Talk:Danubian Sich

Potemkin

There is a sentence in the text: «But later Zaporozhian Cossack Grigory Potemkin, and apparently without Kalnyshevky's knowledge, reached an agreement to allow a group of 50 Cossacks under the guidance of a starshyna Lyakh to go fishing in the river Ingul next to the Southern Buh in Ottoman territory and to issue 50 passports.»

Grigory_Potemkin was not Zaporozhian Cossack at all. He was someone quite opposite in fact ) Kaktuse (talk) 08:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Title

Would Danubian Host be a better name? --Irpen 23:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the Danubian Cossack Host refers to a Russian Cossack army that existed there in the mid 19th century. --Kuban Cossack 15:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Full revert

Mikka explain yourself for this [1]. --Kuban Cossack 16:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Explained in edit summary: Kuban kazak, what is the source of your long addition? YOu are not newcomewr to write such long essays WITHOUT A SINGLE REFERENCE ! `'Míkka>t 16:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Mikka I am still working to finish this article and in my draft is just about to add refrences. What kind of admin uses foul language and reverts edits? What has happened to you? --Kuban Cossack 16:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. Restored for now. I expect references ASAP. I strongly suggest you to refresh your knowledge ofwikipedia:Attribution. You are not a newcomer who must be politely warned three times and then blocked to stop him from violating wikipedia policies. Citing sources is an absolutely fundamental policies. Please change your writing style so that you put in references simultaneously with text. P.S. Did I act as an admin? Do you think only admins must not use foul language? Do you think calling someone's actions as "vandalism" without seeing and responding to an edit summary is nice and polite? `'Míkka>t 16:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This language and tone is completely unacceptable, Mikkalai. Tone it done and WP:AGF. Lawrence § t/e 16:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well until now reverting massive expansions is something that I felt until then only POV-pushers could be capable of... but even they now seem like angels. Mikka what prevented you from putting an {{unreferenced}} tag? --Kuban Cossack 16:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably to make more enemies. I've seen "unreferenced" tags sitting for years collecting more and more text , mixed with facts and bullshit. `'Míkka>t 16:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes but I still don't feel that a full revert is justified, if I mean most of my articles on Metro stations don't have a reference what are you now going to delete them all? --Kuban Cossack 17:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You know it and you are sitting on your hands? What can I say.... `'Míkka>t 17:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well Mikka I've added the references. If you want particular facts cited indicate with the fact icon and I will acquire a direct quote from each of the sources listed below. There are others that I used as well, and I will put them up in due course. Most are online so you can easily verify them. --Kuban Cossack 17:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not that I have specific problems with the content. I do have problems with the contribution style without references. This is not the first cossack article written without references. It was happening quite often in the early days of wikipedia. It is not OK now. No I am not going to delete old texts. But do you seriously think it will be much better that after each your edit I will jump in and tag every your added sentence with {{fact}}? Surely it will bump up my edit count enormously :-). But why don't you follow the rule from the very beginning? `'Míkka>t 17:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Look you are going to know teach me how to write articles, after all the time that I was here... Seriously who do you think I am? When I write articles in wiki, I want to see my source text without being interrupted by five lines of ref this and ref that, so I can easily change it so it reads nicely. By that point quotes and citations can be lost. Which is why, unless its something specific, I usually rarely add to text, and instead just let the source of information to be shown on the bottom. Even now after the incident the article is still far from complete. Hear this though every single historical fact that is supposed to have happened in this article can be instantly verified. --Kuban Cossack 18:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your position, but you have to understand mine as well. Please think something in between. Please remember you are not alone editor. Someone else may start inserting text in between. How I can figure out what is yours, taken from sources listed in the end? I am repeating, I have deleted quite a few bullshit from insides of articles copied, e.g., from EB1911 long ago and happily forgotten since then. How about placing references at the end of each paragraph? `'Míkka>t 18:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What will that do? In that case every paragraph will get the same number of citations. --Kuban Cossack 18:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It will make the paragraph referenced, as long as you fill not formally cut and paste the same list of refs and make sure that the paragraph's content comes from them. If someone else adds something suspicious inside your paragraph, I may check your sources and say "hey, this statement is not in the sources cited. Please provide your ref". `'Míkka>t 19:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Can that wait until I finish the article which will probably be tomorrow? --Kuban Cossack 19:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Rusnaks

