Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-20 Battle of Konotop

Who are the involved parties?
User: hillock65, User: Russianname

What is the involved article(s)?
Battle of Konotop

What's going on?
User: Russianname continually tags the article with NPOV tag with never-ending list of demands. The latest is his demand to exclude the evidence of famous Russian historian Sergey Solovyov because he considers him politically biased. No evidence of his bias has been presented. (The point of view of Hillock).
 * I stand for using more recent writings (that were not used, I gave the list to Hillock) about the problem. Solovyov did not wrote a special article about the problem, moreover he did not give his sources and his work has been written more then 100 years ago. --Russianname 17:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?
Would like to include evidence from all sources and historians, including Solovyov, who is an unquestionable authority in Russian history.

Statement by hillock65
The grounds for considering Solovyov biased is exactly mine concern. We have an article on Sergey Solovyov, who is considered "one of the greatest Russian historians". Even if someone finds his account of events questionable that does not and cannot mean that his evidence should be excluded. That can only happen if Solovyov is proven to be a fraud and pseudo-historian, which is impossible. He was and still is an unquestionalbe authority on Russian history. His ample evidence cannot be excluded just because some editors don't like his views. The article should present evidence from different sources, which it does in its present state. It appears that this is the lates argument in a series of attempts to disrupt the article, rather than find ways to improve it. --Hillock65 14:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard user:Russiannames opinion on the matter yet, but I think we could come to some solution that fits you both here. Say Russianname would give some sources which would demonstrate Solovyov is indeed seen as a biased historian by X. How would you feel about getting something likethis? "Sergey Solovyov describes [proper source]. X stated that Solovyov may be biased in his accounts[proper source]." Martijn Hoekstra 15:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Although that seems like a solution it would not be easy to do, a reputable source should be presented that he is indeed biased. Biased as a historian or biased in this particular instance? And who can vouch that "reputable source" is not biased in its turn as well? Another historian's opinion of the same stature as Solovyov has to be presented. I'd imagine to impeach the stature of a famous Russian historian and label him as "biased" would be next to imposible. And if indeed this is proven, that may not mean that his account should be excluded. His point of view is one of many, which have the right to be heard. Although, like you I am still awaiting what User: Russianname has to say. Then we will know what we are in for for sure. --Hillock65 15:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediator response
I asked for those in dispute to name their concerns and disagreements. Martijn Hoekstra 13:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposals
This might be a good place to get some proposals of the ground. I've started of with something.

Setting up a page to discuss proposals, so we can leave the main page alone (it may be protected soon anyway). Lets just assume that reverts are always counterproductive. If someone changes something to a proposal text you don't agree with, don't revert it, but change it in a way that gives a little to both sides. It may go back and forth a few times, but at least it will be heading in the direction of consensus.

Aftermath and significance
When Trubetskoy's troops arrived in Putivl, the the news of the battle reached Moscow. Sergey Solovyov states that the event was a slaughter for Moscows cavalry. The unexpectedness of the loss, led to fear amongst the populous, and rumors spread about the Tsar plannig to flee.

No cleanup on the rest (yet):

However, the Russian tsar did not have to worry; the Ukrainian civil war of the Ruin period accomplished what Trubetskoy and his troops could not. Had only hetman Vyhovsky and his allies been able to capture a few of Ukrainian towns held by his opponents, when the first bad news arrived: Cossacks of the Zaporozhian Host led by Ivan Sirko attacked Crimean outposts in the south, and Khan Giray was forced to leave him for his country. The authority of Vyhovsky was low after the bloody battle against the Russians. A few cities rebelled against him immediately: Lokhvytsia, Hadyach, Poltava, Romny. It was only 2 months after the battle when the citizens of Nizhyn gave a ceremonial welcome to Trubetskoy and swear an oath of allegiance to the Russian tsar. The same month the Ukrainian citizens and cossacks regiments in Kiev, Pereyaslav, Chernihiv swore an oath to the tsar as well. In September the cossacks on their counsil hacked to death both Ukrainian delegates who signed the Hadyach treaty and thus started the war with Russia.

Thus Vyhovsky was left to deal with the growing opposition to his rule. By the end of the year he was forced to resign and to flee to Poland where he was later executed by the Poles in 1664. His defeat is largely attributed to his alliance with the very unpopular Poles and his inability to seek support among all the strata of the Ukrainian population and not just among the rich Cossack elite, who were willing to betray him at every opportunity either to Moscow or Warsaw. The civil war raged on and the victors of the Konotop battle were soon forgotten.

Together with a number of other battles between East Slavs, such as Battle of Orsha, the Konotop battle was with a few exceptions an abandoned topic in Russian Imperial and in Soviet historiography. This attitude towards this event is explained by the fact that it dispelled some Russian propaganda positions about the unity of East Slavs, in particular the ones about "eternal friendship of Russian and Ukrainian peoples" and about "natural desire of Ukrainians for union with Russia". For all the skill and the bravery of the Cossacks — especially those defending Konotop — it still remains a bitter victory. A victory that did not have any significant impact on the course of Ukrainian history, where fratricidal war of the Ruin and personal ambitions of treacherous hetmans prevailed. As such, the Konotop battle remains a classic example of the battle won and a war lost.

Notes and discussion about edits of this section
Note that the direct quote is preserved, but moved to the references.


