Talk:Bohdan Khmelnytsky

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ukraine Portal

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Top

This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

Russia Portal

Bohdan Khmelnytsky is part of the WikiProject Russian history, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

[edit] old talk

128.etc.

[edit] Khmelnytsky

Why is Khmelnytsky the one name not listed as an option in the opening sentence, yet used exclusively throughout afterwards? Jayjg 19:07, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Because Ukrainian nationalists have been doing sweeping changes over all wikipedia in a great rush and didn't bother themselves with such trifles as overall consistency, even with transliterations from their own language. Mikkalai 19:23, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've now rendered it correctly in Wikipedia's conventional Ukrainian transliteration, as well as a common historical English transliteration for the last name. —Michael Z. 20:37, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)

I just noted that the intro mentions that he's called in Polish as Chmielnicki. While this is true, he is also apparently known in English under that name as well ([1] - [2]) note that I added the date to be sure that the links are about the person and not the town of that name. On the other thought, I don't want to open yet another can of worms, I'm simply pointing to the fact that we could simplify the header a bit. Halibu tt 22:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category

Perhaps the category should be changed from Polish History to Polish nobility? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:51, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish casualties

estimates range from a minimum 100,000 to over half a million Jews killed.

That estimate seems exaggerated, since according to History of the Jews in Poland, there were 750 000 Jews in the world at the time, with about 450 000 in Poland. Even the biggest estimates out there are "100 000 to 200 000", so that seems more accurate to me. Also it should be noted that not all of those were killed, some died of diseases and of imprisonment by the invading Tatars. So after my revision:

The precise number of dead may never be known, but the decrease of the Jewish population during that period is estimated at 100,000 to 200,000, which also includes deaths from diseases and Tatar imprisonment.

In no way is this intented to diminish the tragedy which occurred, but the numbers have to adhere to facts and make sense.

If that's the biggest estimate, what is the full range of estimates that can be considered realistic? —Michael Z. 2005-02-6 15:17 Z

If you read Ukrainian, you can read this article to appreciate the complexity of determining how many people died during that time: http://ukrhistory.narod.ru/texts/sysyn-1.htm.

There are varying counts, taking into account different time periods, using conflicting population data, etc...

[edit] Disputed origin

Article sais that his origin is disputed, and various users periodically change Polish to Ruthenian or vice versa. This could use expantion/explanation and some sources, preferably. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think there wasn't a concept of nation the way we have today, at least among the peasantry. Many people described themselves as "local" or "orthodox". On the other hand, many commonwealth nobles consciously changed their names from Ukrainian to Polish (or was it just from Cyrillic to Latin spelling?) to fit in with mainstream society.

I haven't read anywhere that Khmelnytsky said what his nationality was. Ruthenian might be considered a more inclusive term by some. —Michael Z. 2005-03-8 16:12 Z

[edit] "The Jews"

I object to the phrase "the Jews" in the following sentance:

"The magnates sold and leased certain privileges to the Jews for a lump sum and, while enjoying themselves at their courts, left it to the Jewish leaseholders and collectors to become objects of hatred to the oppressed and long-suffering peasants."

"The Jews" did not form a unit to which privileges (or anything else) could be sold or leased. The phrase should be modified to reflect the specific group to whom the author refers, or at least to reflect that only a minority of Jews participated in this process. The current usage is offensive. Adam Holland 18:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The statement is accurate. Everything in the 1600s was strictly divided along religious/racial lines. Special laws applied to "The Jews" as a unit. For example, it was illegal for Jews to own land. But the Polish nobilty exploited everyone to the hilt, so they encouraged Jewish enterpreneurs to lease land under very difficult terms that made it almost impossible to profit without abusing the peasant population. According to Subtelny, in 1616 more than 50% of Polish crown lands in Ukraine were leased out to Jewish enterpreneurs.

RedManPlus, December 14, 2005.

[edit] Other son

Romanian sources mention Timofei (spelling?), a second son to Bohdan (he was important for certain events in Romanian history - see Vasile Lupu). Dahn 00:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Bohdan's other son... and his right hand man was named Tymosh (full name Tymoshenko or Tymofii). Tymosh married the Moldavian Hospodar Lupu's daughter in June 1652 in order to seal an alliance between Cossackdom and Moldavia. He was wounded by a cannonball during a campaign September 1653 and died of gangrene several days later. Earlier in June 1651 his father Hetman Bohdan suspected that his 2nd wife, of Polish origin, was cheating on him. He wrote Tymosh a letter ordering him to investigate and to hang the woman if charges true. Under torture the truth came out and Tymosh hung 6 people, including Bohdan's adulterous wife and her mother. The Hetman grieved deeply, but within a few years married for the 3rd time... deliberately choosing a Ukrainian Cossack widow. (Widows were very common in those times).

