Talk:Szlachta/Archive 3

False Claim - "Completely Irrelevant Aside on Gaelic Society; the Term discussed, "sliocht," had no etymological relation to "szlachta"
I assert this claim is false, and the removal of the reference to "sliocht" is ill-conceived.

The removing editor wrote, "rm completely irrelevant aside on Gaelic society; the term discussed had no etymological relation to szlachta"

I undid the edit because of the following:

There were Polish noble clans/szlachta of Celtic origin, and Celtic clans were Germanic, which is ultimately a shared Indo-Aryan heritage; hence the reference to Gaelic society in antiquity in the article, hence Polish nobles called "szlachta" and Gaelic nobles called "sliocht". The "sliocht" and the Polish "szlachta" have identical characteristics. The editor claiming etymological expertise has called their expertise into question. "Szlachta" and "Sliocht" - that is not a coincidence. The claim is referenced, and the references identify identical characteristics of Gaelic "sliocht" and Polish "szlachta."

Opposing editor, justify your removal with something beyond the frivolous, as given in the edit history. I would suggest pointing out the differences between the Gaelic "sliocht" and Polish "szlachta." Further into the article, the "szlachta" are referenced as descendants of Polish kings of antiquity, just as the Gaelic "sliocht" are referenced as descendants of Gaelic kings of antiquity. Szlachta and sliocht both held land on the basis of that nobility. Considering that, the etymological expertise claimed as authority for the removal appears knee-jerk and frivolous. - Exxess (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Quoting Wikipedia - 'For Cassius Dio, the only Germani and the only Germania were west of the Rhine within the empire: "some of the Celts (Keltoí), whom we call Germans (Germanoí)", had "occupied all the Belgic territory [Belgikḗ] along the Rhine and caused it to be called Germany [Germanía]".'

See Germanic peoples - Exxess (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Indo-Aryan is irrelevant. It is not the same as Indo-European, and your use of the term Indo-Aryan to represent the shared heritage of the Celts and Germani makes me wonder what kind of books you've been reading.


 * Furthermore, the claim that "There were Polish noble clans/szlachta of Celtic origin" is completely unsubstantiated and not borne out by history, nor indeed is it otherwise mentioned with any kind of sourcing in the article. The claim that "Celtic clans were Germanic" is incorrect. The Celts and Germani were conflated by some ancient Greek and Roman writers, but in many respects they are quite different as anyone with a basic knowledge of history and linguistics can tell, and the Polish in fact are not all that Germanic at all - they were influenced by Germanic-speaking groups (as shown by the borrowed term szlachta) but they are considered Slavic. The linguistic link here has to do with linguistic similarities between Germanic and Celtic languages, but as the Poles borrowed the term from Germanic (they didn't speak a Germanic language themselves) this does not show some sort of special relationship between the Poles and Celtic-speaking societies during the Middle Ages.


 * I'll leave it at this reply and one revert of your revert. I have no intention of wasting more time on refuting fringe nonsense and arguing this obvious point. Life is too short. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Ludicrous and smug edit. Ludicrous and smug response. Let's destroy it. - Exxess (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Irish phrase - "Sliocht sleachta ar shliocht bhur sleachta. 'Blessings on your posterity.'" Gaelic, Irish: Sliocht sleachta; Polish: SZLACHTA - posterity. Editor above claims no etymological relation between "sliocht" and "szlachta" as justification for knee-jerk edit - ludicrous. You cannot argue it not because of lack of time, but because there is nothing to argue about. You are wrong and ill-informed. It's obvious. Anyone who read the entire article (the removal was knee-jerk) can see in the reply above, the main point was completely avoided. The Polish "szlachta" has the exact characteristics as the Gaelic "sliocht." Repeating, further into the article, the "szlachta" are referenced as descendants of Polish kings of antiquity, just as the Gaelic "sliocht" are referenced as descendants of Gaelic kings of antiquity. Szlachta and sliocht both held land on the basis of that nobility. Considering that, the etymological expertise claimed as authority for the removal appears knee-jerk and frivolous, and something that is just dabbled in and is a smattering of mixed ignorance. Also, the Polish "szlachta" were organized in clans/septs, exactly as the Gaelic "sliocht," so it needs to be said - the removal on some basis of etymological authority is ridiculous. The entry was put there to show in Gaelic kingdoms the realm was organized by the nobility/sliocht in the same manner as the Polish nobility/szlachta, which you cannot address. Then, there is some kind of reference to historical expertise in the reply above, but this is one part of history you never learned about and you just removed any possibility of anyone else learning about - the Gaelic sliocht and Polish szlachta were nearly identical in characteristics. Horrible edit. Also, the words "sliocht" and "szlachta" are uncannily similar. That's patently obvious, not the ill-conceived etymological conclusions you came to - "Completely irrelevant Aside on Gaelic Society" - ludicrous. - Exxess (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * As to Aryan cited in the article later, which, if you did not knee-jerk make an edit, and actually read the entire article, you would see the cited references to Aryan - not by me, but by the authors in the references. Fringe nonsense maybe from your superlative vantage point of so-called expertise, but that is irrelevant. It's what the references say. - Exxess (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Quote - 'the claim that "There were Polish noble clans/szlachta of Celtic origin" is completely unsubstantiated and not borne out by history, nor indeed is it otherwise mentioned with any kind of sourcing in the article.' Well, life is short, this is in references books, particularly archaeological references, but no one has yet had time to enter this information in the article, but Gaelic "sliocht" and Polish "szlachta" have the same characteristics, "sliocht" and "szlachta" are spelled in a patently obvious similar way, and you just bludgeoned with your knee-jerk edit, anyone learning of the similarities. Horrible edit. - Exxess (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Irish phrase - "Sliocht sleachta ar shliocht bhur sleachta. 'Blessings on your posterity.'" Gaelic, Irish: Sliocht sleachta; Polish: SZLACHTA - posterity. Here's a challenge - explain your phrase - "no etymological relation", then you write you're going to avoid arguing an obvious point - ludicrous. Irish/Gaelic: Sliocht sleachta - posterity; Polish: szlachta - posterity. Patently obvious to an eight-year old they are related, in direct contradiction to your edit, and your justification for your edit - Oh, the horror. - Exxess (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * This is a comment from opposing editor,


 * "Indo-Aryan is irrelevant. It is not the same as Indo-European, and your use of the term Indo-Aryan to represent the shared heritage of the Celts and Germani makes me wonder what kind of books you've been reading."


