Talk:Battle of Konotop (1659)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Protected

This article is now protected because of the edit warring.

I am not familiar with any of the details of this topic, but I see significant resemblance to some of the issues with battles in the American Civil War. The two sides, North and South, have different names for the conflict and for individual battles. One side calls it the Battle of Antietam, while the other calls it the Battle of Sharpsburg. One side has First Battle of Bull Run while the other has the First Battle of Manassas. I use the present tense because 145 years later there is still a split in American historiography. I urge editors here to read those articles to see how that similar dispute has been settled in a different context.

All significant points of view should be represented, with weight proportional to their prominence. If some people say somthing is "Y", and others says it is "X", then we don't need to decide on one or the other. We report both. "Some sources say 'Y' while others say 'X'." The great American philosopher, Yogi Berra, once said, "When you come to the fork in the road, take it." That applies here. If it's a choice between X and Y, take both.

To help resolve the dispute I also suggest the use of content RfCs and noticeboards (WP:RSN, for example). I will lift the protection sooner if editors here can agree on changes.   Will Beback  talk  10:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering that the Russian version of events is, well, not nearly as accepted: I propose that the Russian POV be moved to a separate section to be added toward the end of the article. That way the sheep will be sated, and the wolves safe.Galassi (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Although it seems unrealistic, I tend to agree with the above proposal. There are many problems with this version:

1. The mere mentioning of Ukraine is removed from the article under all possible pretexts
2. Tatars are given disproportionally greater importance at the expense of Ukrainians
3. Russian sources are tendentiously favoured over all other
4. Cossacks collaborating with the Russians are given equal importance with those, who opposed, even as the sources disprove that
5. Unreferenced text is inserted and reverted to keep it in the article.

If one looks at the history, it is easy to see that before User:Voyevoda's reverts, several users collaborated on the stable version of the article, including Russian ones. For better or for worse, a consensus was reached and for those weeks that he was absent there were no reverts. Now, given, his reluctance to discuss and even less to compromise, the task is daunting indeed. --Hillock65 (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. One thing is certain, though: the Babulin "research" has to be kept out of the article. It is usually simply slanderous.Galassi (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

We are moving in a circle, everything of this was discussed already. But if you want, one last summarization:

• 1. There was nothing that could be considered as a homogenous Ukraine (not to speak about the absence of the modern meaning of that word). The region was in the middle of a civil war with one group regarding one man as legitimate hetman, and another group another man. You need to be more precise speaking of the parties and it is surely POV to equate one of them with Ukraine.
• 2. The numerous predominance of Tatars in the battle is sourced by a very renowned and independent researcher, professor Tatyana Tairova-Yakovleva (link). The fact that Hillock65 simply ignores her shows once again his lack of acquaintance with current scientific landscape.
• 3. This is definitely not the case. All the sources are listed equally in the box side by side. It is not me who demands hiding the sources of the opponent into a chapter at the bottom of the article or in the footnotes though I think the referring to 17th and 19th century essayists is more doubtful than archive documents
• 4. This is again not true. On the Russian side there were lesser Cossacks directly engaged in the battle (the others under Sirko attacking Crimean Khanate). This is all clearly presented in the article.
• 5. Please be more precise what you mean. I could also point at dozens of unreferences sentences in the article which aim at showing the Vyhovsky side in a favourable light.

@ Galassi: Sorry, but your contribution to this discussion is null. There is no effort from you to have a professional discussion, you do not present any arguments for your allegations. This is leading nowhere, my friend. --Voyevoda (talk) 19:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

1. It doesn't matter what you or I think was homogenous or not, it is what the sources say. And the proper title for Vyhovsky is the Hetman of the Zaporozhian Host (Гетьман Війська Запорозького). Like it or not, that's the way it is and that is the way it is reflected in the sources - I gave instances above. Bezpaly was the acting hetman of the Zaporozhian Host elected by a limited number of Cossacks. Calling things their proper names, supported by sources is the only way this deadlock can be solved.
2. Noone denies the Tatars had greater number of troops, but mentioning in the opening that the Tatars were "major power" (whatever that means?) is unfair as it produces an impression that Tatars alone won the battle with little help from anyone else, which is not true. The opeining paragraph is there to give a short summary of the article, not to present biased views. See WP:LEAD.
3. I mentioned several times that including Solovyov under Ukrainian sources is just plain silly. Besides, it is highly prejudicial to sort sources according to nationality as different people contribute to scientific literature from all countries and nationalities. I suppose if an American source appears, it will have to be labelled as American sources? What about Polish sources?
4. First of all the true title of Bezpaly is intentionally distorted: he is not a Hetman but an Acting Hetman (Наказний гетьман). There is a difference between the two. You should know that, since you wrote an article about him, yet distort his title in this article.
5. Another distortion is that Sirko's raid was allegedly caused by Tatars pillaging Ukrainian villages, which is plain wrong, and besides not supported by any sources. Tatars were planning on a longer campaign and didn't need prisoners to slow them down. That's why they executed all Muscovite prisoners taken by Konotop. That's why the tsar started fortifying Moscow after Konotop. Sirko had his own agenda. The same POV speculation is that they regarded this as a compensation for their contribution. According to what source? --Hillock65 (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Contested issues