The definitive Ukrainian history was written by Professor Mykhailo Hrushevsky (1866-1934). He briefly became Ukaine's president in 1918. The work is 11 volumes and about 7,000 pages. Several volumes have been translated into English. Anyone unfamiliar with this work cannot seriously comment on the history of Ukraine. Khemlnytsky hosted foreign envoys and diplomats almost daily. All political eyes in EU were upon him... since he stood at the nexus of the conflict between Catholicism/Orthodoxy and Christianity/Islam. Hrushevsky's history is primarily based on 1000s of [[Image:letters written by diplomats and preserved in EU archives.

Also, the discussion about whether Bohdan was Ukrainian or Polish is laughable. Today in Ukraine the Polish population might be 1-2% because Stalin forcibly evicted all ethnic Poles from West Ukraine. The idea that the UA government would put a Polish national on their 5 hryvnia note is nonsensical. Also, Poles are Catholic while Cossackdom was near universally Orthodox.]]

[edit] Death

How did he die?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename?

Plese see the discussion at Talk:Khmelnysky_Uprising#Name_-_move_proposed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] so-called leader

However much he may not be liked, it cannot be disputed that he was an actual leader. He wasn't a "so-called" leader and so I'm going to remove the words "so-called" from the end of the first paragraph. Additionally, the first paragraph ends on righteous cry of indignation -- I approve, but this is an encyclopedia. The number listed here and later in the article has also been inflated to its maximum from previous reports -- I've changed those back. Banaticus 21:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] homosexual

Bogdan had homosexual tendencies? In all my reading about him I've NEVER come across this allegation, hence I removed it from the article.

User:Tgrain

[edit] ruthenians

Why Ruthenians?! What's wrong with Ukrainians?

User:Ademchuk At that time the ethnonym "Ukrainian" was not used. Ukrainians were wknown as Rusyny or Ruthenians. Bandurist 16:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

They referred to themselves as Russians (Rus'kie - compare to modern Russkie), not Rusyny (a smaller group). Ruthenians is a latinized form of Russians (eg. look at element Ruthenium). With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

There are no sources in this article. If it is Hrushevsky, it is not listed. Maybe it is Subtelny? Or maybe this article has been edited so many times, it got lost?--Hillock65 13:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a good part of this article comes from the bad old times where we didn't pay attention to the stuff like references. In essence, this is an oversized stub, which needs much expantion, copyedit and cleanup. I would be happy to help - this is a good candidate for a GA at the very least.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 14:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a very good and authoritative book on his biography and is currently working on expanding this article. Your help would be greatly appreciated. In particular my representation of the events are those presented by Ukrainian historians and some Canadians. An input from the Polish point of view would be interesting. So far I was wondering about your thoughts about expanded sections of Early Life, Service with the Cossacks and The Czapliński Affair.--Hillock65 15:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we should be able to improve this to a GA status fairly easily - it's not even expantion which is the main problem, but lack of inline citations. If we can reference it well, and then expand it, we can make it even a FA - although that will take us some time. Btw, for an example of my most recent bio, very close to a FA status, check Józef Piłsudski.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It is reallly good, I have a long way to go with this one. So why didn't it make FA? What was the problem?--Hillock65 18:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Long story short - too many users complained of NPOV issues, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Józef Piłsudski. Perhaps when you'll have some time you could read the article and see if there is any POV you could correct - I'd appreciate it - correcting one's own POV is one of the hardest things to do.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

