Rada, its attitude, often diverse does represent all Kuban Cossacks. --Kuban Cossack 17:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't deny that the modern Kuban Cossack Host project has been effective and fruitful. This does not contradict its nature.  The fact that this project inherited the regalia etc. of the original Host is unsurprising - would you expect the local authorities to hand it over to a Ukrainiphile organization such as the Ukrainophile Black Sea Cossack Council ? The emergence of the Kuban Cossack Host as a modern Russian nationalist project that is quite different from the historical host was outlined here in this article written by a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and himself descendent of Kuban cossacks .  Some highlights:


 * "The bureaucratic project of Cossack revival was obviously consistent with the contemporary policy of sponsoring pro-Soviet countermobilisations in the areas where anti-communist nationalisms threatened the integrity of the USSR (Internationalist Fronts in the Baltic republics, Abkhazia and southern Ossetia, armed opposition to the Gamsakhurdia regime in Georgia, Transdniestrian separatism in Moldova, Crimean Soviet patriotism in Ukraine, etc)."
 * "Barbara Skinner, in her extensive discussion of the efforts to foster Cossack identity in post-Soviet Russia, rightly stresses the state-centred character of the new Cossack project and the very novelty of the genetic Russian Cossack ethnicity. Skinner, 'Identity Formation in the Russian Cossack Revival', pp. 1017-1037.Faustian 18:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As for Zakharchenko being an Ukrainophile:official website and I quote: Другая боль Виктора Захарченко — потомственного черноморского казака, для которого неразделимы русское и украинское — отрыв Украины от России. Трещина прошла прямо по его сердцу. Может быть, поэтому самое им выстраданное — песни на стихи Тараса Шевченко и Леси Украинки, — песни, исторгающие слезы у русских и подымающие на ноги тысячные аудитории на Украине. Кто как не простые люди России и Украины, в отличие от своих политиков, горюют о безумии и абсурде нашего разрыва? Поздравляю всех живущих в России сегодня. Творчество композитора Виктора Захарченко — чудо нечаянное, явленное русским духом на рубеже ХХ-го и XXI-гo веков.. Now that strikingly contrasts with the Ukrainophile portrait that you try to paint, in fact it is a case of a Unification-phile (if such exists). Well count me in on it as well then, I don't want to go through the 6-hour customs que each time I want to visit Ukraine, and be harrassed by border guards for the most petty issues. I would love to pass from Kharkov to Belgorod or from Taganrog to Berdyansk without any stops like people have done for the past millenia.--Kuban Cossack 13:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. As we see, for once he was a Ukrainophile (per the referenced info I provided) and now he is not.  I will change the article accordingly.  You should differentiate questions of national identity from those of political loyalty.  The quote above tells us that he wants Russia and Ukraine to be united and that they are brotherly people etc.  Yet it does not tell us that he considers himself Russian and not Ukrainian.Faustian 13:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no proof he is not a Ukrainophile anymore. Whose words are these? His own? I doubt it, this is something someone believes him to be. Where did he say he wants Russia and Ukraine be united? Not someone else, but him in his own words? --Hillock65 18:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't confuse the words national and ethnical. National identity and Ethnical identity are different things. Even though they do have some overlap. Now if you consider that people such as Russians and Ukrainians who genetically are identical, the latter only undertakes the political tone. And alas, the modern term of being Ukrainian, is one that is loyal to Ukraine. A Black American is equally cosidered an American as a white American, as a Russian American if he was either born there or obtained citizenship. Same here except that Russians and Ukrainians happen to be genetically identical, so visually it is impossible to separate us as such. Nothing prevents one from choosing this or that identity, and Zakharchenko is a Russian: Когда поет Кубанский хор, явственно ощущаешь необъятную мощь России, бездонную, неисчерпаемую силу российской земли. И тебя охватывает неописуемый восторг от того, что ты — частица этого великого сообщества, имя которому — русский народ, вобравший в себя и сибирскую ширь, и казацкую удаль.... --Kuban Cossack 17:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * For the final part, the re-identify quote is refrenced from Robert Kaiser's The geography of nationalism in Russia and the USSR. Refrenced material should not be altered per WP:SOURCE.