1. According to the Treaty of Hadiach Vyhovsky already considered himself as "Hetman of Ruthenia and Voivod of Kiev, Bratslav and Chernigov". He had nothing to do with Zaporozhian Host anymore.

2. Please reread the course of the battle to see that the main destruction work was carried out by the Tatars while the Cossacks basically played the role of a bait who ran backward after a little skirmish with Russian cavalry. And Vyhovsky himself didn't even take part in the battle.

3. There are basically only two primary sources - the Ukrainian pro-Vyhovsky Samovidets and Russian army lists submitted to the Ambassador's Chancellery (Посольский приказ). All authors are secondary sources who either retell the one or the other primary source. That's why Solovyov has to be listed under "Ukrainian sources". Be glad, I don't mention that in his epoch he had no other sources, so his Samovidets referring still looks like his "free choice" which it has neven really been...

4. Bezpaly was at least Hetman of Zaporozhian Host, Vyhovsky was.. see 1).

5. Well, here are sources that directly contradict your claims:

«Хронология высокославных ясновельможных гетманов»: «Сей Выговский... много городов, местечек, сел и деревень малороссийских Орде на разграбление отдал». Южнорусские летописи, открытые и изданные Н. Белозерским. Т.1, Киев, 1856, с.115;

"татары... приходят под Путивль и Рылеск и под Севеск, и тех городов в уездах и села и деревни жгут и разоряют, и людей побивают, и в полон емлют" (the description of Tatar actions) Source: АЮЗР, СПб, 1863, т.4, с. 356. --Voyevoda (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

1. That is not true. Please read the Treaty and see how he signed it. How does that agree with the Hetman of Ukraine in the intro? --Hillock65 (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

2. That is not true again. Please read the passage from Олексій Сокирко КОНОТОПСЬКА БИТВА 1659 р. Тріумф в час Руїни, Київ, Темпора, 2008

Вступ до битви ханської кінноти був сигналом для контратаки гетьманського війська на московитів. Зупинивши відступ, Виговський усіма силами атакував дезорієнтованого противника, одночасно охопивши його з правого флангу на захід від Конотопа. p. 59

I understand modern Russian writers prefer to exclude Ukrainians at all and revise the historical truth, but the evidence is quite to the contrary. As well the lonely English-language source see here contradits that quite clearly.

3. It is not for you to decide what sources are primary. All sources will be listed in the article. Calling Samovydtes pro-Vyhovsky is absurd. The question, however, is not him but Solyovyov. Calling an eminent Russian historian a Ukrainian source is a mockery of common sense, besides it is pure and simple WP:SYNTH, because no other sane person would call him a Ukrainian source and it is not supported by any other source, which is contrary to WP rules.

4. Whatever Vyhovsky was, Bezpalyi was not a hetman. The sources are crystal clear about that. He was an acting hetman (temporary alternative hetman) elected under intimidation from the Russian occupying army. See source here. p. 129

5. Unfortunatetely, you are drawing your own conclusions again. (WP:SYNTH) None of the sources listed show that Sirko's raid was caused by Tatars pillaging Ukrainian villages. --Hillock65 (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Here is the official post-Hadiach Seal of Ivan Vyhovsky. The word Zaporozhian is mentioned nowhere because Vyhovsky ceased to consider himself as Hetman of Zaporozhian Host. For only English-speaking readers, the seal says: Ivan Vyhovsky, voivod of Kiev, general of Kiev, great Hetman of Ruthenian principality, starosta of Chigirin.

