Talk:Battle of Konotop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Battle of Konotop 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 the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

An entry from Battle of Konotop appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 22 December 2006.

Contents 1 NPOV 2 Title of the War 3 Please stop vandalism! 4 Further Sources 5 NPOV 6 Tagging

[edit] NPOV

As the author of this article I am asking administrators to stop the vandalism of this article made by user: Ghirlandajo. Significant changes have been made without any consultation. The changes (vandalism) of User: Ghirlandajo have completely changed the article. It is my understanding that if any user is in disagreement, they shoul voice their objections first, before making such significant changes as have been made by the aforementioned user. --Hillock65 17:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I will not report you on WP:PAIN for the time being. Please consult WP:Vandalism#What vandalism is not before making outrageous (and quite silly) accusations against your opponents in the future. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Since my intention is to discuss content (rather than indulge in incivility as you do), I will point out that your ambition to represent the battle as a clash between "Ukraine" (anachronistic term) and "Muscovy" (also incorrect) is flawed. Trubetskoy's army contained a lawfully elected Ukrainian hetman (Vyhovsky had been deposed) and substantial Ukrainian contingents. So, it was a mixed East Slavic Orthodox force. Vyhovsky's army was a motley crew composed of peoples of different religions and ethnicities: Tatars, Poles, and Cossacks. Any attempt to represent this battle in isolation from the events of the Russo-Polish War is doomed. Since Vyhovsky betrayed the Treaty of Pereyaslav and returned to the policy of a Polish alliance, he naturally became the enemy of the Tsar, whose army occupied Vilnius at the period. A failure to mention these basic facts is the best evidence of bias. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, in your article about the Ruin you say that Vyhovsky was supported only by the higher echelons of the Cossackdom (starshina). Why do you assume that the army of starshina was the army of "Ukraine", while the army of ordinary Ukrainian Cossacks was that of "Muscovy"? It seems to me that there was an internal struggle within the Hetmanate rather than a "Russian-Ukrainian War" as you try to paint it. Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine, and such tricks are easily exposed for what they are. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

In my view, your recent significant changes are just as bias and POV-ish, if not more. You have cut whole chunks of the article without consultation or discussion to suit your flawed view of Ukrainian history. I have asked you repeatedly to consult before making siginificant changes and yet you seem to be looking for confrontation. As such, I will no longer be discussing this article, or any other issue with you and will seek outside mediation. --Hillock65 17:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Which "whole chunks of the article" I supposedly deleted? Could you elaborate? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to my last message. I will no longer discuss any issues with you for the reasons mentioned above. --Hillock65 18:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a bad attitude, to refuse discussing the subject with an opponent because his understanding is "flawed", i.e., differs from yours. :( --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Hillock65; I have to agree with Ghirla that there is much that can be discussed on this talk page. The article history shows no revert war, and Ghirla has made some arguments above - with which I don't all agree - but which await a meaningful responce from you. The article is now tagged, you can still edit it, but I'd strongly suggest you two discuss the changes here - how was the POV changed, what references back it, and what and why info was removed. PS. Also, please read the definition of WP:V. While again I will stress I often disagree with Ghirla's edits, in this case it looks to me like a good faith edit dispute about possible POV items, and not any kind of bad faith vandalism.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Piotr; thank you for your comment. By all means I will make an effort to discuss it even with Ghirla. I only ask for administrators to watch this page as in my view, he is using my inexperience in English Wikipedia to threaten me with all kinds of sanctions. You can see those on my discussion page. That's why I was seeking mediation to protect me from this kind of agressive behaviour. My only concearn is history and objectivity. Clearly, we have different views, I only hope that things could be discussed and agreed to mutually acceptable variant before being changed. Thank you.--Hillock65 21:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack removed--Alex Kov 02:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title of the War

The title of the conflict cannot be Russo-Polish war, that is incorrect. There are several reasons for that. Namely:

• 1. The name of the country that is now Russia was still Muscovy, no matter how much some seem to be ashamed of the name. (I can't think why?) Please see article: Muscovy. There it clearly states that Muscovy (Moscow principality (княжество Московское) to Grand Duchy of Moscow (Великое Княжество Московское) to Russian Tsardom (Царство Русское)) is a traditional Western name for the Russian state that existed from the 14th century to the late 17th century. Events described in the article are clearly the late 17th century - 1659.
  • It is me who is in charge of the article about Muscovy. If I consider it prudent, I will move it to Muscovite Russia. The term "Muscovy" is (ab)used throughout Wikipedia primarily in Poland-Ukraine related articles, since it has derogatory connotations in the languages of those two countries. Its use in post-1552 context is certainly misleading. Since you don't deny that alternative names include "Russian Tsardom" and "the Russian state", I see your efforts at purging these from the text as tendentiously motivated. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• You seem to be labouring under some misconception that you own something here, or "in charge" of something. The term Muscovy is the generally accepted term for the country of that peoriod in the English language. As this is an English Encyclopedia, naming rules shoul remain the same as they always have been. As well, considerable changes or movig of content of articles without prior discussion is considered vandalism. That includes the article about Muscovy.--Hillock65 12:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• 2. Secondly, the events of the battle cannot be part of a bigger war, because the main source of the event - records of Russian historian Sokolov Sergey Solovyov (see sources) state that Poland's participation was limited to about 4000 men. To ascribe to which country different territories of Ukraine belonged is extremely difficult.
  • Sorry, I don't know what Sokolov you talk about. Of course, there was no such state as "Ukraine" at the period. No primary source mentions it under this name. I'm afraid all this is original research. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• I misspelled it first time. Please educate yourself on famous Russian historian Sergey Solovyov, and his research in this area [1]. Not a single time does he mention the word 'Россия' (Russia) in the whole book, it is either Muscovy or Moscow - and he was Russian himself! --Hillock65 12:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• 3. The army of Trubetskoy was sent to deal with Ukrainians, not with Poles and events took place in Ukraine. That same Sergey Solovyov mentions Ukraine in description of events, and about a conflict between Muscovy and Vyhovsky.
  • It was not sent "to deal with Ukrainians", because Vyhovsky's forces were as Ukrainian as they were Polish or Tatar. Trubetskoy's force operated against the Poles together with large contingents of Ukrainian Cossacks. When they saw that Vyhovsky had defected to the enemy and threatened to enter the war on their side, they naturally advanced against him. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Again, please educate yourself on the sources, Sergey Solovyov is not talking about Trubetskoy's expedition as war with Polang at all, that is because the troops were sent to meddle into Ukrainian civil war trying to protect their territorial possessions, well before an alliance of Vyhovsky with the Crimea and Poland had been concluded. --Hillock65 12:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• 4. If anything this battle is part of Ukrainian civil war - the Ruin. The only difference is that Vyhovsky fought agains invaders with the help of Tatars and Poles.--Hillock65 22:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  It is part of the "civil war" from the Ukrainian perspective, but it is part of the Russo-Polish conflict from the Russian perspective. One hetman involved Russia into a costly and bloody war with Poland which dragged for thirteen years. When Russian armies reached Wilno, his successor reneged on Khmelnytsky's promises and allied himself with Poland. I don't know why you are so ashamed to call his actions a "betrayal", since a betrayal it was. Please don't wipe out the vital background of the battle. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• There was no Russo-Polish conflict. See the notes on names of Muscovy. Secondly, let's stay away from Russian or Namibian or whatever else point of view. Let's consider sources. My primary source of this article was Sergey Solovyov, a prominent Russian historian. While he writes extensively not only on this conflict, but also on other wars of Muscovy of the time, this conflict in his representation is viewed as Moscow's fight for influence in Ukraine. That included not just military option, but extensive and well documented negotiations with Vyhovsky and other rival factions of Ukrainian civil war. To term the Trubetskoy misadventure at Konotop a Muscovy-Poland conflict is wrong and is not supported by reputable source. Again, to have a meaningful discussion you have to educate yourself with well respected sources on this conflict. --Hillock65 12:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Please do not engage in edit wars. I explained my reasoning two times already. Both times I cite reputable sources and you continue to change the title. This has to stop.--Hillock65 12:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The Russian wiki lists it as part of the Ruin, the Polish wiki lists it as Polish-Russian war. Both interpretations are a result of different perceptions and so both version must be equally listed until we have more material on the subject. Wandalstouring 20:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. But then Russians must include mentioning of the Ruin in all articles and Poles should list the Ukrainian and Russian variants. Is that feasible? Why don't Russian nationalists just leave us alone? Does everything have to be what they like? Someone doesn't like the name Muscovy in the title - fine, I changed it, now they don't like the new title either. It has to stop. This is counterproductive. Let people just write articles without dealing with all that garbage!--Hillock65 20:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That is a usual outcome if you have to deal with sensitive issues. In these cases it is helpful not to be overly emotional but to keep a rational mind. If you feel the progress of the article is massively hampered by these conflicts you can call in other editors who have some knowledge on the topic. In this case I already told the Polish and the Russian military history task force. Wandalstouring 20:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been trying to resolve it amicably, you can see it on this page - I have cited sources and in responce just got reverting back and forth. Thank you for trying to help, but Russian and Polish editors are not often without bias themselves. It is about Ukrainians being able to write about their history without their neighbours telling them what and how. If historical facts need to be adjusted - it can be arranged, but, please just let us be!--Hillock65 20:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hillock, there is a space where Ukrainians can write about their own history without the interference of their neighbores. It is uk-wiki. Because en-wiki is much more of an international project, here we have to edit our articles together with editors representing different national POV. The crux of the matter is the middle ground between keeping "foreigners" from the national articles and allow them to engage into Tendentious editing that results in giving certain POVs an undue weight in the articles about the Ukrainian history. We should be looking for such middle ground rather than seeking non-Ukrainians banned from editing the Ukrainian topics. --Irpen 21:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not banning anyone, I think you are exagerrating it. My intention is that others, who have different perceptions, and often skewed perception of history of others allow people to write articles without harrasment because they don't like the name for their country that I cite from sources, or because in their view some other historical figure is a traitor, or some other silly reason. I do welcome criticism, but a criticism that leads to impovement of the article, not the kind of harassment that I received from our common Russian friend. I have a right to write whatever I want and wherever I want, I will consider other people view's, but will fight tooth and nail to defend my own.