 * Why is the quote moved to reference section? What's wrong with it being in the text? --Hillock65 15:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest we rephrase the introduction of Solovyov's account of the events and leave it in the text. For example, "according to Sergey Solovyov ....". That way the quotation will be presented as just another point of view of many historians. --Hillock65 15:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the way it is usualy done, mainly because it presents a view, without having to go through all of the original sources. It keeps things compact and readable. For those who are interested in the original source, they can see it in the references. It also makes it easier to put some other source next to it, as it keeps it all more compact. As it is nice to stick to one style across the entire Wikipedia, I suggested this form. If there is consensus for this page to do it differently, feel free to do it any opther way. Martijn Hoekstra 15:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The text does not look neutral. Solovyov wrote about the battle, so the topic was not forgotten and abandoned. Then, the sentence about Russian propaganda is clearly anti-Russian. There was no Russian propaganda in USSR 9propaganda was Soviet), and the unity of Slavs was propagated by the ethnic Ukrainians too (Gogol, Gizel, Kostomarov, Tolochko etc.). Then I do not understand why the article in WP should propagate the hatred between the Ukrainians and the Russians now. Many of the Ukrainian Cossacks clearly showed that they support the Russian army (Vyhovsky was the first Ukrainian leader who used foreigners to fight opposition ), so we must add info that the opposition leader Ivan Sirko attacked the tartar outposts to withdraw the Tartar forces. I do not see why WP should take the side of attackers of Konotop or its defenders. So the words like "bitter victory" and "For all the skill and the bravery of the Cossacks" should be avoided. Thanks you for attention. --Russianname 18:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's take this one step at a time, so we can carry on. I hadn't changed anything in the rest below the mark yet for two reasons, first, because it's easier to agree on smaller things, and not the wole text at once, and second, because I would prefer it if you could come to a consensus between yourselves, without me imposing my view of how the article should be. Hillock seems to prefer the article with the quote in it. If you do too, we can start making changes in the rest of the section. So first, the part with the quote, you both agree to the current form that is now in the article? (So that is not my sugestion above, but the one in the now protected article)Martijn Hoekstra 18:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

References presentation
''The situation having escalated that far, open hostilities followed. Skirmishes and attacks occurred in different towns and regions throughout the country, the most prominent of which was the capture of Konotop by Cossacks of the Nizhyn and Chernihiv Regiments headed by Hryhoriy Hulyanytsky, a colonel of Nizhyn. In the spring of 1659 a huge army (100.000 by the only written source ("The cronicle of the Witness") or 150,000 men by Sergey Solovyov ) — was dispatched to Ukraine to assist Romodanovsky. ''


 * Presenting one source as better or the only one written is POV. I am not claiming that Solovoyv is the only true and the only one written, so the part about Witness' prominence should be dropped. It should be rephrased without characterizations of the sources: a huge army (100.000 according to "The cronicle of the Witness" or 150,000 men according to Sergey Solovyov --Martijn Hoekstra 16:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * How about removing all opinions, and just summing up the observations of the references?
 * The situation having escalated that far, Open hostilities followed. Skirmishes and attacks occurred in different towns and regions throughout the country, the most prominent of which was the capture of Konotop by Cossacks of the Nizhyn and Chernihiv Regiments headed by Hryhoriy Hulyanytsky, a colonel of Nizhyn. In the spring of 1659 an huge army 'of 100.000 to 150,000 men /cite1, /cite2 was dispatched to Ukraine to assist Romodanovsky.

That better?
 * Perfect. --Hillock65 16:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * However, I still don't understand why Solovyov quotation has to be hidden in the references. In the present version that Russianname considers neutral that part is in its proper place. I don't see any new objections. --Hillock65 16:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not write in my behalf, Hillock, I did not ask you for this. I support the decision by the mediator. Thanks to both the mediator and the opponent. --Russianname 17:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note, I don't make decissions, I just try to get consenses from the involved parties. I'm just a normal editor who happens to be mediating. Martijn Hoekstra 17:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So if we keep the quote by Solovyov in its current form, and change the above to cut all editorial, and make it in the form proposed above, there are no more differences? Martijn Hoekstra 17:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The quote by Solovyov exaggerates the fears of tsar and the importance of the event. If we want to leave the quote, we should add a new quote on the contrary. --Russianname 18:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not easy or fair to make this judgement. He is a well-respected historian and there is no proof of any exagerration. In fact, this would be repeated in any textbook as a view of one of the historians. We should clearly mark it as an opinion of Solovyov and let the reader decide who to trust. To exclude this evidence of Solovyov would be unfair. If Russianname still insists on its inclusion in the references and if this is the only way to compromise - so be it. I won't object. Complete exclusion won't work, I thought we agreed on that. --Hillock65 18:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For clarity, lets take this back to the other section. I made some comments that might not hold anymore now, but just comment on it to keep a natural discussion line, so it can still be followed. Martijn Hoekstra 18:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Resignation
I see that User: Russianname keeps inventing new set of objections as we go. First it was Solovyov, than it is the quotation, now the other authors, the propaganda, etc. etc. etc. This is enough. I see this as an attempt to undermind this mediation. And obviously he has succeeded in doing that, since with this I resign from this mediation. I don't want to waste my time with ever-growing list of demands and objections. Also, there is no garantee that once this set of demands is met the new one will not appear. This cannot be allowed to continue, it starts to border on rediculous. Enough is enough. I would like to thank the moderator for his excellent job and apologize that his efforts didn't lead to positive outcome. Sincerely. --Hillock65 00:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)