2. From this excerpt there is no evidence of decisive importance of Vyhovsky troops. They attacked, well, but how decisive was their contribution? The sources I already gave in the text all speak of Vyhovsky troops playing the role of a lure who retreated soon after their appearance. This doesn't contradict Ukrainian sources, by the way. The logic of the numbers and the course of the events says, that the numerically superior Tatar troops played the decisive role, as they appeared from an ambush in large numbers und disoriented the Russian noble cavalry. It was only their contribution that the running numerically inferior Vyhovsky troops could stop and counter-attack, they would never manage it by themselves. That's why their role is secondary.

3. It's not me who decides, it's the common sense you refer to. Of course a direct source of 17th century, like Russian army lists and Samovidets, are primary ones, while essays from the 19th century cannot avoid basing on earlier sources and thus are secondary. And Solovyov is just a re-teller.

4. Acting Hetman or not he was considered legitimate (temporary) Hetman, while Vyhovsky's Hetmanship was seen illegitimate by half of the country. As to your source, it doesn't claim it must have been intimidation, it is described only as one of thinkable possibilities. It states: ..This encouraged OR intimidated some of the Left Bank cossack regiments into electing Ivan Bezpalyi as a temporary alternative hetman... Haven't you seen the word OR? Why are you manipulating what is written there?

5. With that sources I proved that you lied because you claimed Tatars never pillaged or enslaved anybody and it wasn't their goal. Generally, maybe you should learn more about Crimean Tatar society of that time to get on overview about their economic and social structure and their religious views to understand their motives. The slave trade and economic parasitism on Eastern Slavs was one of the main columns of their economy and wealth and most of their political and military actions were subordinated to that goal. It is again common sense that the news of pillaging must have arrived Sirko and that could not leave his patriotic feelings indifferent. It's absurd to think that the horrible news from Ukraine had no impact on his actions. He had the possibility to make the Khan leave Ukraine and he used it. BTW, there cannot be direct documents, since there was no Chancellery at Zaporozhie and thus no documentation. However, there are other sources that prove systematic and deliberate anti-Vyhovsky action of Sirko, for example: ...в Запорожье полковник Серко, собрался с Запорожаны, ходил воевать около Белаго города, и Ногайские улусы, которые кочевали близко Самаринки... и повоевав улусы, пошел было к Киеву на помочь к боярину и воеводам к Василию Борисовичу Шереметеву; и Выговский де, послыша то, послал было для перейму, чтоб Серка к Киеву не допустить, полковника своего Тимоша с войском..., а Серко того Тимоша со всем войском побил, и ушел Тимош к выговскому только сам третей. " Архив Юго-Западной России, т.7, стр. 297. And my claim that Vyhovsky was heavily dependent on Crimean Tatar forces and let them rob Left Bank Ukraine (proved) which he surely was informed of, is pretty trivial and doesn't need further sources. But you still deleted it. It's because it doesn't let Vyhovsky appear in heroic light you want him to appear in. --Voyevoda (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• 1. See: WP:SOURCES

“ Цвет московской конницы, совершившей счастливые походы 54-го и 55-го годов, сгиб в один день; пленных досталось победителям тысяч пять; несчастных вывели на открытое место и резали как баранов: так уговорились между собою союзники - хан крымский и гетман Войска Запорожского! ”

• 2. See: WP:SOURCES

“ Bohun's Cossacks then made a wide sweep and fell upon the right flank of Trubetskoi's and Romondanovskii's toops while Tatars hit them on the left flank and half of Gulianytsky's command sortied out of Konotop to hit them in the rear. A charge by Vyhovskyi's center out of the woods finished off Pozharskii and Lvov and then struck at Trubetskoi's and Romodanovskii's column across the river... ”

• 3. Solovyov was not a Ukrainian source. You will have to substantiate your outlandish claim per WP:SOURCE and WP:V.
• 4. Again per WP:SOURCE Bezpalyi was an acting (temporary) hetman and Vyhovsky a hetman of the Zaporozhian host. That's the way it will be reflected in the article with references.
• 5. Nice try. So, I presume there are no sources to substantiate that Sirko's raid was caused by unrestrained pillaging of Ukrainian villages by Crimean Tatars? I knew it was a lie.--Hillock65 (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll quit this discussion because I don't have the desire to move senselessly in a circle. Everything that could be said was said. Most of Hillock65 argumentation consists of deification of Solovyov, an essayist of the 19th century who was an important intermediate step in Russian historiography, but whose works do not suffice modern scientific requirements. Hillock65's own Western sources (Davies) prove Solovyov to make mistakes. Instead he juggles with links to some Wikipedia rules that have nothing in common with current situation. Hillock65 demonstrated that he doesn't shy away from manipulating text citations to prove his false claims (about "intimidation" by the Russians). Every time you prove Hillock65 wrong (e.g. about "non-pillaging Tatars") he just steps over it, as nothing happened, in an attempt to forget it quickly. May the admins decide whose argumentation is more convincing.