BTW, have you already criticized Ghirla for moving pages without warning, or I missed it? I hope you were just as harsh and just as prompt in rebuking him as you were last night during my unfortunate misadventure. --Hillock65 22:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand something. Being a member of the Polish or Russian military history task force doesn't mean to be Polish or Russian. Some editors are even member in both groups simply because they are interested in the region. Wandalstouring 23:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop vandalism!

User:Ghirlandajo please stop reverting the page without discussion! I warned you once about your violation of policy (WP:3RR), instead you preferred to revert your own discussion page too to cover it. While you may do whatever you want with your page, any significant changes on this page and in this article should be discussed!--Hillock65 14:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So far it is you who refuse to discuss your POV edits and violations of WP:MOS, recruiting revert warriors on uk.wiki and accusing me of unspeakable offenses. I see that some of your friends even resort to death threats. This is totally unacceptable. I assure you (and I have been through thousands incidents like this one) that this strategy never succeeds. Either you discuss and substantiate your edits, or they will be deleted, no matter how many meatpuppets you recruit. One thing I specifically object to is your attempts to use the Cossack "Летопись очевидца", which is neither neutral nor reliable. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, I expected a little bit more mature attitude. You will have to provide PROOF of all your accusations, including alleged death threats. Please behave as if you are over the age of maturity and refrain from personal attacks and limit your diatribes to the article. I had a concern about the title, I wrote about it. If you have a concern instead of broad and silly accusations, please type them here, I will discuss. Even with you. Since you listed the source concern, I will look into it and will respond. Congratulations on finally listening to my advice. --Hillock65 19:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I went to uk.wiki and discovered on your talk page a conspiracy with the object of destroying the neutrality of en.wiki by spreading Russophobic propaganda. I don't like when my name is slandered off-en-wiki, so you'd better stop it now. I will go seek opinion of administrators about your attempts to recruit partisans and revert warriors in your national wiki. Best, Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You have just vandalized the article again! I have warned you several times of (WP:3RR) and called on you to talk before making changes? Why are you doing this? --Hillock65 20:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Both of you run into violating (WP:3RR). A possible solution would be to start a sandbox like in the crossbow article. It really helps to write with far less pressure. Insert the new version when all involved editors agree on it. Wandalstouring 20:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further Sources

In addition to Russian language sources that I cited above, in an attempt to prevent further confrontation I will add an English source as well:

Vygovsky defeated the Muscovites in 1659 only to be unseated by a revolt on ordinary Cossacks. Ukraine divided: The "right bank", west of Dnieper, under Khmelnitsky's epileptic son, remained Polish; the "left bank" returned to Moscow's control. David Mackenzie, Michael W. Curran. A History of Russia, the Soviet Union, and Beyond. Fourth Edition. Belmont, California. p. 200., 1993. ISBN 0-534-17970-3.

Please note the use of terms Muscovites, Moscow to which some so streniously have been objecting. I hope this finally settles the issue and this artcle will be free from vandalism. Should there be more question about the source, please post here. Otherwise, I do hope this issue is finaly closed.--Hillock65 21:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine. If you can use the source for the article just go on. To mention you a different example would be the use of German for Germanic peoples in Roman times. It is widespread in English historic sources, although the term is only a few hundred years old, created to name the remaining people of the Holy Roman Empire who prior had all been called Dutch. The Dutch for example proudly present their Germanic roots but would run amok if you misspelled it as German roots. So the use of German is not appropriate for the ancient Germanic tribes who also didn't have any such national idea, but formed small ethnic groups like the Franks, Saxons or Goths. Wandalstouring 23:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not the case in Russia, however. I cited above a famous Russian historian Sergey Solovyov, and he never even mentions 'Russia' but because someone didn't like it, he was brushed away. --Hillock65 23:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

The article does not tell that the Russian goverment declared war after Vyhovsky had signed the Treaty against Russia.