 * I have to wonder if you even bothered reading the Szlachta article. As to another of your false claims, regarding Indo-Aryan, which you characterized as fringe:


 * 'The Szlachta were noble in the Aryan (see Alans) sense -- "noble" in contrast to the people over whom they ruled after coming into contact with them.' - Hutton, Richard Holt; Bagehot, Walter (January 1864). "The Races of the Old World". National Review. London, England: Robson and Levey. Retrieved 9 Oct 2014. Read it online.


 * "An exact counterpart of Szlachta society was the Meerassee (wiktionary:mirasdar) system of tenure of southern India—an aristocracy of equality—settled as conquerors among a separate race." - National Review. London, England: Robson and Levey. Retrieved 9 Oct 2014. Read it online.


 * "A more apt analogy might perhaps be made with the Rajputs of northern India. ... unlike any other gentry in Europe, the szlachta was not limited by nor did it depend for its status on either wealth, or land, or royal writ. It was defined by its function, that of a warrior caste." - Zamoyski, herbu Jelita, Adam (1998) [1987]. THE POLISH WAY: A THOUSAND-YEAR HISTORY OF THE POLES AND THEIR CULTURE (Fourth Printing ed.). New York City: Hippocrene Books. p. 55. ISBN 0-7818-0200-8


 * "It is not truly correct to consider the szlachta a class; they actually were more like a caste, the military caste, as in Hindu society." - Topór-Jakubowski, Theodore (2002). Sulima-Suligowski, Leonard Joseph (ed.). "Claiming Inherited Noble Status" (PDF). White Eagle: Journal of the Polish Nobility Association Foundation. Villa Anneslie, 529 Dunkirk Road, Anneslie, Towson, Baltimore, Baltimore county, MARYLAND, U.S.A.: Polish Nobility Association Foundation. 2002 (Spring/Summer): 5.


 * All these sources are on a fringe, according to your logic; Repeating: Indo-Aryan heritage / posterity.


 * Irish phrase - "Sliocht sleachta ar shliocht bhur sleachta. 'Blessings on your posterity.'" Gaelic, Irish: Sliocht sleachta; Polish: SZLACHTA - posterity. You claim no etymological connection for Gaelic "sliocht" and Polish "szlachta" and made a deletion/edit on that basis, but the words are spelled nearly the same, and both words mean precisely the same thing - posterity, and you've concluded no etymological relation. It boggles the mind. - Exxess (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Listen to pronunciation of Gaelic "sliocht" (press blue and white arrow)


 * Listen to pronunciation of Polish "szlachta": - Exxess (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Rather than reverting your ill-conceived edit, will wait for comment. Another mind-boggling rebuttal from you, made publicly, should be interesting, to write the least. Gaelic, Irish: "Sliocht sleachta ar shliocht bhur sleachta. 'Blessings on your posterity.'"; Polish SZLACHTA - posterity. Opposing editor writes, "the term discussed [sliocht] had no etymological relation to szlachta" - mind-boggling and mind-contorting. - Exxess (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * No matter where one looks, opposing editor's deletion/edit is ill-conceived and ill-informed in the extreme. Opposing editor writes, "Furthermore, the claim that 'There were Polish noble clans/szlachta of Celtic origin' is completely unsubstantiated and not borne out by history, ..."


 * "Celtic Poland ... They brought knowledge of the potter's wheel, advanced ferrous metallurgy and coinage - the Celts arrived in the southern areas of the current Polish territory 2.5 thousand years ago and significantly influenced the history of the region - Dr. Przemysław Dulęba from University of Wroclaw said in an interview with Polish Press Agency (PAP). ... Few people realize that the cradle of the Celts, despite appearances, was not Ireland and Great Britain, but continental Europe. They spread across Europe in the first half of the 1st millennium BC from the area extending north of the Alps (from Burgundy to the Czech Basin). ..."


 * https://poland.pl/history/history-poland/celtic-poland/ - Celtic Poland


 * Irish phrase - "Sliocht sleachta ar shliocht bhur sleachta. 'Blessings on your posterity.'" Gaelic, Irish: Sliocht sleachta; Polish: SZLACHTA - posterity. Opposing editor concludes (quoting): "rm completely irrelevant aside on Gaelic society; the term discussed had no etymological relation to szlachta"; You might want to rethink that, opposing editor, in light of the evidence and research. - Exxess (talk) 06:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Opposing editor - "... the Poles borrowed the term from Germanic (they didn't speak a Germanic language themselves) this does not show some sort of special relationship between the Poles and Celtic-speaking societies during the Middle Ages. ..." You presume the Poles borrowed from the Germans? On what evidence? Middle Ages? Quoting the article - "its members [szlachta] often referred to it as odwieczna (perennial)."


 * "... the Celts arrived in the southern areas of the current Polish territory 2.5 thousand years ago and significantly influenced the history of the region - Dr. Przemysław Dulęba from University of Wroclaw said in an interview with Polish Press Agency (PAP). ... Few people realize that the cradle of the Celts, despite appearances, was not Ireland and Great Britain, but continental Europe. ..."