I don't know the part about Mykhailo Khmelnytsky - 'converted Jew' is a bit outlandish. I am planning to write a short article about him later. He ideed was subjected to 'infamia' - and was probably stripped of his noble status, but Jewish theory is very unusual. Besides, with all my respect, Polish sources should be treated with caution, they are not often without bias in regards to Khmelnytsky. --Hillock65 18:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is the stuff translated from Polish wiki we can take apart. I am pretty sure the 'converted Jew' is false, but it is an interesting trivia sourced to a particular historian, who has a short article on Polish wiki (pl:Tomasz Padurra). But if you are going to write an article about his father, I think such trivia will be better off moved to that article. And I completly agree we must treat Polish sources with caution (this is why it is best to illustrate their bias in the historiography section), although Ukrainian or Russian sources will have their own bias too. Btw, I am having trouble getting the notes to work - hopefully with WP:FOOT I'll be able to fix them, if not, they can be converted to normal cite.php ones.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess it can stay there for now, for trivia as you say. As far as the footnotes, your help will be appreciated. I just learned that one way of referencing and it took me an hour to figure it out. If you can convert it to a single format that would be great.--Hillock65 19:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, cite php is the best, but it doesn't distingis between footnotes and references. I just need to find the article where I saw both working...--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Having a Jewish Khmelnytsky seems somewhat implausable but there was a pianist at the Sydney consevatory known as Igor Khmelnytsky who was Jewish. Maybe he took on the surname in order that people not think of himas being Jewish? Bandurist 16:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

THe surname can be either Polish, Jewish and Ukrainian. BKh was not the only bearer of it in the CWealth.Galassi 16:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Lead

The lead sentence "He led the uprising against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1648 – 1654), which resulted in the Treaty of Pereyaslavl of 1654 with Tsardom of Russia." is awkward, biased and factually not true. His leadership in the uprising led to many things (I will not recapitulate them all for the sake of time) - one of them was a Treaty with Pereyaslavl with Muscovy. Note - not the only one that resulted from it, but one of them. --Hillock65 14:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The solution - expand the article, and expand the lead, so we can summarize other consequences. There is no deyning that Khmelnytsky had much impact on the history.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 15:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel an expansion of the lead is warranted. I don't want the reader to get lost in the description of all of his achievements right off the top. Let it be as short as it is - just to give his two main achievements and if the reader is interested there will be plenty more to read on that in the article's body. My feeling is that the lead should be as neutral and as concise as possible for people to make their own judgements as they read further.--Hillock65 15:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am not rushing to work on it now, but in the future we will have to expand it - check WP:LEAD.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 15:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Uprising

I strongly suggest that this section should be about Khmelnystky role in the uprising, and not just summarize the article about the uprising.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? I split the article into main sections - uprising, union with Muscovy, etc. I am not sure how much there should be in each section so there is no conflict with the Uprising article. I left for the time being the Early successes section, but am not sure what to do next.--Hillock65 20:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, I'd like to read which battles he commanded, what did he do on a political scene, etc. instead of background like 'why did the conflict erupt' or about the battles he didn't participate in. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recommendations

I want to commend Hillock for expanding the article, which was previously an appalling mess. Since he so readily assumes bad faith and hidden intent on my part, I don't want to revert war with him over each small edit concerning the language and MoS. Last time, he repeatedly reverted my edits en masse. Therefore, I will (for once) just enumerate my recommendations to improve the current text:

What can I cay? Your attempt at good faith might have sounded more convincing if you didn't start with accusations and addressed people in the second person, as it is polite to do. However, I do thank you for your recommendations, some of them are valid and very reasonable. I just started working on this article and haven't had the time to correct everything that was here before - so there is sill some things from the old version intermingled with my additions. I will be making some substantial changes some time later, and your comments will certainly be considered. Thank you.--Hillock65 23:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

1. What do you mean by saying that Bohdan was "Greek Orthodox"? Did he really speak Greek? Please change awkword phrase to "Eastern Orthodox", as this demonination is known in Wikipedia and elsewhere. - agreed, corrected
2. Is there any particular reason why the Treaty of Pereyaslav should be called "Treaty of Pereyaslavl"? - agreed, corrected
3. "St. Theodorus Day". Can you identify a saint with this fanciful name (a back translation from the mova, I suppose)? If you can't, I may help you.

- Your disparaging use of euphemism (mova) in relation to the Ukrainian language, done, again in bad faith forces me to skip this quesion.--Hillock65 00:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

4. "As it was the custom in the Orthodox church, he was baptised with one of his middle names". Could you provide some source that such a custom existed? What middle names do you speak about? I can't recall many Orthodox countries who have middle names. The usage seems to be purely Catholic. --Hillock65 00:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the way my source presents it. He was called even by cossacks: Zinoviy Bohdan. There was no patronimic, it started to be added later. However, the church is stated as Orthodox, probably to conform to Polish civil requirements, even Orhodox nobles were adding middle names to stress their noble status.--Hillock65 00:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

5. "Village Subotiv" should be changed to "the village of Subotiv". - done - thank you.
6. "French ambassador Count De Bregie". The French spelling of his name should be double checked. It is also recommended to wikilink a certain "war in France" which is discussed in this passage.