* From my side, I demand the removing of Solovyov numbers into footnotes untill they are sourced by a modern professional historian unaffiliated with Ukraine. --Voyevoda (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is this xenophobic rubish coming from? Every writer on the subject is one way or the other is affiliated with Ukraine. Historians should be judged by their contribution, not ethnicity. --Hillock65 (talk) 05:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe the problem is that Voevoda comes from the culture of Collective Responsibility, in which any Ukrainian writing on a Uke subject is automatically suspect, any pro-Ukrainian opinion is automatically anty-Russian ("kto ne s nami- tot protiv nas"), etc. But basically he pushes the garden variety Russian nationalist POV that includes SOP of vilification of the Vygovsky/Nemyrych line.Galassi (talk) 10:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Remarks Voevoda are objective, based on historical sources and prove to be true modern independent research of the English historian (See: WP:SOURCES) confirming correctness of a modern Russian historiography.--HenrichB (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Voevoda's remarks represent the revionist semi-scientific approach which has become increasingly popular in Russia. This approach is particularly prevalent with topics that are salient to those proponing an imperialist approach to Russian history, as this one is, and was previously only found on the pages of the Russian yellow press, but is nw making its way to Wikipedia. It is more entertaining than it is scholarly. --Bandurist (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

See: WP:SOURCES. See: Brian L. Davies. Warfare, state and society on the Black Sea steppe, 1500-1700. Routledge, UK. ISBN: 978-0-415-23986-8. See: Seal of Ivan Vyhovsky.Науково-дослідний інститут українського козацтва при Запорізькому державному університеті.--HenrichB (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That's the way how most Ukrainian users I've seen in Wikipedia hold a discussion: generalized opinions und insinuations, mostly without any serious sources to support their views, without any scientific attitude. They think Wikipedia is a bazaar or a low-level internet forum where anyone can cry out his slogans. I hope the admins will be wise enough to evaluate the discussion style and the thematic contribution of the both sides correctly. --Voyevoda (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I also hope, they do. Especially those with xenophobic insinuations above. I wonder why those, who don't like Wikipedia come to push their POV here. --Hillock65 (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Since none of the contested issues raised above were settled at talk, it is only fair to tag the article as not neutral. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of references

Dear Hillock65. It is impossible to delete references which confirm resulted figures.--HenrichB (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You are trying to list it under "Russian Sources". He is not Russian, never was and never will be. I don't object to this reference, just find an appropriate place for it, without causing confusion for readers or rename the section to just "Sources". I have been suggesting that for quite some time. --Hillock65 (talk) 05:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You understand a difference between Russian source and the Russian historian? This reference misleads nobody. You simply try to hide the information from the reader. References exist for acknowledgement of figures. Be not engaged in vandalism. As to renaming the same is not pleasant to me existing names, but I have not seen any correct offer on renaming.--HenrichB (talk) 10:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The reference is led to figure, instead of to the name. Disagreement with the name does not grant the right to delete the reference--HenrichB (talk) 11:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I corrected the table and added your source. Hope that settles it. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

My editing is more objective. She does not create false illusion about existence of an independent princedom of Russian. It was created as a part of the Polish-Lithuanian state--HenrichB (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. I corrected it to Grand Duchy of Rus, which it was according to the Treaty of Hadiach. --Hillock65 (talk) 05:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The Cossack hetman Ivan Vyhovsky decided to renew allegiance to the Polish Commonwealth and to break with the Treaty of Pereyaslav. The result of this decision was the conclusion of the Treaty of Hadiach, which established the Great Principality of Ruthenia as a third entity alongside the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Polish Crown lands, within the Commonwealth. The creation of Principality of Ruthenia, proposed in the 1658 Treaty of Hadiach was intended to be a full member of the Commonwealth, which would thereupon become a tripartite Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian Commonwealth. Without Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian Commonwealth of Great Duchy did not exist. It is directly written in the Treaty of Hadiach. If we insert duchy, we create illusion of its independence.--HenrichB (talk) 09:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Please note the word intended above. It never existed. It was intended to be in the treaty. Including it in the article we create an illusion that it existed. --Hillock65 (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit war again?