 * https://poland.pl/history/history-poland/celtic-poland/ - Celtic Poland


 * Again, the "szlachta" are referenced as descendants of Polish kings of antiquity, just as the Gaelic "sliocht" are referenced as descendants of Gaelic kings of antiquity. The origins were continental Europe. Szlachta and sliocht both held land on the basis of that nobility. Also, the Polish "szlachta" were organized in clans/septs, exactly as the Gaelic "sliocht," so it needs to be said - the removal on some basis of etymological authority is ridiculous. The entry was put there to show in Gaelic kingdoms the realm was organized by the nobility/sliocht in the same manner as the Polish nobility/szlachta. The Celts originated in continental Europe. That is where Poland is, so are you so sure the Polish szlachta borrowed the word "szlachta" from the Germans? Irish phrase - "Sliocht sleachta ar shliocht bhur sleachta. 'Blessings on your posterity.'" Gaelic, Irish: Sliocht sleachta; Polish: SZLACHTA - posterity. - Exxess (talk) 07:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "There is no doubt that many of the tribes of Germania, who by the Augstan [sic] era had adopted Teutonic language and Northern German-Scandinavian archaeological culture, had Celtic origins." - https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.660269 - Celts and Germans of the first century BC - second century AD : an old question, a modern synthesis - Exxess (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Opposing editor - "rm completely irrelevant aside on Gaelic society; the term discussed had no etymological relation to szlachta"; ludicrous - Exxess (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Using opposing editor's own statement - "Poles borrowed the term [szlachta] from Germanic" - and then, Polish "szlachta," which means "posterity," matches the Gaelic/Irish "Sliocht sleachta ar shliocht bhur sleachta. 'Blessings on your posterity.'", it is common sense the Germanic and Celtic are related because the Celts originated from continental Europe. It's supported by reliable sources.


 * "The Greeks considered the barbarians of Central and Northern Europe to be Celts in the west, and Scythians in the east. Poseidonius was the first known authority to mention the Germanoi which he described as Celtic tribes of the Middle and Lower Rhineland, although he did not regard the Cimbri, Teutones and Ambrones as Germanoi."


 * "Caesar manipulated Poseidonius' term Germanoi to create a new deceptive concept of an ethnic divide between the tractable Galli west of the Rhine and the warlike, feral Germani east of the Rhine. Caesar's first encounter with these tribes was through Ariovistus, King of the Germani and his tribal confederacy. Caesar later equated the Germani with the Teutonic Suebi, which became his archetypal Germani. Caesar did this for his own political ends."


 * "When taken as a whole, the Historical, Linguistic and Archaeological evidence demonstrates that the picture which emerges is of Celtic tribes east of the Rhine which had been subsumed and assimilated by the increasingly dominant peoples of Teutonic culture. There is no doubt that many of the tribes of Germania, who by the Augustan era had adopted Teutonic language and Northern German-Scandindvidn [sic] archaeological culture, had Celtic origins. Between the time of Caesar in the mid-first century BC, and the end of the first century AD, a great movement of Teutonic tribes entered the already densely populated regions of Celtic central Gefmania [sic] and northern and eastern Gaul. They altered the ethnic, linguistic and cultural nature of the area and produced a hybrid population."


 * https://era.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/29925 - Celts and Germans of the first century BC-second century AD: an old question, a modern synthesis


 * The linguistic evidence shows opposing editor's position is ridiculous - "rm completely irrelevant aside on Gaelic society; the term discussed had no etymological relation to szlachta":


 * Irish phrase - "Sliocht sleachta ar shliocht bhur sleachta. 'Blessings on your posterity.'" Gaelic, Irish: Sliocht sleachta; Polish: SZLACHTA - posterity.


 * Not only were there Polish noble clans of Celtic origin, which the linguistic evidence shows, there were Polish noble clans of Germanic origin, and the sources show the Germans and the Celts are a hybrid, hence why one gets:


 * Irish phrase - "Sliocht sleachta ar shliocht bhur sleachta. 'Blessings on your posterity.'" Gaelic, Irish: Sliocht sleachta; Polish: SZLACHTA - posterity,


 * and the existence of statements like, "The Polish term 'szlachta' was borrowed from the German."


 * That's also why the Gaelic sliocht/nobility and Polish szlachta/nobility have the same political characteristics, which opposing editor never addressed when challenged.


 * No matter where one turns, whether to common sense, linguistic evidence, or reliable sources, opposing editor's deletion/edit, and this is being far too kind, is ill-conceived, ill-informed, false, and knee-jerk in the extreme. Opposing editor's reply in this talk references nothing outside opposing editor's opinion, and one would have to guess, an over-idealized self-conception of expertise (that's supposed to be taken at face value?); but, when reliable sources are referenced, nothing supports opposing editor's position - "rm completely irrelevant aside on Gaelic society; the term discussed had no etymological relation to szlachta". It crumbles.


 * Phrases from opposing editor such as "completely irrelevant", "completely unsubstantiated," "anyone with a basic knowledge of history," "wasting more time on refuting fringe nonsense," "arguing this obvious point," "life is too short," while citing nothing outside opposing editor's over-idealized self-conception of expertise (that's supposed to be accepted at face value?), means no substance to opposing editor's position and leaving the field of battle to concede defeat. Then opposing editor reverts a reversion of opposing editor's original edit/deletion, which like the original deletion/edit, is knee-jerk and is trying to win an argument on stubbornness and imperiousness alone. This kind of thing should not exist on Wikipedia. Cite what you do not agree with, which was referenced, with "dubious," and then proceed to the Talk. Save imperious statements like, "rm completely irrelevant aside on Gaelic society; the term discussed had no etymological relation to szlachta" for the Talk, where it can be challenged, and in this case, destroyed. That's constructive, not knee-jerk deletions/edits of referenced information that opposing editor could not fathom, because their so-called expertise got in their way, which deny readers the information. "Completely irrelevant" - no, opposing editor is just completely ill-informed.