--Kuban Cossack 13:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. I will add further info as I have more time, not now.  best,Faustian 13:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I find it funny that information about Zakharchenko's national identitiy is taken from the words of other people. Did Zakharchenko himself state that? When, where is the source to support that? All these copious quotations of НИКОЛАЙ ХАРИТОНОВ, ДЕПУТАТ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОЙ ДУМЫ amount to someone believing this or that about Zakharchenko, that is per WP:SOURCE has as much validity as you or I having an opinion about his naitional identity. Let's not jump to conclusion on the basis of dubious sources. --Hillock65 18:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The cited refrence was an official website, quotations are a spice, but the official Kuban Cossack Choir website shows something else. Also here is a bit of question for those who never relent their attack on the article. The Kuban Cossack Host was dissolved in 1921 (the same year that Ukrainization policies began), yet was reformed in 1936 (when they were ended and reversed). So How does this anti-parrallel fit in with your versions? --Kuban Cossack 18:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a spice all right. To make conclusions on the basis of that is wrong per WP:SOURCE. Additionally, I find it ironic that you classify legitimate questions about the article's neurtrality and validity of the sources as attacks? No one accuses anyone of anything and does not show any ill will. Is questioning the facts considered such an act of bad faith? How about showing some Good Faith? I understand we are all adults here. --Hillock65 18:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well if fact to make a conclusion he is still an Ukrainophile, per same WP:SOURCE is also wrong. The source shows, as I have explained above that he is a unionist, who wishes unification of the two countries (or closer ties), which I know all adults do, as there is no point building borders, we all expressed solidarity for Berliners and Germans when they united East and West, Vietnam North and South, Ukraine and Belarus, east and west... We will live to the day when Koreas will unite and our three east-Slavic nations as well. Would that not be great? --Kuban Cossack 18:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't find any statements that he was a unionist. Maybe you can direct me to his exact words? Also, please spare me the neoimperialist speeches of unity. Comparing Germans, Koreans and Vietnamese to Russians and Ukrainians is highly improper. Those are and were separated nations with one language and one culture, Russians and Ukrainins have been separate for at least half a millenium now and have developed their own separate identities. These ideas are eerily similar of Adolf Hitler's ideas of the unity of the German race. That's why he marched in first in Austria and then elsewhere else. Hopefully, Russians will have enough wisdom not to make the same mistake. --Hillock65 19:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I though it was the 1920s when they were separated. Given that opinion polls, and genetic evidence show otherwise. And again, I never said forcefull annexation, had Hitler not had a genocidal regime against Slavs, Jews and other minorities, and not invaded half of Europe, I would have respected the man. However he had other things driving him and so on. Also what makes a call for union = marching into other countries, in fact judging from the intensity of migrant workers that we recieve from Ukraine it seems just the opposite is to happen. Nothing really changed, and I can't really tell apart a Ukrainian in Russia from a native Russian, unless he would say I would never now... so much about mellenia... (did Ukrainians exist back then?). Yes it is a moral thing to do and I hope if not us, then our children will have sense in stretching arms to each other rather than building walls to third party's benefit... However that is offtopic so I will not say more. --Kuban Cossack 19:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Check your facts. The separation happened in the 14th century, right after the Mongols. There is virtually no drive for unification except for the maverics like Vitrenko, who got barely 1% of the popular vote. All these talks of union cannot mask imperialist aspirations of some Russians and only alienate Russians and Ukrainians. It is time to learn to live as neighbours. --Hillock65 19:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually the facts speak for themselves, read Gogol's Taras Bulba. Sure there is diversity between Russians and Ukrainians, as much as there is between Russians and Pomors for that fact, or between Russians in Orel Oblast and Russians in Vologda Oblast... Not really more. And 14th century still falls short of millenia...I am not reffering to extremists, I am reffering that majority of Ukrainians don't mind having closer ties with Russia. And an eventual union that would be beneficial to both of us is ideal. As for living like