I will look into that closer. --Hillock65 00:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

7. It is noted that Khmelnytsky's father "belonged to the Massalski and the Abdank noble families". This certainly needs to be sourced. In its current version, the assertion is patently false. You cannot belong to three or four families at the same time. It seems more likely that Khmelnytsky belonged to the Khmelnytsky family.

- it is a mirky story as it is, there are virtually no documents to prove anything. His Father Mykhailo claims it, so, that's the way it is, I just have to state that that's his father's claim of nobility.--Hillock65 01:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I may be able to explain the confusion. Massalski and Abdank where 'coat of arms clans', not families in our today understanding of that world. Polish heraldry can offer more information on that, for now, I changed 'family' to clans (briefly: he was of the Chmielnicki family, Abdank clan).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

8. "Kyiv" and "Lviv" should be changed to "Kijow" and "Lwow", per WP:NC. We don't need another Gdanzig here.

I'll look into that. --Hillock65 01:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

9. "Historians believe he probably received...": if they are not sure about the fact, "probably" is redundant. - done --Hillock65 01:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Bohdan "occupies himself with running his father's estate". The next passage: "Khmelnytsky occupies himself with running his estate". How many times this should be repeated? - I will look into style later, but thanks anyway.--Hillock65 01:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
11. "A Polish magnate Stanislaw Konecpolski" should be replaced with "the Polish magnate..." - thank you for mentioning, but inserting an article definitely won't cause a revert war. --Hillock65 01:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
12. "The Cossack's issue of the war with the Tatars". Who was that Cossack who warred against the Khan? - I refrase that --Hillock65 01:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
13. "Polish authorities already used to frequent Cossack revolts". Why did they frequent those revolts? Is "frequent" supposed to be a verb or an adjective here? corrected--Hillock65 01:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
14. The caption for the Polish image reads: "Chmelnicki Uprising 1648-54". If it's not the title of the painting, what does this mean? will look into it--Hillock65 01:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
15. "The name of Khmelnytsky remained a controversial figure". How the name can be a figure? -corrected--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
16. "... this led to the Polish king giving royal recognition for the contentious privileges under the Treaty of Zborov". Had to reread that three times before understanding the sentence. Not good. - that is the part from the old article. It will be changed--Hillock65 01:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC) --corrected --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
17. "accept a loser's treaty" - ??- that is the part from the old article. It will be changed--Hillock65 01:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
18. The last passage presents only the Polish side of the story. Can something be said about Khmelnytsky's commemoration in Russia and Ukraine? What about the order of Khmelnytsky? The famous bridge in Moscow? We have separate articles about these. I also recall a Soviet movie starring Sergei Bondarchuk.- that is the part from the old article. It will be changed--Hillock65 01:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
19. You need to determine which tense you want to use throughout the article. It is annoyong when one sentence is rendered in the present tense, and the following one in the past. - thank you for the suggestion --Hillock65 01:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
20. Per Manual of Style, there is no need to wikilink names each time they are mentioned in the article. Once is enough. Otherwise, the article looks overlinked and slovenly. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 23:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC) - Thank you again. As I said it is a very raw edit with a lot of old text still there. I didn't want to leave blanks. It will be rewritten soon. Thanks for the suggestions.--Hillock65 01:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bohdan Khmelnytsky

HM! some "anonymous" - inserted another paragraph, that is already partly present in article. Also, facts expressed there are very, let's say, tremendous, but no sources are given. I think, cause of long article history this paragraph should be disscussed first, and only then used (or declined). --Galkovsky 15:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The facts are very well-known, even though the desire to hide them is understandable. Beit Or 14:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I second what Galkovsky wrote. Please support the statements by reliable sources. --KPbIC 21:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Controversial facts should be referenced.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further improvements