 * From the looks of outside references, opposing editor's position crumbles in the face of the facts. This kind of the thing should not exist on Wikipedia - trigger-happy editors deleting something they cannot fathom because of their ignorance, and deleting without discussion. This was a peculiar instance of gratuitous Wikipedia violence and savagery against the mind, nothing short of a Wikipedia atrocity, committed openly, and defended, no less. This kind of egregious mental sloth, and utter, benighted ignorance deserves a summary response. - Exxess (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I concur that this seems like linguistic OR. None of the sources cited discuss szlachta. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Opposing editor stated "sliocht" and "szlachta" have no etymological relation. Irish phrase - "Sliocht sleachta ar shliocht bhur sleachta. 'Blessings on your posterity.'" Gaelic, Irish: Sliocht sleachta; Polish: SZLACHTA - posterity. Original research or not, that's a ridiculous conclusion, and it's false. Anyone who challenges that engages in an exercise of futility of denying the obvious.


 * The sources do discuss szlachta - descendants of kings, who held land on the basis of that subsequent nobility, and organized politically in clans/septs - the sliocht.


 * sliocht - "sliocht m (genitive singular sleachta, nominative plural sleachta)" - "1. offspring, progeny"


 * szlachta - "Etymology; From Middle High German slahte ('genus, kind, species, race') (compare German Geschlecht)."


 * German and Celtic are a hybrid. That is not original research and appears in sources, cited above. Szlachta, from the above, has a Germanic/Celtic origin, Celts originating in continental Europe. No source that says it that directly - YET, but to deny it is to deny the obvious.


 * This could be stated in the article, Etymology section, as, "The German and Celtic people are a hybrid people.[source] Gaelic society has a word 'sliocht' identical in meaning to the Polish word 'szlachta', the Polish word derived from Middle High German 'slahte' (genus, kind, species, race). The Gaelic word 'sliocht' means 'progeny/posterity/heritage,' as does the Polish word 'szlachta.' See the Irish phrase - "Sliocht sleachta ar shliocht bhur sleachta. 'Blessings on your posterity.'"[source] The Polish szlachta and the Gaelic sliocht, both descendants of kings, held land on the basis of that subsequent nobility, and organized politically in clans/septs.[source][source][source]"


 * The above is factual and neutral. All can be sourced. If someone can point out original research in the above, please do so. I do not think Wikipedia should prevent readers from drawing inferences that are obvious on an objection of synthesis. Each statement above can be sourced, and each statement is factual. Let readers draw what inferences they will. I do not think Wikipedia should engage in presumptions of dictating what conclusions readers might draw from facts that are sourced. That stops thinking. See opposing editor's reply.


 * My opinion - trigger-happy editors should not be denying readers information, but should instead improve the article. Build on the information presented, which was reasonable, do not deny it to readers. My hunch is the original deletion/edit was based on presumption, easily shown to be false, and was not constructive. It was destructive. Then, time and effort are wasted on refuting a punctilio of objection the most flimsy and ill-informed. Again, before trigger-happy editors start deleting, on information that is reasonable, cite what raises one's umbrage with "dubious" or "original research," then go to Talk. - Exxess (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Cossack szlachta
I don't intend to return my edit right away, but I still believe that it should be included in the article. Just to remind what it was:

Now the main arguments from user Exxcess were they were not szlachta of PLC because:
 * Cossacks started anti-Polish rebellion which makes it impossibe for them to be szlachta
 * In case they moved they would lose their citizenship

Although I had already provided numerous sources above, but most of them were unaccounted as they are Ukrainian. It is hard to come by source regarding this topic for numerous reasons in Ukrainian itself or even in Polish, while close to impossible in English. Only generalisations that cover history of Ukraine altogether that do not cover any topics in detail, as their coverage would make a book turn into several volumes.

I don't intend to get in Cossack-Szlachta fight all over again. My edit is not about rebellion, Polish or anti-Polish identity etc. As this is article about Szlachta of PLC, the only intention I have is to add information about szlachta that before, during or after rebellion received that szlachta title, but due to rebellion, situation with Orthodox church etc. moved to Hetmanate and formed Cossack szlachta. Previously I mentioned Krychevsky, Orlyk and others, but because they received their nobility before or they did not fight in rebellion and moved to Hetmanate that they were somehow relieved of the szlachta status. Now that is true for some, but not for everybody. The best argument to prove it wrong would be to show Cossack who were nobilitated during that "anti-Polish" uprising that somehow made it impossible for Cossack to be at the same time be a szlachta nobleman and a cossack. The source for that would Volumina Legum (collection of Polish laws from 1347 - 1793—1795; very good example that the resolution of such topics can't be done only using English sources. Do try to search even for its description in English). These are just some of the most famous nobilitations and re-nobilitations that took place during 1648-1672 that I encountered during writing articles for Ukrainian Wikipedia, but as we can see fighting against the crown did not make it impossible to be szlachta at the same time. I don't have time to cover all Volumes to find all nobilitations, but as you can see we are talking about at least dozens of families of mostly high-ranking officers whose descendants would receive confirmation of their nobility based on PLC szlachta status of their ancestors. And that does not include pro-Russian starshyna that did not get nobilitated fox example during Treaty of Hadiach, minor Cossacks (like most of Pinsk and Lubych szlachta), clergy like Prince Gedeon Chetvertinsky, Raphael Zaborovsky etc.; and szlachta that later moved to Hetmanate like Orlyk etc.