neighbours, we have always been neighbours, except only some seem to like to build a thicker fence, whilst others like to invite each other for tea and/or 100 grams. --Kuban Cossack 19:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you are allowed to believe whatever you may, in my experience, the majority of Ukrainians are worlds apart from considering themselves one people with Russians. Neighbours - yes, close neigbours - maybe, one people - unequivically and decidedly no. And the more Russian imperialists talk of union I will feel more secure with building a thicker fence. It's like a neighbour dreaming of joining your house to his. No, thanks. Ukrainians and Russians still need to learn to live like neighbours. In fact, the only country that poses threat to Ukraine's territorial integrity is Russia - that is why some dream of NATO, while you dream of unification. Learn to deal with reality, not with dreams. --Hillock65 20:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Re Zakharchenko - He is an interesting person. I spent a lot of time with him in 1991, at his home and with his mother. At that time he was very pro-Ukrainian, and very disaappointed in the loss of so many Ukrainian cultural artifacts in the Kuban and the brutal manner in which the language was beaten out of them, howeever at the same time he was also a patriotic Russian citizen and also complained that there was no Soviet Academy of Sciences (every republic had one and just the Russian Federation did not.) So you have an interesting dichotemy. A person who is very patriotic regarding his roots, yet also a patriotic Russian citizen. He was born in Russia, he grew up in Russia he is disappointed with many things but he is also a patriot. He knows where his pay check is coming from. Blatent Western Ukrainian stuff doesn't float in the Kuban. They say that they cannot understand the language, however all it takes is to change the word striletz to the word kozak and suddenly  people embrace the song and language. Certain things have been beaten out of them. It is conditioning - like Pavlov's dogs to a certain degree. I have book dedications which he signed in Ukrainian and also letters from him and although his is quite sympathetic with many Ukrainian causes and ideas, he is moving in his particular Kuban direction. The Ukrainian government has given very little support to Ukrainian outsiode of Ukraine. It is the Russian government that is actually paying the bills and Viktor Havrylovych knows that well. Bandurist 20:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Viktor GavrIlovIch, and Bandurist you just summarised the whole Kuban mentality. The truth is there is no dichotemy, simply put, before 1991, whenever we traveled somewhere, I remember 1984 trip to Leningrad, I was only six then, everyone would ask us about who we were, few new anything about Cossacks, let alone Kuban Cossacks, and even fewer new about their history. I would say with pride that we are the original descendants of Zaporozhians thanks to whom Ukraine became part of Russia in the first place. All that changed in 1991 and in the years which followed. The people of Ukraine in one go turned their back on Russia then and there. Western Ukrainian nationalism became a national policy of Kiev, State sponsored Church schisms, State sponsored linguicide of Russian Language, full revisionism of history, mass murders like Bandera and Shukhevich become heroes, SS Galizia...etc. And the modern Ukrainian youth, are brainwashed into believing this bullshit, out of which Russophobia radiates in dangerous proportions. I am not speaking of the three Galician Oblasts, I am reffering to central Ukraine, to Kiev. Like Hillock said, we need bigger fences we need to blow bridges that have existed for centuries, over which milliards of people have walked to and from, including our ancestors, the Chernomortsy, Azovtsy, Buzhtsy, Kat'koslavtsy and many others. And yes for people like Zakharchenko, and for many of our starshinas, the blow went straight through the heart. Do you think we Kuban Cossacks were the only ones affected? It had an affect on all three million Ukrainians in Russia and the 10+million of people who have Ukrainian relatives or heritage. The question is what to do with this reality? To mourn and grieve or to simply accept the reality and move on. Given the way the 1990s hardened people, it is hardly surprising that the only surviving category is the latter group.
 * From this the modern attitude of Kuban Cossacks to Ukraine, it blew its bridges with Russia, well "Ну и пошли они на..." is what we say. And each time Ukraine passes a law restricting Russian langauge, each time this or that Russian school is closed, or for every loud exclamation that people like Tarasyonok, Bush-Shenok or Tyagni bok srak make the rift grows wider, and the pro-Ukrainian sentiment erodes even further.
 * The best summary is Ataman Gromov with respect to Kuban Cossack Regalias that were returned this April, and when some BYuT people tried to intercept them:


 * Атаман Кубанского казачьего войска Владимир Громов в интервью газете "Краснодарские известия" назвал инициативы украинских парламентариев "популистской идеей".


 * "Я полагаю, что Юлии Тимошенко и ее соратникам стоит обратиться к учебникам истории, регалии запорожских казаков находятся в Швеции – это известный факт, пусть украинская сторона обращается к руководству этой страны", – заявил Громов.


 * "Я очень скептически отношусь к громогласным заявлениям украинских депутатов: такое впечатление, что им больше нечем заняться, в 1920 году за рубеж вывозились регалии кубанского казачества, которое, в свою очередь, является правопреемником Черноморского казачества, истоки же его идут от Запорожской Сечи. Украинское казачество не имеет никакого отношения к этим регалиям, а я в свою очередь не считаю потребным официально реагировать на такие заявления", – добавил атаман Кубанского казачьего войска.
 * So that is essentially what I have to say for that. It was not the Bolshevik policies of the 1930s which cancelled the Ukrianization policies that made us fully Russian, it was the naive and stupid nationalism of Ukraine in late 1980s-and early 1990s that did it, and not just us, millions of people around Russia now shame to admit to their Ukrainian heritage, instead the old term Little Russian is used, it really does drive a wedge to be a Ukrainian yet to be pro-Russian. Don't be surprised to see this term gain more and more popularity in Russia in the upcoming decades. All the best, I hope people like Hillock and Faustian, are proud of this "achievement". Well like you said Hillock, there is no turning back, Слава Богу, что мы казаки - РУССКИЕ! --Kuban Cossack 12:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, good that you admitted that you are "Ukrainian", "yet pro-Russian." With respect to your political ideology, thank you for your candor.  However, you should recognize that issue of majority loyalty for Moscow within Kuban is a recent phenomenon.  Yes, the Zaporozhians signed the Treaty of Pereyaslav.  However Khmelnitsky himself was already negotiating with the Swedes before his death.  The Zaporozhian cossacks - your ancestors - were the only Cossacks who as a group chose to fight against Moscow alongside hetman Mazepa at Poltava.  The Ukrainian nationalist Symon Petliura began his career nurtured within Kuban, among Kuban cossacks.  So it is not Ukrainians in Ukraine who changed when they chose independence.  Rather, it is you and your people, the Ukrainians of Kuban, who have changed when they abandoned their loyalty to Ukraine.  To quote the Kuban Cossack scholar  Georgi M. Derluguian, "Barbara Skinner, in her extensive discussion of the efforts to foster Cossack identity in post-Soviet Russia, rightly stresses the state-centred character of the new Cossack project and the very novelty of the genetic Russian Cossack ethnicity. Skinner, 'Identity Formation in the Russian Cossack Revival', pp. 1017-1037  I do not condemn you for this.  It is your right to choose your loyalty and your decision is understandable given your political situation.  Many of my own ancestors were Galician Russophiles (this is why I started that article), during the Russian occupation in World War I Brusilov was hosted at my great-grandfather's estate and during the 1920's and 1930's my great-grandfather directed the choir at the Russian Orthodox Church, established in Lviv during the Russian occupation and kept open by the Poles.  But anyways, let's not ascribe the recent, state-created development of Russian nationalism in Kuban to the last 300+ years of history in which Kuban loyalties were to put it lightly divided. bestFaustian 14:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, however partially except for the terms such as state-sponsored project, or state-created nationalism (just to clarify 40 years the state tried to create a loyal Communist Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania did they succeed, yet we without any real input, in space of a few monthsm if not days decided where we stand). None of the modern Russian Cossack Hosts would exist had there not been enthusiasm from the Cossacks themselves.
 * For example nobody told me to be a Cossack, after I served my national Service in 1996-98, I went to Saint Petersburg State University to study Physics, I never though that in a years time I would give a new Cossack oath in my home stanitsa. It was the outbreak of the Second Chechen War, that I recieved a phone call from my brother asking whether I would volunteer as part of the Liberation campaign to free the homelands of our Terek Cossack brothers. Something clicked in my head, and since then even though I completed my degree after my tour in Chechnya, and spent two years in Moscow, earning money by buying and selling apartments, due to the house-price boom in the capital, I have returned home, and every few months, manoeuvres, and I get a new qualification, and usually rank as well. This summer in КЧР I mastered how to handle the Муха, fired dozens of the in all sorts of circumstances, including from galloping horse and fast moving vehicle, and now we have a nice stack of 50 or so in our stanitsa garrison. (The Russian Army is withdrawing them by replacing with new modern versions, and giving them to us.) Second of all just how divided were Cossacks is also subject to argument, as Bandurist explained, before 1991, the whole idea of a Ukraine that is separate from Russia was unimaginable (outside Western Ukraine and the Ukrainian diaspora), and hence the ideologies of Ukrainianophilism was by far not the same as people view them now. Think of it this way you were a native Texan born and raised in New York, then all of a sudden Texas separates and becomes quasi-hostile to New York. Now you have lived your whole life in New York not the city, where national character dies within months, but in a rural area. To you this is your home, your neighbours are your freinds, would you be compelled to thicken your southern accent or not? As Bandurist said, what has modern Ukraine done for us? Don't point fingers at Moscow, as Moscow has NOTHING to do with this, the descision has to come from your head, and ultimately your heart. Matushka gave us these beuatiful lands, and its our debt to her that we keep them. How do explain that Kuban Cossacks formed the personal bodyguards to the Russian Emperor? Would the Tsarist government allow that if the loyalty of such people was quesionable? Would the Soviet government, in light of what Hillock is trying to write about "liberator welcoming" allow Kuban Cossack regiments to form, and then allow them to march on the Red Square? And how do you explain that in 1921 the Host is dissolved and the Kuban Cossack Chorus, Ukrainization begins. 