Even though I finished my additions to the article, I get the feeling that it is still raw and needs improvements. I would appreciate comments and suggestions.--Hillock65 18:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Needs inline citations, a lot of them. Content is good enough for GA but lack of references is a problem.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Much of the new material is of general history coverage rather than of the person, the subject of the article. It should be moved to Khmelnytsky uprising and other articles on history. Of course having it here is better than not having it at all. --Irpen 19:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You are probably right; IIRC K Uprising was created by splitting material from this article in the first place... maybe it's time to repeat the history :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Khmelnytsky in Jewish history

It is quite understandable that Khmelnytsky is not a popular figure in Jewish history, however, this article does not have to be vandalised over and over again with unencyclopedic epithets about him. This is not a message board or a wall for graffiti. If someone wants to mention that he was a "sadistic murderer", "much reviled" and other 7th Grade descriptions of a historical figure, please look at other "mass murderers" [3][4][5][6] and note that there the encyclopaedic style is preserved, although they are surely no "less reviled". In any additions references are necessary. --Hillock65 11:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Such adjectives are simply not encyclopedic.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I put in those "seventh grade" descriptions out of frustration and disbelief that anyone would find anything controversial about Chmielnicki and his place in Jewish history. A "better variant"? Better variants are for improving the expression of a basically true fact. While you claim that you are only interested in maintaining the encyclopedic tone of this article, your numerous reverts that simply eliminated references wholesale betray the bias. Comparing Chmielnicki to Naftaly Frenkel and a host of minor players in history who couldn't carry Chmielnicki's sword sheath? Are you for real??!!! Be intellectually honest; compare him to Joseph Stalin or others whose victims played as large a part of his story as Chmielnicki. You'll see that indeed, the "number game" you so abhor is featured. He doth protest too much.

On the other hand calling him "controversial in Jewish historical memory" seems like a weasel word. Is there really any controversy among Jewish historians about how to properly view him? Is there controversy as to how Jews perceive him and his role in their history? I seriously doubt it. "Reviled" is probably more accurate, though admittedly very charged. radek 17:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I edited the sentence out until a better variant is found.--Hillock65 18:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how recounting Jewish losses during the Khmelnytsky Uprising in that much detail is relevant to the article about a person. This has been covered quite extensively in the Khmelnytsky Uprising artticle. Do I need to remind that this article is about Khmelnytsky and his role in the events and not about events themselves? There is a place for this in the appropriate article. If this is to stay here, which is contrary to the subject of this article, a view of other historians on casualties will have to be added, which will make this a discussion on casualties, rather than of a historical person. Please keep to the subject matter of the article.--Hillock65 11:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The source itself attributes these killing to Chmelnitzki. You've been consistently cutting this section down; soon it will disappear altogether. I've added some general information about the impact on the Jewish communities, taking into account the varying estimates. Jayjg^(talk) 16:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, do not insert the Hanover Chronicle "estimates", as they are utterly unrelistic. The historians' consensus is 20-30,000 out of 60,000.Galassi 17:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't own the article and I am not the only editor, your additions are welcome but, please also add some references or sources to the claims that you are making. --Hillock65 16:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that we move away from numbers at all and agree that many people died? This issue over numbers has been fought over at Khmelnytsky Uprising article from where User Jayjg has been transplanting material word-for-word here, preferring to post only one side of the argument [7][8]. Must we go over numbers again? This article is about Khmelnytsky — his legacy is controversial, indeed, even for Ukrainians — so, lets focus on the man and his legacy instead of numbers. Way more Ukrainians and Poles died and I don't see people going over numbers over and over again in all possible articles. Let's stick to the subject matter of the article please.--Hillock65 17:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I first added the material here, and you reverted it, claiming it belonged in Khmelnytsky Uprising. I then moved it to Khmelnytsky Uprising (where of course it was also reverted); now you claim that I was doing something wrong by doing that? In addition, I have indeed added references, including ones you've specifically asked for. You asked for a reference for the claim that 50% of the Jews in Ukraine were killed, then when I provide it, you delete the sentence anyway. This is not editing in good faith. The percentage killed is important, as are the number of Jewish communities destroyed, regardless of where the number is 20,000 or 200,000. Rather than inserting long parenthetical footnotes giving third hand descriptions of numbers nobody goes by (millions), let's just give the parameters of what the various reliable sources says, from lowest to highest, along with the impact on the Jewish community as a whole in terms of numbers of communities affected or destroyed. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of removing anything from the Uprising article, I didn't touch it at all. You are singularly missing the point of this article — it is about Khmelnytsky and his role in the killings. You instead, have presented nothing new, just posted material from other articles. In regards to numbers and quotations, you seem to prefer to insert data that suits you and ignore other evidence. You mentioned that all sides have to be represented, but all of a sudden, a famous historian Orest Subtelny, an authority on Ukrainian history is relegated as trivia and his research on numbers is reverted, while a timeline from CBS (!!!) is an authority on the subject! I posted Subtelny's comments since you obviously ignored my proposal to stay off the number game and duplicate material from other articles. I thought you might add something on how Khmelnytsky's legace is viewed by Jews, instead you prefer to wage revert wars now on two different articles, but over one and the same topic. This is very counterproductive. Your additions are welcome, but please do not ugly up the article with irrelevant material. For the third time, please stick to the topic of this article. --Hillock65 20:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, the article missed one of the main influences Khmelnytsky had on Judaism - namely the anniversary of the uprising is a fast day in Eastern european communities, and "From Khmelnytsky's Time," is a Yiddish saying for, "Long, long, ago." Basejumper 19:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overenthusiasm

