Talk:Battle of Konotop (1659)

Removing the infobox

As an administrative emergency measure (and an alternative to an even stronger measure, a complete stubbing-back of the whole article), I am removing the infobox. The infobox contents have been attracting a disproportionate amount of all the edit-warring over the last few weeks. This is not surprising: The infobox format is suitable only for information that is undisputedly factual and straightforward, because it has no space for hedging, presenting alternatives, attributing and all the other presentation techniques vital for creating an NPOV representation of controversial issues. What in running text can be easily handled in an NPOV way ("A says X, B says Y"), often becomes an insurmountable obstacle to consensus-building when it comes to infoboxes, because the table format forces editors to give pride of place to either just X or Y. Therefore, the solution is easy: out with the box.

I strongly encourage editors to concentrate on a fair representation of the competing perspectives on this event in the main text, and leave the infobox out of it at least until the main text is stable and consensual.

Editing rules

In addition, as an uninvolved administrator I propose to instate the following rules of engagement for this article:

• 1RR/day for everybody on this article (reversion of obvious plain vandalism exempted, as usual)
• No unconstructive editing: any edit that serves to shift the POV balance so much towards one side that a reasonable observer must know in advance that it will be unacceptable to the other side and will be reverted, is strictly forbidden.
• Slow down the reverts: If another editor makes an edit you find unacceptable, you are not allowed to revert it at once. Go to the talk page first, explain your objections, wait at least 4 hours to allow for discussion; then, if you still must, revert.
• No edits without edit summaries: every edit, but especially any edit that is potentially contentious or that is a revert, must be accompanied with a clear, informative edit summary describing what you are doing.

This approach has previously worked relatively well on other contentious articles. If other uninvolved administrators agree, I propose to begin enforcing these rules of engagement on this article (if necessary, through blocks). Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Good move on all accounts, including the removal of infobox and especially on editing rules. Thanks.--Hillock65 (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd support that (as an admin uninvolved with the editing of this article) ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I second that. Infoboxes are a major nuissance invariably.Galassi (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I support it, as the third admin. I only got involved because of the dispute. Consider this an admin consensus, if not an editor consensus at this point. tedder (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

About the renewed reverts: could all participants please keep the above rules in mind, especially #3: discuss before you revert. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Excessive quoting of Solovyov

This passage needs to be removed for two reasons:

• 1) Wikipedia is not Wikisource or Wikiquote. Such long quotations must be posted there. Here is an encyclopedia where one view should not get much more platform than the other.
• 2) 19th century Solovyov is being criticized by modern historians regarding Konotop. Among them are the American Davies and the Polish Krol, not to speak of the Russians Babulin, Kurbatov, Smirnov and Malov who have reconstructed the battle very explicitely. Solovyov was an important milestone of historical sciense, but he can't be put over modern researchers and modern scientific standards. --Voyevoda (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You must provide specific scolarly critique of Solovyov on the subject of Konotop.--Galassi (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Everything is provided already. Davies is linked, Krol is linked in the version reverted by you. Babulin, Malov, Kurbatov and Smirnov are linked either here or in the Russian article. Why don't you start to really inform yourself on the matter instead of trolling and reverting? Every of these modern researchers contradicts Solovyov on the battle. BTW, you also failed to invalidate the Wikisource argument so far. You either don't react or troll selectively. --Voyevoda (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice try. However a GENERAL critique does not invalidate a specific question.--Galassi (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Which specific question do you mean? --Voyevoda (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Spesific criticism of his views on the Konotop question.--Galassi (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus for removing Solovyov quotation from the article. He is a world renown historian, the passage is not overly extensive, it gives not only historiographical evaluation of the events but adds a human dimension as well. Even though there is new data as to the number of troops involved, Solovyov's contribution has never been refuted and his passage does not contradict the new research in any way. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

So you'll not be against if I add some quotations of reknown modern historians? --Voyevoda (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Out with the infobox

I don't understand why the infobox was reinserted in the article. The admins removed it earlier as it was the source of all major disagreements. It still is. It misrepresents many of the facts presented in the article. It should be removed. --Hillock65 (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

You could just have 2 subsections for different ideas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasp3864 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Battle of Konotop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320102630/http://www.day.kiev.ua/290619?idsource=277208&mainlang=eng to http://www.day.kiev.ua/290619?idsource=277208&mainlang=eng
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609152214/http://www.mfa.gov.ua:80/mfa/ua/publication/content/357.htm to http://www.mfa.gov.ua/mfa/ua/publication/content/357.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070313214059/http://www.grad.konotop.net:80/konotop.bitva.html to http://www.grad.konotop.net/konotop.bitva.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929083457/http://ukrstor.com/ukrstor/adk_konotop2.html to http://ukrstor.com/ukrstor/adk_konotop2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080606041635/http://www.day.kiev.ua:80/21303/ to http://www.day.kiev.ua/21303/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)