I like the article very much; there are some minor grammar and stylistic issues that I will work on when I have a chance, and there need to be more references I think. I'll add more about the Rusnaks if I can find it on the internet.warmly,Faustian (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That's what I consider dubious... according to the sources including some Ukrainian langauge publications all found at the bottom of the page. After Gladky defected to Russia, the Sultan called upon Janissaries who wiped out whoever remained in the Sich and sacked it as well, and even those Cossacks rallied for war were disarmed and died in forced labour deep in Anatolia. That would rule out the Rusnaks being descendants of the Danubian Sich, so who are they descendants of? You are right there is hardly any sources that can be found about them, moreover the link gives to the Rusyn language. That's why I marked it as dubious. --Kuban Cossack 18:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of Ukraine has information about those people [2]:

After the destruction of the Zaporozhian Sich in 1775, some of its Cossacks fled to the Danube delta and established the Danubian Sich at Dunavets (Dunavaţul). During the Russo-Turkish war of 1828–9 (see Russo-Turkish wars) the Danubian otaman Yosyp Hladky and his Cossacks joined the Russian side in 1828, and only a remnant of the Cossacks was left in Dobrudja. Their numbers increased as peasants fled across the Danube from Ukraine to avoid serfdom and conscription, particularly in 1830–40. During the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–8 some of the Danubian Ukrainians returned to Ukraine.

The Ukrainians of Dobrudja today inhabit the main delta of the Danube River in Tulcea county. (See map: Ukrainian Settlements in Dobrudja.) They constitute almost 40 percent of the county's population. Beside them, in separate settlements, live the Russians—the Nekrasovtsy (descendants of refugees of Kondratii Bulavin's rebellion in the 18th century) and the Old Believers (Lipovany). According to the Romanian census of 1899, there were 13,700 Ukrainians in Dobrudja and 12,500 Russians. According to Bulgarian sources of 1918, there were 21,500 Ukrainians and 18,500 Russians. The Romanian census of 1930 gives 23,000 Ukrainians and 18,000 Russians-Lipovany. The main centers of Ukrainian settlement in Dobrudja are Kiliia Stara (Chilia Veche, 2,000), Murighiol (930), Teliţa (940), Letia (Letea, 845), Nyzhnii Dunavets (Dunavăţul de Jos, 680), Verkhnii Dunavets (374), Carorman (800), Başpunar (670), Hamcharka (Hamcearca, 460), Chukurova (Ciucurova, 320), Geaferca Rusa (190), Sfintu Gheorghe (540), Pardyna (Pardina, 540), Sulina (Sulyn), and Tulcea (see map: Ukrainian Settlements in Dobrudja). There are about 1,000 Ukrainians in the main city of Dobrudja—Constanţa.

The Ukrainians of Dobrudja are mostly fishermen and farmers. They live separately from the Russians and have preserved their Ukrainian language; they call themselves Rusnaks. In 1880–2, Fedir Vovk did some educational work among them. In the 1930s Ukrainians from the Akkerman region and the Ukrainian theater from Chernivtsi visited Dobrudja.

After the Second World War the Romanian authorities permitted some cultural activity among the Ukrainians in Dobrudja in the 1950s. The school reform of 1948 introduced the Ukrainian language into the elementary schools of Dobrudja. In Tulcea a parallel Romanian-Ukrainian teachers' college was set up, and in 1957 it graduated 54 teachers. In the 1960s all the concessions that the Ukrainians had won in education were abolished.