Guys reading sections of the article sounds like reading an advertisement. I mean this is not written in an encyclopaedic tone. Let me give you two examples.

"While it might appear that the Czapliński Affair caused the Uprising, it was only an impetus that brought a successful and talented Cossack to the forefront of popular discontent among the people of Ukraine."

successful? talented? I don't dispute these claims however write about facts or create a separate personal attributes section. (I've got to be honest with you though I have not often seen psychoanalysis of historical fugues and as far as I know it isn't encouraged - read weasel words)

"This could have been one of the many other frequent Cossack revolts that had been put down by the authorities, but the stature, the skill and the respect of the seasoned 50-year-old negotiator and warrior Khmelnytsky made all the difference."

Again more weasel words - stature, skill, respect, warrior. Write about facts and let the reader be the judge of personal character. 59.101.198.132 11:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this true?

"Khmelnytsky captured the Polish king John II Casimir at the battle of Zbarazh,". ??? radek 14:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No. See Siege of Zbarazh (need to translate more from pl wiki) and Treaty of Zboriv. Tatars (not Cossacks) surrounded detached army of Polish king, but he never surrnedered - instead Tatars got a huge ransom to remove themselves from the fight, weakening Khmel.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources from a blog?

I removed the part about the mayor of the ciry of Khmelnytsky. First of all, it has nothing to do with the historical figure, second of all a blog is not acceptable as a source per WP:V. Please use published academic sources. --Hillock65 06:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irrelevant additions

Indifferent of the Cossacks towards the commoners is irrelevant to the description of Khmelnytsky's role in Ukrainian history. If you want to expand on relationships between Cossacks and peasants, there are appropriate places for that. Here however, it does not belong, since it shifts attention away from the description of Khmelnytsky to Coccack politics and attitudes. This addition is irrelevant to this section about Khmelnytsky, and furthermore, it is not referenced and highly speculative. It should be kept out of this section. Opinions of other editors are welcome. --Hillock65 17:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

І think it is essential for understanding B's image. As one friend, who is a historian and a folklorist said to me many years ago- B's actions caused the Turks to inherit the worst traits of our character.Galassi 21:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No one agues with that. Mention it in the appropriate parts. Here it does not belong, it takes away the reader's attention from the topic of narrative to unrelated speculation of relationship between Cossacks and peasants. If you want to implicate BK in it, do it directly, otherwise, please remove the unrelated speculation. --Hillock65 23:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opening paragraph: Treaty of Pereyaslav' and loss of Ukrainian independance

Wasn't Ukraine part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? If it was, how can one lose something one didn't have in the first place? With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at Cossack Hetmanate. Between 1651 and 1654 Cossacks were independent. They broke their alliance with PLC after the battle of Berestechko and where looking for a new sovereign: Turks and Muscovites. --202.249.210.76 (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish death toll

"...with death toll estimates ranging from 20,000 to 30,000."[11][20][21][22]

Several of the cited sources (The Columbia Encyclopedia, Reiss, Spector, Midlarsky, Gilbert, Pasahoff, Goldberg, etc.) mention death tolls of 100,000 or more. What's going on here?P4k (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually this whole section is pretty stupid; where the other "Khmelnytsky remembered" subsections describe the view of him presented in different national histories, this is mostly just about the effect of uprising on Ukrainian Jews, which belongs here. It's a repetition of this better section.P4k (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)