1936 Ukrainization ends, the Kuban Cossack army regiments are allowed to be re-formed and the same fate is shared by the Chorus? Now certainly from your POV, these events have to be mutually exclussive, yet that is what happened...Surprised? I am not, because Ukrainisations come and go, people remain, and their will remains unbroken. As is our desire to serve our country (which is not Ukraine, and it never was Ukraine, as the country never existed). Gromov said clearly, if Timoshenko wants Cossack regalias approach Sweden to see if anything was left of Mazepa there. If being Ukrainian means being a traitor, suit yourself, we could not care less or cared less for that matter. You are now independent, so worry about your own patch. Ironic isn't it, Hillock is accusing Russians of being Hostile, yet the only thing we hear from Ukraine in our direction is their desire to rule over us, who is being imperialist? If you ever do invade we will take arms, because this is our land, not yours. All the best. --Kuban Cossack 14:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, this off-topic discussion has gone too far. Not only you have become personal contrary to WP:NPA and keep mentioning my nickname at every istance, you also allow yourself xenophopbic statements like:If being Ukrainian means being a traitor, suit yourself. Please consider this an official warning if this off-topic, Russian imperialist and xenophobic propaganda persists, you will be immediately reported to the admins. There is no place for this hate diatribe nor here nor anywhere else. The fact that you don't consider yourself Ukrainian makes me even happier, good riddance. I wish all the rest of Ukrainian turncoats would follow your example and leave Ukrainians alone. To sum it up, this topic and discussions with any Russian imperialists worshipping Stalin are closed. Please bear in mind that talk pages are designed for discussions on how to improve the article, not to vent out nationalist prejudices. (Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. WP:TALK --Hillock65 15:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I will not reply to this at all, my policy is not to feed trolls. --Kuban Cossack 16:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the topic has become personmal and thus not appropriate in the context of this talk page. I will briefly add that I see no racism in what Kuban Cossack has said.  Kuban Cossack is a Russian citizen, born in Russia.  His choice to be pro-Russian is not an example of racism and the choice of the Kuban Cossack people to reject political Ukrainianism "if being Ukrainian means being a traitor - suit yourself" is understandable and respectable.  I know ethnic Russians from Kiev who are pro-Timoshenko and pro-Ukraine statehood; their choice to be loyal tot he state they live in is no worse than that of ethnic Ukrainians such as Kuban Cossack who are loyal and patriotic towards Russia.Faustian 16:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Defining someone's nationality as treason is understandable and respectable? What if someone defined Russians as traitors of their Tatar-Mongol overlords? What is respectable and understandable here? Anyone is free to espose any beliefs he may like, but to define someone's identity as a result of treason is grossly improper and uncivil. I don't care who Kuban Cossack considers himself to be, at this point I am happy he is not Ukrainian. That is beyond the point of discussion. Personal diatribes and xenophobic statements should be kept out of WP. Period. --Hillock65 16:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought you wanted to end this rant. --Kuban Cossack 16:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * One's traitor is another man's hero Hillock has some strong views on those he deems "turncoats" although WP:NPA does say to comment on the content, not the contributor, therefore I urge him not to take up double standards. In any case Faustian, Russians in Kiev who as Hillock himself once tried to show on Russians in Ukraine adopted Ukrainian identity, ceased to be Russian when they did it. Yet you claim I am an ethnic Ukrainian ??? Yet admit I am Russian. But then it does get rather confusing, and just to finally point on Hillock's Millenia theory, we are not so different after all? Are we? I will not say more. And none of my comments were meant to be offensive, and I sincirely apologise if some were offended. All the best, if Faustian you want to continue our discussion please e-mail me. --Kuban Cossack 16:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Move to archive personal discussions
Contrary to WP:NPA, WP:SOAP and WP:TALK this page and particularly this section has been used to spread nationalist propaganda and xenophobic, anti-Ukrainian statements. There is no place for it on this page. It is here exclusively for discussions on how to improve the article. Let's keep it that way. I propose removing all off-topic discussions not related to Zakharchenko or Kuban. All of them can be found in the history but should not be here. --Hillock65 15:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support --Hillock65 15:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, except make sure you apply the same rationale to yourself. --Kuban Cossack 16:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