Korwinski (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The Khmelnytsky Uprising was anti-Polish. Not because I said so, or I care, but because a renowned Ukrainian scholar said so in his published work; therefore, do not delete statements that are referenced because you as an editor do not personally like a point of view for whatever personal and political reasons you may have. That it is unfair to readers.


 * As to the rest of what Korwinski (talk) is concerned about, be bold - put in the article, but Starshina article might be better. The reference works say the Zaporozhian Host were executed as traitors and rebels of the Polish Commonwealth because they hated Polish authority and were attempting to create their own sovereignty. The rebels gutted and disemboweled Polish forces opposing them, hence anti-Polish.


 * Korwinski (talk) writing about "Cossack szlachta" means "Cossack nobility." The Cossacks thought they should have the same political privileges and immunities as were secured to Polish nobles. When the Cossacks did not get what they wanted, they warred against the Polish Commonwealth, some were executed as traitors, some gutted and disemboweled Polish forces in retaliation, and they wanted to form their own sovereignty, with its own subsequent nobility - the staryshyna (see Starshina).


 * Korwinski (talk) is using "szlachta" in the general sense, as a reference to nobility in general, not in the specific sense - a long history of political allegiance to the Polish Commonwealth, szlachta land held being allodial, hence szlachta not vassals of the Polish king, and the Polish king not the szlachta's overlord. Cossacks wanted this secured to them by a recognition of being szlachta equal to the Polish szlachta. When the Cossacks did not get it, they rebelled against Polish overlordship, so they could create their own sovereignty, and a new nobility, the Starshina, the Cossack aristocracy, with rights equal to the Polish szlachta. This is what Korwinski wants to insert into the article - Cossack nobility, the starshyna, is nobility like the Polish szlachta. The reasoning is Cossack starshyna is noble, Polish szlachta is noble, therefore Cossack nobility is szlachta - no historical differences, no distinctions - just a general mishmash of ideas and concepts, an eighteen-foot freeway pylon weighing 100 tons is to be shoved through a drinking straw. - Exxess (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * a) My edit does not mention KU in any way specifically. By "civil war" I'm referring to overall events that include KU and Ruin.
 * b) My edit is does mention reasons for Cossacks/Cossack starshyna to join rebellion as my edit is not about them. Although their reasons were similar.
 * c) My edit is not about Cossacks or Cossack Starshyna specifically. They and szlachta of PLC are not same thing. Although many Cossacks and Cossack starshyna itself either were szlachta or became szlachta of PLC via nobilitations during the wars.
 * Again. My edit is about szlachta (not Cossacks or Cossack starshyna) of PLC that for numerours reasons and events moved to former territory of PLC on Left bank of Ukraine and became basis for szlachta of Malorossia. Statement "Korwinski is using "szlachta" in the general sense, as a reference to nobility in general" is a lie as I'm not talking about their evolution in the future, but referring to szlachta of PLC specifically. And in order to prove that I've provided not only sources that state that in general, but links to the original Decrees of the Sejm that nobilitated (and re-nobilitated) them as an example. I'm not sure how clearer I can be about that. Volumina legum books are available online and I've stated exact pages where they are named by name. Korwinski (talk) 03:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * You do not require anyone's permission to edit the article. Add what you think is appropriate. Be bold. My opinion - explain the connections and distinctions between Cossack nobility and Polish nobility. That might require a new section in the article devoted to this specific area. No one can stop you. Cossack nobility wanted the right of their land held being allodial, a right which Polish nobles had secured to them since antiquity. Land held being allodial eliminates overlordship. To maintain overlordship of the Cossacks, the Polish nobility would not give the rights of nobility to the Cossacks, so the Cossacks warred and took it and created a new aristocracy, the Starshina, and a new sovereignty. - Exxess (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * You said your edit is not about Cossacks, but you titled this section "Cossack szlachta", a contradiction. - Exxess (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * My intentions are simple - I wish to follow Wikipedia's guidelines in order to improve it. As previously my edits led you to start Edit warring, I want to avoid it this time. Thats why I started this thread before editting the actual article.
 * I used Cossack Szlachta title in order not to confuse it with previous discussion.
 * "My opinion - explain the connections and distinctions between Cossack nobility and Polish nobility."


 * Just to simply here is the difference between szlachta I'm talking about and Malorossian szlachta that it will evolve into:
 * Cossack Szlachta from before Mazepa's rule: (or szlachta of which I'm talking about)
 * Very same szlachta with very same origin as other szlachta of PLC. Exceptions: rare nobles from Balkans, Moldavia, Wallachia and those who got nobilitated by Russian Tsar. There was overlapse of Cossack and Szlachta status as most of szlachta became cossacks, but not all cossacks were szlachta.
 * see Mykhailo Hrushevsky's History of Ukraine-Rus' as an example:
 * "what draws our attention is the fact that szlachta here is clearly not included in the Zaporozhian army, nor is it under his rule: the Zaporozhian army and the szlachta are included in the concept of Malorossia as part of a separate, independent of each other. The notion of supremacy or protectorate of the Zaporozhian army is not emphasized: the army is behind szlachta, perhaps only because it found itself in the role of mediator between the tsar and "Little Russia", as the initiator of its transition to tsarist supremacy. From this point of view, the fundamental value of the noble privilege is great - although it had no practical value. But in March [when Pereyaslav Rada occured - Korwinwski] this was not foreseen. The best illustration for this is the hesitation of the Cossack ambassadors themselves - Bogdanovych and Teteria, where it is more useful for them to be considered: either part of Cossacks of Zaporozhian Host or as part of the szlachta, which according to Polish tradition could be in direct jurisdiction of Kyiv voivode."
 * Cossack Szlachta from after Mazepa's rule. (or szlachta of which I'm not talking about)
 * Hetmanate became a stable political entity. Mazepa's reforms led to completion of formation of Malorossian szlachta that on cultural, historical and other forms of identification basis now started to include:
 * a) large number of noble and non-noble immigrants from from Balkans, Moldavia, Wallachia and especially PLC:
 * see S.M. Solovyov, 'History of Russia from the Earliest Times'
 * Note:
 * a.1) its a quote from original source from 17th century, not a statement from Solovyov himself.
 * a.2) I hope I don't have to explain again that at the time Pole meant szlachta
 * "In August 1696, the Kiev voivode, Prince Boryatinsky, sent to the Russian resident in Poland, Deacon Nikitin, an old-timer Suslov, with two reiters for the news. This Suslov brought his news to Nikitin: The initial people are now all Poles in the Malorossian army. Under Obidovsky, Mazepa's nephew, there is not a single Cossack servant. The Cossacks had a great complaint against the hetmans, colonels and sotnyk's, that in order to eradicate the old Cossacks, the former liberties had been taken away, turned them into servants, and dismantled the lands all by themselves. Before from every village nominated 150 Cossacks, and now just a few. Hetman keeps in his mercy and charity only okhotnytsky, kompaneysky and serdyutsky regiments, hoping for their loyalty and in these regiments there is not a single person of the natural Cossack, all Poles."