I guess this is a (second) coincidence that edit war erupts in this article every time User:Voyevoda starts editing? Or is it? --Hillock65 (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear, Galassi. Please, provide reliable sources proving that Vygovsky Cossacks, not Crimean Khanate, were the main power in the "Vygovsky coalition". Otherwise the order in the box will correspond the numbers of involved parties. — Glebchik (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What on Earth is meant under: "main power"? Crimean Tatars were allies of Vyhovsky and participated like other mercenaries in his campaign and his war. He invited them to join the war. He planned the battle, he lured the Muscovites in the trap. Vyhovsky was the leader of his coalition, there is no doubt about it. What's there to discuss? --Hillock65 (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Not absolutely so. The Vygovsky took the oath to Poland and the Khan.

…присылал Выговской х королю посланцов своих Павла Тетерю да Тарновского бити челом… И те посланцы, будучи в Варшаве, королю и всей Речи Посполитой присягали… с Выговским сшолся под Быковым крымской хан с Ордою, и тут Выговской и полковники хану присягали, что им всем быть при нем и помочь ему против всякого неприятеля чинить…1659 г., октябрь (не ранее 14-го) – Из расспросных речей пленного польско-немецкого наемника И. Выговского майора Яна Зумера. (РГАДА)

Jan Zumer - the witness and the direct participant of events.--HenrichB (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What is this for? --Hillock65 (talk) 05:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Leaders do not bring the oath to someone else. The oath bring It. Vygovsky - has obeyed to the king and has obeyed to the Khan--HenrichB (talk) 11:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of this. Here is a quote from an English-language source:

“ On 24 June Vyhovsky's 16,000-man army, now reinforced by 30,000 Tatars under the khan and nuraddin Gazy Girei, began advancing upon Trubetskoi's position. ”

Read it carefully - it is the Vyhovsky's army that was reinforced, not the khan's, because Vyhovsky was in command. I hope this settles this unnecessary and stupid revert war. The order of battle participants is not worth fighting over. --Hillock65 (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

In your citation there is nothing that would speak about the leading part Vygovsky. It is told about its army in 16,000 persons and army of the Khan. Yes, 16,000 persons are an army Vygovsky. Show to me where the Khan swore to submit Vygovsky? Vygovsky such oath gave! Vygovsky did not act as the independent leader. It was the subordinate Poland-Lithuanian commonwealth. Besides, Vygovsky has obeyed to the Khan.--HenrichB (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does, ask someone who knows English better than you to explain it to you. It was the Vyhovsky's army that was strengthened with the Tatars, he commanded it. --Hillock65 (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty miserable to argue with someone's language skills. HenrichB has a far better overview over the sources and is an expert on the issue even though his English language is not perfect. By the way, in your source there is NOWHERE an evidence that Vyhovsky was in command. The formulation that his troops were reinforced by his ally, the Khan, is not enough because the story is told from the point of view where he is in the center of attention, not the Khan. There is however no proof the Khan obeyed him. But there was presented a source that proofs that Vyhovsky swore an oath on the Khan. This, together with the numbers of participants, justifies the putting of the Khan on the first place. --Voyevoda (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The sources speak for themselves. Vyhovsky was the leader of the coalition that he created. There is nothing else to add. --Hillock65 (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No, in the beginning he might have asked the Khan for military help, but then was evidently the junior partner, based on the power of both sides. In the course of war, Vyhovsky had consultations with the Khan on military affairs, but surely no command over him. He couldn't even avert him from unrestrained pillaging of Ukraine. There are objective reasons to put the Khan over his junior partner Vyhovsky because in the first place there is always the strongest and most effective side with decision power. It is a completely different question, how this side joined the war and whether it was asked for help by its weaker partner. If you want to change it, you'll have at least to prove that the Khan obeyed orders of Vyhovsky. --Voyevoda (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

THat is entirely your own OR ans SYNTHESIS, both unacceptatable here.Galassi (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That is entirely your subjective opinion, once again without any rationale or further explanation. You obviously haven't read the previous discussion because many of the things I said here were already sourced and proved. One more thing can be added in support of my position: in the case of the Khan we have an independent head of state while Vyhovsky is a subordinate of the Rzeczpospolita king. --Voyevoda (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Makhun S. Battle of Konotop. Reittarr. No. 23.