What are the sources, who declared war and when? If you make allegations, please substantiate them!--Hillock65 15:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The article gives anachronistic name of the Cossack state. Vyhovsky started his declaration of war against Russia with words "We, the Army of Zaporizhya", the official name of the state. The article mentions "Ukrainians" though the are no information that any contemporary of the battle used this term; it had been never used in ethnic or geographical meaning; the only used similar term was "Ukraine".

So, if "the only used similar term was Ukraine" - what is the problem, then? And where exactly is the mentioning of the name problematic for you?--Hillock65 15:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The article gives no coverage of the begining of the campaign, unwillingness of Trubetskoy to clash with Cossacks (according to recommendations of the Russian goverment "to persuade Cossacks"), his long negotiations with Vyhovsky. It gives to schedule of forwarding Russian troops:

• January, 30 1659 - Putivl (Russian border)
• End of March (about 2 months later, after unsuccessfull negotiaitons with Vyhovsky) Russian troops passed into Hetman Ukraine territory.
• April, 19 1659 the beginning of the siege of Konotop.
• June, 1659 - first preparations of Russians to storm the fortress, after negotiations with Hulyanytski (Cossack defendant of Konotop) failed. At last, June, 29 - the battle itself.

This article is not about Muscovite invasion into Ukraine, but about a single battle, a background informations is given to explain what was happening before, to explain the circumstances of the battle. If you wish to eleborate on the circumstances of Romodanovsky and Trubetskoy's invasion, you may write a detailed article about that, where you will also, I hope, mention in detail about atrocities of Romodanovsky and enumerate the list of burned and looted cities he left.--Hillock65 15:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The articles tells no word of consequences of the battle for Vyhovsky as a political leader and uprisings in Ukraine against him - before and after the battle. The article does not mention that Vyhovsky abandoned Hetman`s title and Ukraine as soon as 4 months after the battle.

I believe you missed this part: "By the end of the year he resigned and was executed by the Poles in 1664". Again, this article is about a battle, whatever is mentioned about any participants is second to the main point of narrative. If you want to expand on the Ruin period and mention what happened to Vyhovksy, Hulyanytsky, Trubetskoy and others, there is another article that covers it: Ruin (period of history) --Hillock65 15:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The article does not include information of other historians except Solovyov about the number of Russian troops (100 000 according to Savovydets, who was a contemporary of the battle; 100 000 according to Ukrainian historian Doroshenko).

The article does not include information of other historians except Solovyov about the number of Russian troops killed in action (20 000 - 30 000 according to Savovydets, who was a contemporary of the battle). Russianname 10:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If you dispute the numbers a word "around", can be inserted in the text. That will explain that different historians present different numbers. In any event, I don't see why numbers from a respected and famous Russian historian should be disputed, just because you don't like them?--Hillock65 15:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging

Let me quote User Irpen here on tagging:

Placing a global tag all over the article is a very serious matter. While sometimes unavoidable, it should not be done lightly and other means, namely the good faith talk page discussions should first be exhausted.[...] --Irpen 19:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to concur that placing a NPOV tag over the article is a serious matter and good talk page discussions certainly have not been exhausted here. A person placed the tag prematurely, provided a number of questions, answers for which have been supplied. The discussion is far from being exhausted, so placing of the tag is indeed unnecessary.--Hillock65 02:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hillock, what I meant was that it is wrong to tag the whole article for a disagreement over a single fact. There are local tags for that, such as {{fact}} or {{dubious}}. User:Russianname's objections are rather global and he voiced them in good faith. You responded only now. But when Alex Kov removed the tag, the responses to the raised objections were just not there. Now, that you replied, you can either wait for the reaction to see whether the tagger is now satisfied, or if you really can't wait and really think that the objections are with no merit or asnwered fully. You may remove the tag and see, whether Russianname will replace it. To summarize, I reverted Alex Kov, because, unlike you, he did not bother to respond to the tagger's objections at all. Now that you responded and will not interfere if you think the tag's removal is warranted unless Russianname has new objections. --Irpen 03:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's wait and see. However, I do believe you were right in saying that placing a tag is a serious matter, and as long as discussion is still going on I don't see the point in putting it over the whole article. There were some general questions and disagreements, it doesn't warrant the whole article being tagged. I don't want to make a big issue over this, it doesn't matter if the tag stays, what at issue is that placing a tag should not be taken lightly by anyone and should be treated without bias in all cases by everyone. This will promote good faith discussion rather then making a point and only then discussing.--Hillock65 03:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That said, I take no position (yet) whether the tag is warranted. I have not looked at the issues deeply. I simply acted on Alex Kov's unexplained removal of the explained tag. --Irpen 03:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)