GA assessment (fail)
Thank you for nominating this article for GA assessment. I have reviewed it against the six GA criteria, and whilst it is very interesting and complies with many of the criteria, unfortunately do not believe that it can be brought up to full GA standard in the short term. As a result I have failed this assessment.

The main reason for this decision is that the article contains significant gaps in its referencing. As a rule of thumb, to avoid giving the impression of original research Good articles should normally have an in-line citation at the end of every paragraph that covers the contents of that paragraph, as well as additional citations where needed (for controversial statements, quotations and the like). At present there are a number of paragraphs (and indeed entire sections) that have no references.

Additional points are:
 * The article lead needs considerable expansion to comply with WP:LEAD; this states that the lead should summarise (not introduce) the article, mentioning all major points covered in the text below, and be capable of standing as a mini-article in its own right.
 * A copyedit for grammar and prose would also be useful; some sections are very well written while others are less so.
 * To comply with the manual of style, citations should directly follow end-of-sentence punctuation with no intervening spaces. Date ranges (such as "1860-1918") should be separated with an unspaced en dash (–).
 * We recommend using the templates on WP:CITET for all citations; the article does use these in places, but not everywhere.

I hope this information helps with the further development of Kuban Cossacks, and thank you for all the hard work you have put in so far. If you have concerns about the conduct of this review, you can list the article at WP:GAR for further opinions from GA reviewers. Alternatively, once the above issues have been addressed, feel free to renominate at WP:GAN. You can also contact me on my talk page. All the best, EyeSerene TALK 20:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Typo?
In the section "Black Sea Cossacks" it says "uninhibited region", should it be uninhabited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.197.161 (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well Kuban prior to the migration of the Black Sea Cossacks was indeed largely uninhibited in the sense that noone lived there. However Circassians and Nogai frequently passed through these lands in their raids onto the Don and Russia proper.--Kuban Cossack 15:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the actual population of the former Cossak Host of Terek? The territories in Daghestan seem to have a Russian/Cossak majority, on the left bank of Terek River. But what is the situation on the left bank of Terek inside Chechen republic ? The Cossaks are there or did they flee from Chehcen?

Doku Umarov, the so-called president of the Caucasian Emirate is planing to include also the left bank of Terek into his state. The Terek Cossaks organisations are agreeing with this?
 * uninhabited. Uninhibited is something rather different. AllenHansen (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008
Removed military history tag as this article is about an ethnicity not a specific military unit, campaign, battle, etc... --dashiellx (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Kalnyshevsky
The part about Kalnyshevsky is very relevant. It shows the attitude of Russians towards Cossacks and their starshyna. That passage was there as an integral part of the text, removing it damages the article. --Hillock65 (talk) 13:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, first of all its a detail of history that is as relevant to this article as the Treaty of Pereyaslavl or Ivan Mazepa. Yes it is relevant to the parent article of Cossacks, likewise this detail is more than relevant to Zaporozhian Cossacks, but here I disagree, moreover your reasoning above suggests nothing but an attempt to make a WP:POINT, and removing it damages the article? I see no damage in removing irrelvant details... --Kuban Cossack 14:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You continuing with sterile reverts, reverting some other corrections I made. I also disagree that 2 sentences about Kalnyshevsky should be excluded. It is not a paragraph, but 2 measly sentences and they add to the narrative, showing that not everything was a amicable as you present it to be. However, as a sign of good faith until the discussion is going on I will not reinstate the paragraph. Please also stop acting like you WP:OWN the article. Changes to it are not required to be cleared with you. You are just one of the editors, who needs to seek consensus on deletion and substantial changes. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am happy for your good faith, spellings of individuals don't bother me at all, as they are still the same people. As for the fact templates, you want a fact of the quesionable loyalty of Zaporozhians to Russia, of all the people Hillock, I am shocked you want a source for that, since your opinions expressed on talk pages here and elsewhere seem to prove that fact. Well since I don't own the article, I'll leave you to pick out a refrence from any Ukrainian History book for that. WRT Pugachev, then please: if you apply WP:COMMONSENSE that now Pugach is a national hero of Urkaine, then its little wonder that his success brought real fear of to the Empress if the Sich followed suit. What I am concerned here about is that should we discuss this at Talk:Zaporozhian Cossacks yet you raise the issue here, why? --Kuban Cossack 15:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So, if you are so happy, why practice wholesale reverts? You couldn't leave them out when you reverted whole pages? That shows you attitude to WP:EW, you wouldn't even be bothered with such things. As far as the templates, the assertion of Cossacks' questionable loyalty is bull and have been discredited by many sources. If you believe so, you should support it with sources that support exactly the same formulation. The same bunch of nonsense is the alleged connection between Zaporozhian Cossacks and the Pugachev rebellion. You seem to be tragically misunderstanding WP:V, I advise you re-read it again, especially the part that material you insert into articles need to be supported by credible sources. Also bear in mind that the burden of proof is on the author of the statements, not on those, who try to correct the POV. You are not a new editor to be spamming articles with essays from personal experience. I guess we discussed this before, haven't we?
 * In regards to the mentioning of last otaman Kalnyshevsky in the article, I would like other editors to express their opinions. Consensus should be sought before this part is deleted or reinstated in the text. --Hillock65 (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well in you are certainly no better with respect to this edit that came out the blue, considering that its rather clear you did not even bother to have a peek at the talk page. As for misinformation, I can recall the mistakes you made recently during the discussion on Cossacks and the writing of the lead so my advice is not to pull strings. For all its worth, I am yet to see you write a major article and/or expand one. Yes when doing so sometimes you first focus on the text, then you pick out the details. For the record, the present version of the article is due for a re-write since it contains numerous errors, and the new one which I will begin working on next week will contain maps, historic images, and even a scan of the original 1792 manifesto granting the Chernomorians the Kuban land for eternal use. --Kuban Cossack 16:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, I suppose you started looking for credible, published SOURCES for the revamped version of the article, or should we expect another of your timeless POV essays on the topic? --Hillock65 (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Where have you seen a timeless POV essay? --Kuban Cossack 16:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Here. --Hillock65 (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And all of my passages there have been sourced and kept, and agreed upon by other users, I even got a barnstar for keeping a POV pusher way... Perhaps your problem is that you never view anything as half-full (unless it suits your taste), also since you have never written an article, perhaps you don't appreciate the effort it takes to do so, and sometimes patience is important to give to the editor instead of ripping him apart prior to him finishing. FYI no article has been written based on my opinion alone. :) --Kuban Cossack 08:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