About the destruction of the Danuban sich, it states [3]: "For this betrayal the Turks destroyed the Danubian Sich. The remaining scattered Cossacks were not able to renew the organized life of the Sich communities. Their descendants still live in the Danube delta. Hladky's followers were organized by the Russian government into the Azov Cossack Host."

Here is a reference to Cossack descendents in Dobrogea (Romanian spelling) from a website run by Ukrainians in Romania [4]:

Until not so much time ago, the scientists haven’t been allowed to study the ethnic, ethnography and the folk traditions of the Ukraineans living in this country. There have been 100 years since Hvedir Vovk intellectual studied in Dobrogea, the „zadunaiskih kozakiv” ancestrals specific. Now, has been started the science-etnographical study in some areas where Ukraineans live: the scientists of the Ujgorod University, have started in 2001 the etnographic study of the Ukraineans from N-V of Romania (the Satu-Mare and Maramures districts) and those form the Odesa History Insititute have made studies in the villages located in the North of Dobrogea.

In the spring of year 2002, when in Dobrogea (Tulcea) took place the action „Searching the Zaporozhe - Cossacks traces” has been presented the Viaceslav Kusnir’s book „The Ukrainens living across the Danube”, also a scientific symposium and celebration of 5 years from building of the Zaporozhe-Cossaks monument in Dunavatul de Jos.

There is a chapter of the Ukrainian organization in Dobrogea [5] and in Ukrainian [6]].

It claims that after Hladky switched to the Russian side, the Romanians destroyed the Cossack sich and church, while the remaining Cossacks unwilling to join Russia moved into the Danube delta, counting 1,095 cossack families in 1830. Interestingly, it claims that Hlady and the pro-Russian forces were a minority of the Danubian Sich Until 1861 this number of Ukrainians was added to through escaping serfs.

Through google I found brief references to Ukrainians living in Dobrudja here: [7] and [8] and [9]Faustian (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well Gladky was able to take the best of the Cossacks after all, those he suspected of even minor sympathies to the Sultan he sent to Silistria. Shambarov points out simple logic: In 1822 a nobody joins the Sich and in only six years he is the Sich's Kosh. This is exact evidence of the disorganisation and poor state (попросту - бардак) that the Sich was in. In any case why not create a Ukrainians in Romania or an article about the Dobrogea and do a see also from the Danubian Sich? --Kuban Cossack 12:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I had at Dobrudja (did not now it existed!)... well the amount of Ukrainians seem a lot smaller than the claimed 23,000, have a look at the statistics in the tables for yourself. --Kuban Cossack 12:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That's your POV. My POV is that he was an unprincipled opportunist who took advantage of the hospitality of the people who took him in and made him their leader, betrayed those people, and ran off with their treasury and regalia after putting those people into a position where they would suffer horribly as a result of his actions. It seems that most of the Danubian cossacks were indeed loyal to the Sultan, and were unfairly massacred/persecuted as a result of Hladky's actions. Hladky was indeed skillful at what he did, and good at taking advantage of the Danubian Sich's apparent dissaray, but that doesn't mean he was good.Faustian (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, according the Shambarov, the majority of the Cossacks in Danube were fueled by similar opportunists. After the bitter rivalry with Nekrasovites how else would they "renew" their numbers? Men like Gladky were very common, and I would not doubt he was the only one. Moreover most of the Cossacks were not loyal to anyone except their personal wallet, and they sided with the Sultan because of the oppurtunities they would have to loot and pillage. What's fair/unfair is out of the question here. In fact the number of Cossacks and Rayah included their families. The Sich was mostly empty when the Janissairies sacked it, and what has become of the Cossacks in Silistra? That's the price they pay for violating one of the oldest Cossack rules, to be loyal to your faith. Siding with Islamic Turkey against their Orthodox brothers IMO warrants a fair punishment for such a sin.

