Talk:Bohdan Khmelnytsky

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bohdan Khmelnytsky is within the scope of the Russian History WikiProject, 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 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]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

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

1 old talk
2 Khmelnytsky
3 Category
4 Jewish casualties
5 Disputed origin
6 "The Jews"
7 Other son
8 Death
9 Rename?
10 so-called leader
11 homosexual
12 ruthenians
13 Sources
- 13.1 Notes
14 The Lead
15 The Uprising
16 Recommendations
17 Bohdan Khmelnytsky
18 Further improvements

[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

[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)

[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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/o/h/Talk%7EBohdan_Khmelnytsky_233c.html"

Categories: WikiProject Russian History | Politics and government work group articles | B-Class biography (politics and government) articles | High-priority biography (politics and government) articles | B-Class biography articles