On the Russian frontier (1777-1860) section
I propose to modify a paragraph on the Khopyor Regiment to correct several factual errors as follows: The Khopyor regiment was responsible for the western flank of the line. In 1778-1782, Khopyor Cossacks founded four stanitsas: Stavropolskaya (next to the fortress of Stavropol, est. 22 October 1777), Moskovskaya, Donskaya and Severnaya with approximately 140 Cossack families in each. In 1779, the Khopyor regiment was given its own district. The conditions were desperate as the Circassians would mount almost daily raids onto the Russian positions. In 1825-1826, the regiment began its first expansions, by pushing westwards territory, moving to the bend of the Kuban River and founding five new stanitsas (the so-called new-Kuban line: Barsukovskaya, Nevinnomysskaya, Belomechetskaya, Batalpashinskaya (modern Cherkessk), Bekeshevskaya and Karantynnaya (currently - Suvorovskaya). In 1828, the Khopyor Cossacks participated in the conquest of Karachay, and were part of the first Russian expedition to reach the summit of Elbrus in 1829. Fachucha (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kuban 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/20071219035248/http://knsuvorov.narod.ru/text/ukr.html to http://knsuvorov.narod.ru/text/ukr.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120528084326/http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/rus_lan_97.php to http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/rus_lan_97.php

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) 16:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kuban 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.cultinfo.ru/fulltext/1/001/008/122/012.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080112024310/http://www.litrossia.ru/archive/47/reading_room/1095.php to http://www.litrossia.ru/archive/47/reading_room/1095.php

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) 21:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

