Talk:Jewish Cossacks

Scope

Interesting article, but it seems a bit ORish. Is there an academic source that clearly states there were Jewish Cossacks? Certainly during Chmielnicki Uprising Cossacks massacred many Jews, so I find it rather hard to believe that they would have many Jews in their ranks.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat, due to unavailability of translations from Borovoy's work.Galassi 21:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Weird stuff. Most of the article is a paraphrase of the article in the Jewish encyclopedia with some corrections and additions. It is not known whether the Cossack Jews were Ashkenazy Jews or Krymchaks or Karaims or baptised. However it is a start to find out something that was not well known or a popular topic. Bandurist 02:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is largely off-topic. As per title, it should be about the Jewish Cossacks, not the Jewish-Ukrainian relations or arbitrary-picked issues of Cossack history forked here for whatever reasons. We have dedicated articles on each of these issues already. The article needs severe trimming and cleanup. Not that it cannot become a long one but length should not come from inclusion of irrelevances. --Irpen 02:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

An important question to ask is whether the Jewishness of these Cossacks was by ethnicity or by Religion or both? Bandurist 02:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, a very important question and an extremely tangled one. That Jewishness is just an ethnicity is a POV in itself, rather common in post-Soviet countries and rather unpopular in much of elsewhere. You can google for much of the fascinating debate of this yet unresolved question whether Jewishness is about ethnicity, religion, both, none or "I don't like this question". So, let's first do some really necessary steps of cleaning up the irrelevant stuff. --Irpen 02:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It is safe to assume that they were of Jewish ethnicity, because as we all know- etnicity is omnipresent whether this notion is popular somewhere or not. And it is a reasonable assumption that they were converted, but continued to use Hebrew, being literate in it. Knowledge of Hebrew was not limited to the Jews BTW, and any Eastern Orthodox cleric worth his salt had at least some skill in it.Galassi 03:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoever wrote the off-topic stuff, please move it asap to other articles so that it does not get lost because the general stuff about Jewish-Ukrainian relations does not belong to this much a narrower scope article. --Irpen 05:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Essay

This appears to be little more than a monograph, attempting to prove that Jewish Cossacks existed.

There is nothing in that article about Jewish Cossacks per se. Language? Culture? Place within Cossack society? History of how they came to be Cossacks?

In other words, nothing that would make this an article is actually present.

Have I missed something? Jd2718 01:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Read the russophone articles.Galassi (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Check this out

Check this out. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_200009/ai_n8917384 What do you think 16:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It won't be eay to separate the fact from its schlocky presentation.Galassi (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Israelovsky

Here is the full quotation: Simon Sebag Montefiore "Prince of Princes; The Life of Potemkin", page 394 "Potemkin' decided to arm the Jews against the Turks. This 'singular project', probably his Jewish friend Zeitlin's idea, spawned in some rabbinical debate with the Prince, started as a cavalry squadron raised among the Jews of his Krischev estate. In December, he created a Jewish regiment called the Israelovsky, a word reminiscient of the Izmailovsky Guards. But that was where the similarities ended. Commanded by Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick, their ultimate aim was to liberate Jerusalem for the Jews, just as Potemkin was to conquer Constantinople for the Orthodox. This sign of Potemkin's unique philo-semitism and of Zeitlin's influence was an awkward idea given Russian and especially Cossack anti-semitism, but it was surely the first attempt by a foreign power to arm the Jews since Titus destroyed the Temple. The Prince wanted his Israelovsky to be half-infantry, half-cavalry, the latter to be Jewish Cossacks with Zaporogian lances: 'we already have one squadron', observed Ligne to Joseph II. Thanks to the shortness of their stirrups, their beards come down to their knees and their fear on horseback makes them like monkeys.' Joseph, who had loosened the restrictions of his own Jews, was probably amused. By March 1788, thirty-five of these bearded Jewish Cossacks were being trained. Soon there were two squadrons, and Ligne told Potemkin there were plenty more in Poland. Ligne was skeptical, but he admitted he had seen excellent Jewish postmasters and even postillions. The Israelovsky evidently went out on patrol with the cavalry because Ligne wrote that they were as terrified of their own horses as those of the enemy. But five months later Potemkin cancelled the Israelovsky. Ligne joked that he did not dare continue them for fear of 'getting mixed up with the Bible.' So ended this rare experiment that says a great deal about Potemkin's originality and imaginaton. Ligne thought the Jewish Cossacks were 'too ridiculous'. Instead, Potemkin concentrated on a 'great number of Zaporogians and other Cossack volunteers' pouring in to form the new Black Sea Host." Footnote: "One wonders what happened to those Jewish Cossacks. Six years later, in 1794, Polish Jews raised a force of 500 light cavalry to fight the Russians. Their colonel Berek (Berko) Joselewicz joined Napoleon's Polish Legion in 1809. Did any of Potemkin's Jewish Cossacks fight for Napoleon?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by AllenHansen (talk • contribs) 12:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability

This appears to be a hash-up of one paragraph articles, mostly about individual Jews who happened to become Cossacks. The lack of any unifying information (culture, language, special role within Cossack society (?), how they became Cossacks, etc) gives away that this is not a single article.

Rather than tell us about Jewish Cossacks, the article is devoted to showing that they existed. This is a good sign that the notability of the topic as a single topic should be doubted. Jd2718 (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You should learn something about the history and culture of the place and the era before putting HIGHLY inappropritae tags. The article is referenced, and is supported by the work of Saul Borovoy, a major historian.Galassi (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Original Research

I tagged this article as original research. By stringing together a list of unrelated individual anecdotes and facts, mostly from marginally reliable sources, this article is, taken as a whole, a single piece of original research, a synthesis. (this seems inevitable, as the topic is not notable) Jd2718 (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ludicrous. This topis is extraordinarily notable.Galassi (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Here he goes again. There is no reason to do this just because you personally don't like the article an it does not fit you perception of the world Bandurist (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I always assume good-faith, but this user has a clear anti-ukrainian bias.Galassi (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest cutting down on the accusatory rhetoric. The article clearly lacks focus and is devoted to the J-UA relations in general, not the Jewish Cossacks of which there were none. --Irpen 18:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you please provide reliable sources that would inequivocally state any lack of such individuals?Galassi (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, first you have to present source that assert the existence of such individuals. Note the other concurrent discussion at the talk of the History of Jews in UA. --Irpen 18:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The entire Borovoy diss is devoted to the subject, which needs no assertion. Except for anti-Semites, maybe....Galassi (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Galassi, this is the warning #2. Please tone it down. And, btw, I see no indication from the article's sources that practicing Jews were Cossacks. Among Cossacks? Yes. Converted Jews being Cossacks? Perhaps. But those are no more "Jewish" Cossacks in that century's context. And most of the article just forks J-UA relations which is plain wrong. --Irpen 18:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Galassi is quite correct. Soviet era antisemites suppressed Borovoy's research because it compromised pure-ethnic "quasi Aryan" view of Cossacks especially after WWII. No one else would ever need any such justification.Lute88 (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Please reread above starting from "I see no indication from the article's sources that practicing Jews were Cossacks." --Irpen 19:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

One does not have to profess any religion whatsoever to be persecuted as a Jew. So lets not bring this daft "practicing Jews" bit in here (I should add that this construct in endemic to the US only, pretty much).Lute88 (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Please remember we are not talking the 20th century context. Back then the concept of the nation did not exist even, let alone the "Jewish nation". People were classified by the language, religion, social status and suzerainty. --Irpen 19:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sure you know what is LIMPIEZA DE SANGRE, or am I?Galassi (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting article. ЄВРЕЇ-КОЗАКИ by Yuri Mytsyk. But the interesting stuff is the bibliography

• 1. Евреи-казаки в начиг XVII в. // Киевская старина. - 1890. - № 5. С. 377-379.
• 2. Головний Apxiв давніх актів у Варшаві. - Ф. «Apxiв Замойських». - № 3048. - С.286. Текст цього листа був нами вже видрукований: «Mycyk J. Zyd na Siczi Zaporoskej w XVII w. // Biulatyn Zudowskego Instytutu Istorycznego w Polsce. - Warszawa, 1993. - S. 65-66.
• 3. Horn M. Powinnosci wojenne zydow w Rzeczy Potpolitej w XVI, XVII wieku. - Warszawa, 1978.

- S. 103.