 * b) High ranking starshyna started to identify as szlachta as well, even in case it did not receive any nobilitations. Later some of their descendants will fake their nobilitation by claiming to belong to the same name szlachta of PLC.
 * c) ordinary Cossacks
 * d) clergy and non-cossack szlachta
 * I will consider writing separate section, but first a) I need to figure out how to make it as small as possible (this article is to large already) and b) we need to fix lead in the very beginning. Currently it includes mention of the nobilities that joined it and what became of them, while Cossack nobility having the very same origins of them it is the only one that has a bit different history after 1648-1700s.
 * As for the rest, while nobilitation would've been more desirable, but no. They wanted to become Registered Cossacks, whose rights included: exemption from taxes, the right of land ownership, self-government with the appointed starshyna. Starshyna existed from before Khmelnytsky times and it many of them were already szlachta. Malorossian szlachta was not formed of just Cossack Starshyna, although indeed in the end only latter one became actual aristocracy (by it I mean highest and wealthiest class of nobility overall) after Hetmanate was abolished.
 * see D. Miller, "Transformation of a Cossack starshyna into a dvoryanstvo" (1897):
 * "Poland had to have a much greater influence - it passed on to the Hetmanate its aristocratic and serfdom traditions, its culture and, most importantly, its aristocratic laws. It goes without saying that such external influences are not enough to evoke a special privileged, mass-dominating class among a society that is apparently quite democratic. This class was born itself, without external influences, it was born, obviously, because in this very society there were conditions that caused it to be born..."

Korwinski (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Korwinski (talk), "Edit war?" - the sources said the Khmelnytsky Uprising was anti-Polish. The Khmelnytsky Uprising article says it's anti-Polish. You kept deleting "anti-Polish" before the Khmelnytsky Uprising, even though "anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising" had sources using the exact words "anti-Polish." It would have been better to cite "anti-Polish" as "dubious" in your opinion and then go to Talk, instead of deleting a sourced reference. That's all the so-called "edit war" was about, the phrase "anti-Polish." It was not about anything else.


 * Something I put in this article was just deleted. I do not think it is good policy to deny readers information and points of view. I do not think lazy, knee-jerk, trigger-happy, smug editors should be deleting information they have not considered or do not like. Cite the information with "dubious" that is unfathomable to them in their over-idealized self-conception of being some kind of expert, and after citing with "dubious" explain in Talk why it is "dubious" to them, so the information might be tweaked or improved to fit the article. That is constructive. Destructively deleting/editing denies readers the information. - Exxess (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I have no objections to your sources and "anti-Polish" statement where it is overall relevant (for example in Khmelnytsky Uprising article). But they were and are unrelated to my edit. If you were to add anti-magnate, anti-Catholic etc. (overall all true, no objection there as well) I would stand to remove them as well because they would be unrelated to my edit.
 * Also I provided sources (including one from Janusz Tazbir (director of Instute of history of Polish Academy of Sciences)) that clearly state that at the time Polish meant szlachta, not a representative of a modern Polish nation. Which considering the topic of my edit would not be the right characteristic for their reasons for Uprising. Unfortunately at the time you completely ignored my sources and proceeded to change my edit the way you like until it was removed completely. Korwinski (talk) 03:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Korwinski (talk), you cannot see it, but putting "anti-Polish" before Khmelnytsky Uprising to get "anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising" (sources say so, not me) makes the Cossack Hetmanate more interesting and more intriguing. It's even more interesting that Polish nobles were part of creating this new sovereignty, with their own constitution, no less, that in its force and effect was anti-Polish. Emergence of Cossack Hetmanate under Russian protection = anti-Polish; Decline of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth = anti-Polish; Decline of the Roman Catholic church in Dnieper Ukraine = anti-Polish; Territorial and political expansion of the Russian Tsardom = anti-Polish; Cossack lands in Ukraine fall under Russian hegemony = anti-Polish. Poland had to deal with it. It's understood later this came to be under joint Polish-Russian administration. Expand your mind. - Exxess (talk) 04:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Khmelnytsky Uprising, "Cossack szlachta," "Starshyna" = land grab, and what was in their way was the Polish nobility. Some Polish nobles flipped loyalties to get land. Some were executed as traitors as a result. It is good to be king, but the Polish king could not lord it over his nobles because land held by szlachta was allodial, so the Polish king was not in a feudal relationship with his nobles, but the Polish nobles lorded it over the Cossacks and Ukraine. The Hetmanate is a new sovereignty with a new aristocracy. It even had its own constitution. Strictly speaking, it is not szlachta. Treaties and loyalties to Russia, the Tsar, enemies of Poland... Any alliance with Poland was for convenience, not love of Poland, except the love of Polish noble political immunities and privileges, which was not given to the Rebels, so it was taken in the anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising. They did not love Poland. They loved the thought of having Polish noble political immunities and privileges, and being overlords, and when Polish forces resisted this, the rebellion gutted and disemboweled Polish forces. When things calmed down, Polish nobility established themselves again in the Ukraine. It is all in the history books. - Exxess (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * And again, you're ignoring the fact that many of them received it from the Crown (see ennoblement's above. I wrote out just the surnames, but most if not all of them come with a land). For example Cossack colonel Michal Zelenski receiving szlachta title and Serebryna village:
 * "Na instancya Urodzonego Hetmana y woyska naszego Zaporowskiego, stosusuiae sie tez do kommissyi Hadziackeiy, do kleynotu szlachectwa Polskiego przyimuiemy osoby nizey opisane, u one z potomstwem ich oboiey plci za szlachte Polska deklaruimey, to iest, Szlachetnych Michala Zielenskiego, Pulkownika naszego Braclawskiego, temuz przywiley lennosci na danine siola Serebryna approbuiemy."