"Horrors" or "policies" — more than a question of "terminology"
To the extremely dishonest "Wikipedian" Iryna it's a question of "point of view" replacing the clearly biased term "horrors" with the more impartial term "policies", in relation to the policies carried out under the colletivization and Decossackization, which were carried out in a context of near civil war. Let me ask you once again, Iryna Harpy: can anti-communist POV's be tolerated? If so, why? And, if so, why "Stalinist" "POV's" can't, even when they show no support nor condemnation to the policies portrayed Kuban Cossacks The use of words such as "horrors", etc., constitute a point of view, my dear Iryna. "Policies" can be good or bad, it depends on the reader. After all, being neutral and free is what Wikipedia claims it intends to be, huh? --> Guto (Talk your ass off...)
 * The only dishonesty taking place here is on your behalf. Firstly, you did not date your comment above which was added on 09:33, 9 January 2018. This has been on record for myself and other editors to read for nearly a month, yet you simply deleted the personal attack today at 14:52, 4 February 2018, and have reverted the content of the article today using "No "personal attacks" here..." in your edit summary. The interpretation of the status of an historical 'policy' is dependent on mainstream reliable sources, and is it is not for the reader to make up their own mind where there has been virtually unanimous condemnation of the policies over decades of scholarship. The 'Final Solution', for example is not simply referred to as a 'policy' in mainstream sources: neither are the democide/often presented as genocidal 'policies' of Collectivization or Decossackization. If the descriptor seems 'loaded', it is because it is is one of many extremely negative descriptors (read 'horrors' as being extremely mild in comparison to what is said of these policies) attested to in reliable sources. I would, perhaps, be amenable to another descriptor other editors agree on (the descriptor is not my handiwork, but has remained as consensus for a long, long time, ergo has become the default consensus version). Any alterations would depend on agreement between other editors. I would not be prepared to lose an apt descriptor for the extremist atrocities perpetrated. I would also thank you to desist from your patronising, WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude in what can only be described loosely as a form of 'dialogue' with me. As you have declared yourself to be a Stalinist openly (which is greatly appreciated in favour of good faith in that you're not hiding your personal biases), I honestly don't believe you are in a position to gauge the neutrality of your edits on subjects obviously close to your heart. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Addressing your 'anti-communist' concerns, there is no one brand of communism/interpretation of communism. Of the legitimate communist parties, you would be hard pressed to find any of them positing Stalinism as a valid form of communist ideology. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As an honest Wikipedian you should know when another editor isn't too much familirized with designing/HTML issues and forgets to date his comment. Nevertheless, whether it was edited or not — and I assume I've done so, in order to correct my mistake — is not the point. The point is that Wikipedia favors taking a neutral perspective when relating historical events, even more so when it comes to events that have a historical relevance today! But, by insisting on the word "horrors" you seem clearly intentful and adamant about having your opinion expressed in the article, and any attempt to counter your emotional stand on this issue and exposing the hypocritical nature of it will be taken as a "personal attack" — which is, indeed, applyable to your "Stalinist" dismissive rhetoric, used agains me. If we decide to keep "horrors" (and similar terms) as a form of standard, "neutral" terminology, why shouldn't we talk about the horrors of American foreign interventions, or about the horrors of the American war crimes in its so-called "War on Terror", or about the terrorist attitude of the US in its war against communism, or just about anything that involves crimes commited by the West or Western-supported anti-communist regimes? Don't you think it might be suitable, or your "neutrality" doesn't go that far?

Guto (Talk ya ass of) 20:45, (UTC-2) 5 February 2018.
 * Addendum: You have no authority at all to talk about "legitimate" or "illegitimate" Communist Parties.

Guto (Talk ya ass of) 12:26, (UTC-2) 7 February 2018.

Recent attempts at changing text without reliable sources for the modification
The source used does not say. If you think your perspective is relevant, find a reliable source to back it up. I strongly suggest you read the reliable source policy first, because you are not going to find one that passes as reliable. I know you are new to editing, but please be aware that simply reverting to your preference does not account for the fact that the burden is on you, as the user introducing the material to back it up with a reliable source, and to continue to just revert is known at edit warring. Note, also, that Wikipedia is not about your opinion. In fact, it doesn't necessarily reflect my opinion. Thank you for your understanding. Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , you are edit warring, and have given no indication of being here to build anything but your own agenda. One more such an action and I will take this to the Administrators' edit warring board. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, as the Ukrainian nationalist sympatizer she is, is interesteed in turning the article into her own agenda of rehabilitation of Nazi Germany Collaborattors, insisting in the word "horrors", which is not, cannot be, in any way, shape or form in conformity with the neutral point of view proposed by Wikipedia. Wikipedian Iryna is thoroughly silencing any criticism of her point of view, she acts dishonestly silencing and reverting any attempt at a neutral approach on the events surrounding the history of Kuban Cossacks and Nazi collaborators. For the sake of neutrality and non-partisan account, I will not abide to this hypocritical, dishonest attitude of my fellow Wikipedian. Guto (keep on talking your bullshit) 10:13 (UTC-3)

Decossackization
The Decossackization should be mention in the right place, not in a phrase about 1942.Xx236 (talk) 08:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There is plenty of detail about the revolution, WWII, etc., but no mention of a vital chapter in their history. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)