I have removed a mention about work of Makhun. This author shows utter ignorance.

Кроме главнокомандующего князя Трубецкого ("мужа благовейного и изящного, в войне счастливого и недругам страшного", как писали его современники), в плену оказались и абсолютно все его помощники, известные, опытные полководцы – Пожарский, Львов, Черкасский, Ляпунов, Бутурлин.

"Летопись Самовидца" сообщает: "…И там, перешел гетман Выговский Сосновки переправы, застал великие войска его царского величества, с которыми был окольничий князь Григорий Ромодановский и князь Пожарский… И через несколько часов у той переправы большой бой был. Но хан с ордами, с тыла от Конотопа , ударив, оных сломил" (начало XVII в, перевод с укр. автора).

All know that Trubetsky was not taken prisoner. The annals could not be written in the XVII-th century beginning in any way!--94.29.88.8 (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You have my support. Such ignorance disqualifies the author. Unfortunately, this is quite often that courtyard historians in Ukraine heavily distort history. Then such scandals appear as recently when pictures of US Great Depression were presented as evidence of Holodomor. --Voyevoda (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary I disagree. Makhun is a famous historian with several credits to his name. Try harder. --Hillock65 (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Makhun - the journalist, the editor of the newspaper “Mirror of week”--HenrichB (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is his publication in the Russian historical journal. [1] Please also note, that you are reverting sourced material from other references that I corrected. Reverting pages will not help. --Hillock65 (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It is popular scientific magazine! He not the historian, it the journalist which writes on historical themes. You have not furnished any convincing proof of the version - your editings are incorrect.--HenrichB (talk) 01:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

So what? If you like, remove his reference but don't revert whole page. --Hillock65 (talk) 01:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Babulin

How did this slanderous nonsence get into the article? It must be removed ASAP. Galassi (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It was already said to you that your unfounded insults won't lead anywhere. Learn to use arguments, boy. --Voyevoda (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth victory

Having signed the Treaty of Hadiach and the sworn king Vigovsky became citizens Poland-Lithuanian commonwealth. No independent Grand Duchy of Rus existed. The title of the Prince of Rus always belonged to the king. Here its title in the contract:Яна Казимира, з божої ласки короля польського, великого князя литовського, руського, пруського, мазовецького, жмудського, інфлянського, смоленського, чернігівського, готського. Vygovsky only the Great hetman of the king same as the Great hetman of a crown and the Great hetman of Lithuania. --HenrichB (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

After signing the Treaty of Hadiach it was Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian commonwealth. And in the matters of war, the Duchy of Rus had freedom to conduct its affairs and defeat the invaders. --Hillock65 (talk) 01:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it had no freedom on foreign affairs at all. Read the text of the Treaty. --Voyevoda (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You have told that it was Commonwealth not carried out! Any freedom at the Duchy of Rus was not. Ніяких послів від сторонніх держав не приймати, а кали такі трапляться, їх до його королівської милості мають відсилати. Також ані військ чужих не впроваджувати і не мати жодного із сторонніми порозуміння на школу Річі Посполитої, хіба доповівши його королівській милості. On the contrary Vygovsky has given obligations to the king to be at war against Russia. коли його милість цар не захоче повернути провінцій Річі Посполитої і наступатиме на Річ Посполиту, тоді всі сили, як коронні і Великого князівства Литовського, так і війська руські Запорозькі під регіментом свого гетьмана будуть з'єднуватися і воювати. Do not pervert history!--HenrichB (talk) 02:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Also do not delete sources! You even have transformed Solovyov into the Sokolov!--HenrichB (talk) 02:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution explains the dispute resolution procedures. I strongly recommend that involved users request help from the WP:MEDCAB or WP:MEDCOM. If there are concerns over potential policy violations, such as sock-puppetry or account sharing, then WP:RCU or WP:ANI would be appropriate places to raise those issues.   Will Beback  talk  04:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit on Battle of Konotop

{{editprotected}} Remove the redundant {{pp-semi-vandalism}} template at the top of the page, please. kthx, GrooveDog • i'm groovy. 12:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like (a) page protection has expired, and (b) the template was already removed. tedder (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is indeed in a very sorry state. Some editors practically succeeded in re-writing history and removing more or less even mentioning of Ukraine from it. It is all of a sudden a Crimean Tatar / Commonwealth victory, which is beyond riduculous and contradicts most if not all written sources. --Hillock65 (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)