 * And the others got it from the Hetman, who got that right from both Crown and Tsar.
 * The rest is true about most of szlachta of PLC, not just the one that sided with Cossacks. Anyhow it is still irrelevant and No original research. Korwinski (talk) 03:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * When Poland disappeared from the map of Europe, Polish peasants were not interested in the resurrection of a Polish state because of living under Polish noble political immunities, privileges, and overlordship. - Exxess (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Put in the lead section of the article:


 * "As the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569–1795) evolved and expanded in territory, its membership grew to include the leaders of Ducal Prussia and Livonia, and members of the Cossack Hetmanate."
 * Not quiet sure thats the right description. PLC did not expand its territory on lands of Hetmanate, in the end rather Hetmanate expanded its rule on territory of PLC. Also most of the szlachta that fought against the Crown were already szlachta of PLC before they became leaders of Hetmanate.Korwinski (talk) 03:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * You do not need anyone's permission to do this. You have the facts. You have the reference works and reliable sources. Readers should have this information. - Exxess (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "As the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569–1795) evolved and expanded in territory, its membership grew to include the leaders of Ducal Prussia and Livonia. The szlachta also included members of the Cossack Hetmanate."


 * Very simple. That's my suggestion, but, do as you wish. You have the facts. You have the references. You have the reliable sources. You do not need my permission. You do not need anyone's permission.


 * As an aside, the only thing I argued about is the Khmelnytsky Uprising was anti-Polish. Not because I agree. Not because I care. Not because it's my opinion. Because the sources say so - Emergence of Cossack Hetmanate under Russian protection = anti-Polish; Decline of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth = anti-Polish; Decline of the Roman Catholic church in Dnieper Ukraine = anti-Polish; Territorial and political expansion of the Russian Tsardom = anti-Polish; Cossack lands in Ukraine fall under Russian hegemony = anti-Polish. That is what the sources say. - Exxess (talk) 03:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * That being said, as your research shows, the szlachta included members of this Cossack Hetmanate. Cannot argue with reliable sources... - Exxess (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * If you read ALL my comments, I always said this information about the szlachta and the Hetmanate should be included in the article, but I also say the sources say the Khmelnytsky Uprising was anti-Polish. Not because I agree. Not because I care. Not because it's my opinion. Because the sources say so. - Exxess (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Repeating - Korwinski (talk), you cannot see it, but putting "anti-Polish" before Khmelnytsky Uprising to get "anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising" (sources say so, not me) makes the Cossack Hetmanate more interesting and more intriguing. It's even more interesting that Polish nobles were part of creating this new sovereignty, with their own constitution, no less, that in its force and effect was anti-Polish. Emergence of Cossack Hetmanate under Russian protection = anti-Polish; Decline of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth = anti-Polish; Decline of the Roman Catholic church in Dnieper Ukraine = anti-Polish; Territorial and political expansion of the Russian Tsardom = anti-Polish; Cossack lands in Ukraine fall under Russian hegemony = anti-Polish. Poland had to deal with it. It's understood later this came to be under joint Polish-Russian administration. George Washington was a Citizen of the united states of America, but Virginia was his country. It used to be England, until Washington became anti-English. Virginia has a written constitution, and there is a written Constitution for the united states of America. Szlachta that became the Hetmanate might have been Polish politically (Citizens of the Republic), but that does not mean they felt Poland was their country. That might have had something to do with them gutting and disemboweling Polish forces - Batih massacre, two days of beheadings and disemboweling of Polish captives - "anti-Polish" Khmelnytsky Uprising indeed. - Exxess (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Malorussian ("Little Russia" - Modern-Day Territories of Belarus and Ukraine) Szlachta


