Talk:Zaporozhian Cossacks

Requested move 22 June 2018

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Mahveotm (talk) 10:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Zaporozhian Cossacks → Zaporizhian Cossacks – as it's Zaporizhia 46.200.143.183 (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * strongly support, per WP:COMMONNAME based on https://geonames.usgs.gov/ and The name of this place was Zaporizhian Sich, which is also the original title of this article. Here's some English language sources. Historians:    . Travel guides . Government/Library of Congress . 46.200.143.183 (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The historians you cite here, and the Library of Congress link, all use the spelling "Zaporozhian." The Magocsi link shows extensive discussion of "Zaporozhian Cossacks." The Encyclopedia of Ukraine and other sources cited on the page also use this spelling. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Laszlo Panaflex's observations. "Zaporizhia" was the name of the region they operated from, but not the name of the cossack host residing there. Aside from one badly written Ukrainian travel brochure, the references provided by the nom all use 'Zaporozhian cossacks/host/sich, etc.', so I fail to understand where this is coming from. Incidentally, see also "Habsburgs and Zaporozhian Cossacks: the diary of Erich Lassota von Steblau, 1594" edited and with an introduction by Lubomyr R. Wynar; translated by Orest Subtelny. There is absolutely no doubt that "Zaporozhian Cossacks" is the academic WP:COMMONNAME in the English language. The request is a strange one considering that the nom lives in Ukraine, and must be aware of the fact that it follows a long established grammatical precedent in Ukrainian where they are often referred to as simply 'Запорожці' (Zaporozhtsi). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose They have been called the "Zaporozhian cossacks" in English for a very long time. The "i" spelling is evidently based on an mistaken analogy with the present day name for the city, which the current fashion is to spell Zaporizhia.  Google books supports the case that the common name in English writing is "Zaporozhian cossacks":
 * Google books "Zaporozhian cossacks" about 6,280 results
 * Google books "Zaporizhian cossacks" about 152 results
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proof of a Cossack raid on Constantinople?
By 1615 and 1625, Cossacks had managed to raze townships on the outskirts of Constantinople, forcing the Ottoman Sultan Murad IV to flee his palace.[7]

Are there any reliable sources referencing it? I have not found mentions of it anywhere else. Currently, the source used is an exotic Web1.0 site from 2009. A complete joke.--Adûnâi (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes. The Cossacks got to Feodosia and twice raided Constantinople, see Cossack_raid_on_Istanbul_(1615) and Cossack_raid_on_Istanbul_(1620) although the latter sourcing is um ifffy.--FeralOink (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Origins rewrite revert
This edit is not an improvement. It needs to be put into narrative form and properly fleshed out. There are numerous grammatical and coherence problems. The article now begins "Cossacks is a local condition..." What? They arose due to policy of the then government. What policy and government? "The first one was written..." The first what? Whose theories are these? There are incomplete sentences and much of it is incoherent. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Theories


 * Autochthonous - Cossacks is a local condition that arose due to the need to protect the southern border of the Lithuanian Principality. The Cossacks arose centrally in accordance with the state policy of the then government. The first one was written by Martin Belsky, a descendant of the Cossack elder. On this was also Samiylo Velychko, and subsequently, in a detailed justification, Mikhail Maksymovych. The supporter of this dogma was also Mikhail Hrushevsky.
 * Boyar - Cossacks formed on the basis of the Russian boyars and the infamous military people of Lithuania and Poland, professional soldiers who did not receive the status of gentry and were forced to engage in war and robbery (Antonovich, Lepiavko).
 * Caregiver - Cossacks were formed on the basis of industrial workers of representatives of different classes, who went to the seasonal crafts in the Black Sea and Caspian steppes. A large part of the nurses were runaway peasants from Lithuania, Poland and Muscovy, which is why runaway theory is also called runaway. For the defense of the Tatars, nurses took their weapons, organized themselves in armed units. They survived chiefly from hunting and fishing and raiding the Asiatic tribes for horses and food. In the 16th century, a great organizer, Dmytro Vyshnevetsky, a Ukrainian noble, united these different groups into a strong military organization. This theory is dominant in Soviet and post-Soviet historiography.

Hypothesis


 * Nomadic The nomadic hypothesis was that the Cossacks came from one or more nomadic peoples who at different times lived in the territory of the Northern Black Sea. It is not clear when the first Cossack communities on the Lower Dnieper began to form. There are signs and stories of similar people living in the steppes as early as the 12th century AD. According to this hypothesis the Cossacks' ancestors were the Scythians, Sarmatians, Khazars, Polovtsy (Cumans), Circassians (Adygs), Tatars, and others. The nomadic hypothesis of the origin of the Cossacks was formed under the influence of the Polish historical school of the 16th-17th centuries and was connected with the theory of the Sarmatian origin of the gentry. According to the traditional tradition of deriving the origin of the state or people from a certain people of antiquity, the Cossack chroniclers of the 18th century advocated the Khazar origin of the Cossacks. With the expansion of the source base and the formation of historical science, nomadic hypotheses were rejected by official historiography. For the first time, Alexander Rigelman pointed out the imperfection of the hypothesis. In the 20th century, the Russian scientist Gumilyov was an apologist for the Polovtsian origin of the Cossacks. In the XXI century. This hypothesis - concerning Cossacks, Donts and Kubans - has been refuted by a number of genetic studies.
 * Brodnic Cossacks are the descendants of brodnici, berladnici and Galician moguls who lived in the 11th-13th centuries in the Northern Black Sea Coast (author Golubovsky). Partly this hypothesis was supported by Gumilev. At the same time, they pointed out that there was no direct connection between the communes of the brodnici and the Cossacks, due to the existence of a time gap.


 * what is the difference between a theory and a hypothesis in the above? Toddy1 (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * the difference is that the theory has more scientific weight, while the hypothesis is very unlikely or/and has been refuted. SirLustitia (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I will try to improve my edits. I translate the text of Ukrainian and Russian authors into English, and I make mistakes, because my level of English is not so great. I will try to improve the text, but I will be glad if someone rewrite my edits to normal English. SirLustitia (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Restoring subjectivity to the page, inhibiting detrimental interests and the removal of the the undoutable notional mentions of the Zaporizhian Cossacks as a people.
This page is one of many fallen the target of chauvinistic and revisionist behaviour seeking to alter the page to suit an agenda, enabling historical distortion in the process. The Zaporizhian Cossacks undeniable and non-negotiable connection to Ukrainian history and the Ukrainian nation seek to be ameliorated and negated by those with misplaced and negative interests in the page. As well as wiping factual informtion that those relevant disagree with, the adopted nomencalture of today "Zaporizhian" is being intentionally removed in place of a word more comfortable for those with a more suitable page in mind-'Zaporozhians'. There is not a Wikipedia rule or guideline I have come across that stipulates that one uniform spelling must be used and that all other mentions of another spelling even if sourced directly from a book must be wiped. Yet here we are, where accounts exhaust themselves removing spellings they find disagreeable but coincidentally are a Russian spelling. It appears some accounts struggle to understand that Wikipedia like most encylopedias are heavily rooted in citation and corroboration, as these are the only forms that create reliability and help improve the site and its information. Opinion or something you disagree with doesn't trump cited fact.DanielLerish (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)DanielLerish

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Coin of Vladimir the Great (reverse).svg