The fact that his victims are alleged to have been no better doesn't change his crime nor treachery. A lot of Christians were killed, and their church destroyed, as a direct result of Hladky's trickery. As for Orthodoxy - the Russian regime that enserved Orthodox peasants and helped crush an anti-Catholic Orthodox rebellion who naively believed that the Russians would save them. Catherine II was no more anti-Orthodox than the Danube Sich.Faustian (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well that's for you to judge, bottom line, is that one of our present units is named after Gladky, (as well as after Kornilov, Cathrine II and others). It is an infantry based plastun type unit that operates in semi-amphibious regions (like deltas), and is presently based in Abkhazia. I fail to see crime or tretchery here, of course one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter logic kicks in, but that would place others such as Mazepa (after his failure the Sich was destroyed by Peter), Khmelnitsky (wrt Poles, and the Cossacks left in the PLC), in fact all resistance leaders, such as Soviet Partisans. Just because they chose to rise up against the Germans, and in revenge they are guilty of the villages being sacked in revenge. It's simple politics here, if I was the Sultan I would do pretty much the same thing. And if you back in time and remove Gladky there would be someone else who would carry out the operation in his absense. Historical events don't take place just because of one man being evil. His motive was to return to Russia, and for those Cossacks that went with him, most lived to see their grandchildren. If Gladky did not release the Cossacks to Silistra, he would have never been able to evacuate the rest of the Sich. Given the Russian Army's excellence in the War, most of them would have died in combat. It is pointless to continue this what if debate. If you consider him a traitor, fine with me, although considering he avoided raising arms against his our people, I would think the opposite of him. --Kuban Cossack 18:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Also Encyclopedia of Ukraine is a refrence I would openly call dubious. Romanian statistics are based on censuses, whilst EoU is very questionable. Moreover the link Rusnak does not seem to go to that population group. --Kuban Cossack 16:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Why dubious? Incidentally the Ukrainians in Dobrogea themselves dispute the Romanian census and claim at least 20,000 Ukrainians living there. Romania has been notoriously anti-Ukrainian throughout history [10], much worse than Poland between the world wars, which helps explain the desperate desire by Slavs in Transnistria to avoid being under Romanian occupation.Faustian (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well first of all, look at the dates of the refrences, all to the 1970s, second it does not actually state the present numbers you claim. Third, again assimilated or not, the fact is that at present only 4 thousand identify themselves as Ukrainians, and I would imagine even less as Rusnaks. Transnistria is a irrelevant here, although btw the Cossacks stationed there are registered in the Russian Union of Cossacks as the...Danube Cossack Host. I've heard stories that there were also during the civil war many villagers claimed descendancy as joined the ranks. Incidentally most of those representing Moldova were actually Romainian special forces fighting on their behalf.

In any case, the fate of the Ukrainians in Dobrudja is as irrelevant to this article as are the fate of Nekrasovites to the Don Cossack article. Feel free to create a decent article about the post-1828 Dobruja and the Ukrainians there, although you might get in trouble with a few opinionated Romanian editors.

Why do I consider EoU dubious? For the same reason I consider the First and Second editions of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia which state that of all things Quantum Mechanics is a bourgeous capitalist science that contradicts Marxism-Leninism and should thus not be practiced... (Do you know that story?) Same here, not only are their spelling plain and wrong: Konotip, Oziv, Sevastopil etc. They have what I would call the exact view on history that any other nationalist source would: e.g.:these statistics were doctored, however, for the purpose of demonstrating that the political border between Ukraine and Russia coincides with the ethnic border... Seriously this is just childish. --Kuban Cossack 18:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Danubian Sich. 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/20071219035248/http://knsuvorov.narod.ru/text/ukr.html to http://knsuvorov.narod.ru/text/ukr.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 17:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion:Flag

Can we add a reference to the flag please as just seems copy pasted to Zaporizhian Sich even if it was the successor state. Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)