 * "Long-lasting social, political, ethnic, and religious tensions in the Polish-Lithuanian Republic led to the anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising (1648 - 1654), during which a large number of ethnically-distinct Ruthenians, who politically were Citizens of the Polish-Lithuannian Republic (szlachta), joined the Cossack rebellion and played a key part in forming the state of the Zaporozhian Host, the Cossack Hetmanate, a new sovereignty with its own constitution. The exclusive Sarmatian ideology embodied in Polish aristocratic law and practised in the Kresy by Polish nobles was racist. Being noble with an aristocratic lineage meant being genetically superior with a consequent right to direct, dictate, dominate, tax, and own the genetically inferior, including owning the land the genetically inferior positioned themselves on. The disdainful approach of Polish lords (szlachta) toward Ukrainian peasants was a key cause of the social, political, ethnic, and religious tensions leading to the anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising in Ukraine. The Ruthenian szlachta were Citizens of the Polish-Lithuanian Republic politically, hence szlachta, but, ethnically, their primordial country was Ruthenia, not Poland, so they said, 'To Hell With Poland. We will join the anti-Polish Cossacks.' The Cossacks were also an ethnically distinct people, denied full rights, political privileges and immunities secured to Polish lords (szlachta), hence subject to Polish overlordship. The ethnically Ruthenian szlachta proceeded to participate in the ensuing land grab, known as the anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising, battling Polish forces loyal to the Polish-Lithuanian Republic. After several battles, the ethnically-distinct Cossacks participated in two days of anti-Polish beheadings and disemboweling of Polish captives loyal to the Republic, which was known as the Batih massacre. The emergence of the Cossack Hetmanate under Russian protection was anti-Polish in its force and effects, including decline of the Polish–Lithuanian Republic, decline of the Roman Catholic church in Dnieper Ukraine, territorial and political expansion of the Russian Tsardom, and Cossack lands in Ukraine falling under Russian hegemony. All this set the stage for the later disappearance from the map of Europe of the weakened Polish-Lithuanian Republic via the partitions of Poland, which began in 1772. In subsequent treaties with the Polish Sejm and Russian Tsar, having conceded some of their sovereignty, and under joint Polish-Russian administration, members of the Cossack Hetmanate secured their political rights, privileges, and immunities as nobles, and via intermarriages with other Cossack starshyna (Cossack aristocracy) of non-noble origins and nobility that later moved to Malorossia ("Little Russia" - modern-day territories of Belarus and Ukraine) from the Polish-Lithuanian Republic, Wallachia, Moldavia, Balkans, etc., formed the Malorossian szlachta ." - Exxess (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 13 April 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 14:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Szlachta → Polish nobility – Formal request, to put forth the suggestion of TheEditMate below Lembit Staan (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I want to propose to move this page to "Polish nobility". All other articles about the nobilities in various countries simply use English world "nobility" with adjectives such as Swedish nobility, Spanish nobility, British nobility, etc. and Polish one is literally only one standing out of the rule. The word szlachta is not special nor limited to use towards Polish variety. It directly translates to the word nobility and is used both to nobility within Poland as well as in the entire world. What is more, even Polish Wikipedia doesn't differentiate the world simply calling the article "Szlachta w Polsce" (Nobility in Poland). There is no reason whatsoever to keep this article with this name when it is not any particular world that can't be translated. Personally, I believe the reason it was created as such, is weird custom noticeable with a lot of Polish-speaking internet users, who tend to favor Polish worlds in the contrast to the English ones when referring to anything Polish-related for no particular reasons, which in my opinion is problematic, especially in translating anything Polish-related. TheEditMate (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. In English, the word szlachta means "Polish nobility". A while ago the same issue was handed with the Russian term   Dvoryanstvo.  I reverted the page move of TheEditMate because it was accompanied with brainless replacement of the word "szlachta" with "nobility" in the article, but I had no time late at night.  Lembit Staan (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me think more. Britannica and some other major sources use title Szlachta. So that WP:COMMONAME rule must be considered. Lembit Staan (talk) 05:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Food for thought. GScholar hit count: "gentry in Poland" 50, "nobility in Poland" <200, "nobility of Poland" ~200, "Polish gentry" 2k, "Polish nobility" 6k, szlachta Poland 17k... (I added Poland to control for English language, but I will also admit there are some false hits like to articles by a scholar named Szlachta). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Object. The word szlachta exists in English academic discourse (here's a random example: "The Cossack experiment in szlachta democracy in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth: the Hadiach (Hadziacz) union"), no need to dumb it down. Redirects to here will do. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]&#124; reply here 05:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus. The term "szlachta" does indeed appear in English-language sources. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Indeed, in English the szlachta is the nobility in the context of Poland. Of the five WP:CRITERIA, consistency is invoked in the move request, but insufficient evidence is given to support the move to meet the others. —Michael Z. 14:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Good point, and I would also like to clarify a point made User:TheEditMate above. Yes, in Polish, szlachta means "all nobility" (ex. "szlachta francuska" -> "French nobility" ), but in English, it means Polish nobility only (or Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian one wants to split hairs). So the term is a linguistic false friend. pl:szlachta = nobility. pl:Szlachta w Polsce = szlachta. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose No evidance that szlachta isn't the wp:commonname in english—blindlynx (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH based on the Google Ngrams. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'll ping User:Nihil novi, my go-to expert on Polish and English terminology in English. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Title = Szlachta (Polish nobility) [Polish-English alliance continues, peace ensues] - Exxess (talk) 06:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The term "nobility" is used with different meanings in different countries; therefore the proposed title, "Polish nobility", is likely to promote confusion rather than clarity. The fact that the word szlachta is the most common term in English for this Polish institution, is a further good reason to retain the word "Szlachta" as the title of this article. Thank you. Nihil novi (talk) 06:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, is correct. Nobility ranks below royalty. In Poland, the szlachta were equal before the king, and the king was not the overlord of the szlachta. The szlachta were not the king's tenants. To be precise, the szlachta were above nobility. Nobility implies hierarchy and feudalism. Adam Zamoyski writes feudalism was never introduced into Poland. - Exxess (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, the opening sentence is incorrect, too - "The szlachta was a legally privileged noble class in the Kingdom of Poland ...." Should be: "The szlachta was a lawfully privileged caste in the Kingdom of Poland." Adam Zamoyski writes the szlachta were a warrior caste. - Exxess (talk) 06:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Nihil novi Dawid2009 (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.