• 4. Luber S. Die Herkunft von Zaporoger Kozaken des 17 Jahrhunderts nach personennamen. - Berlin, 1983. - S. 100.
• 5. Архив Юго-Западной России. - Киев., 1914. - Ч. III. - Т.4. - № 45. - С. 100-102.
• 6. Січинський В. Чужинці про Україну. - К., 1992. - С. 99-100.
• 7. Центральний держащий історичний apxiв України в Києві). - Ф. 229. - On. I. - № 232. - Арк. 199.
• 8. Лиман І. I. Церква в духовному cвіті Запорозького козацтва. - Запоріжжя, 1992. - С.8.
• 9. Там само; Скальковський А. О. Історія Нової Ciчi або останнього Коша Запороэького. -Дніпропетровськ, 1994. - С. 192.
• 10. Лиман I. I. Церква... - С. 8.
• 11. Apxiв Коша Нової Запорозької Ciчi. Опис справ. 1713-1776. - К., 1994. - С. 77.
• 12. Боровий С. А. Євреї в Запорозькій Ciчi. // Праці Інституту єврейської культури ВУАН.

- К., 1930.

No 1 about Jewsih Cossacks was published in 1890 by an eminent scholarly magazine.

No 12 is also quite an important journal from 1930.

The topic is notable, although it certainly is a topic that has not received the recognition that it should have received. Interesting is that sources are not just in Ukrainian or Russian, but also in German and Polish. Bandurist (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding info on number 4: ISBN 3-447-02381-3, the book by the Slavist and translator Susanne Luber has 145 pages and here you get a two-page review of the work. Hm, I have no accesse to JSTOR, but if the book is really also mentioning "Jewish Cossacks", I can only say I have seen articles kept on Wikipedia with less than this to reference the phenomenon ... But indeed, there should be less about Jewish-Ukrainian relationships here and perhaps a line about the fact that they may have been converted - or we should refer to some article about the ethnicity/religion problem. Er, someone said above Orthodox priests knew Hebrew (so, but that is OR on OR, we presume they could talk to these guys). Unfortunately, most of the chaps who may have joined these military outfits "probably only knew enough Hebrew to get through Bar Mitzvah" (like knowlege of Latin by Roman Catholic boys going through confirmation), their mother tongue was Yiddish, and it only looked like Hebrew when it was written down - it was a Germanic language! So that argument about Orthodox priests is not worth a Ukrainian shekel. Wishing loads of mazzel to anyone who wants to correct this article, by the way. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Bedanckt for your opinion. However in is not well informed. The upper stratum of the Cossack society was extremely well educated, with some officers possessing degrees from OXford, Sorbonne or Bologna. Western style education was brought to Ukraine when cossack mersenaries came back from the 30year War. Hebrew was obligatory at the seminary that staffed entire Eastern and Southern Europe- Kyiv-Mohyla Academy.Galassi (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I am so sorry, mensh, but I was not shmoozing, I was not arguing against Orthodox priests knowing Hebrew. Hebrew, however, was never the mother tongue of the immense majority of Jews living in Europe from 800 on. In Spain, a "Jewish" version of Spanish became the norm ("Spanish" speaking Jews later emigrated to Thessalonica and Crete - they were the "Greek" Jews exterminated by the nazis). Later, in the Rhineland, Jews switched to German, which as the Jews trekked East became more and more influenced by Slavic languages. So it does not matter whether Orthodox priests spoke Hebrew, it does not matter how much Hebrew Mazepa knew (very little, I am inclined to think, if he left school at 15), the point is that only Jewish rabbis knew Hebrew and 99% of Jews in Eastern Europe had far less trouble being understood by German Mennonites than by Orthodox priests who would have addressed them in Hebrew. Before the vernacular was used in the Roman Catholic Church Western Rite, 99% of Roman Catholics had no idea what they were saying when reciting the Credo in Latin, and the same thing applied to Jews and Hebrew. Of course, now in Israel, the spoken language is a "derivation" from Hebrew and Yiddish is fast dying out... Bedanckt is badly spelled Dutch by the way ("Bedankt", though you normally say "Dank U", as "bedankt" may imply you want to get rid of that person's company: "Ты свободен!"), in Yiddish you say "a sheynem dank". Zay gezunt! (not implying that you sneezed, just saying goodbuy!).--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Literacy in Hebrew was obligatory and prevalent, regardless of vernacular, and that is standard scholarship. Mazepa the Intellectual is well-documented. As to BEDANCKT- I prefer Baroque spelling.Galassi (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Cossacks and racism

Just reviewing many of the above sources one comes to the conclusion that the Zaprozhian Cossacks were not racists, because they included many peoples into the ranks of the cossacks ... but they did wind up being extremely hostile to all non-orthodox religions, in particular the Poles and the Uniates. One has to re-assess the the happenings of Khmelnytsky's times, as at that time they were even killing Greek Catholics, ie Byzantine Eastern Orthodox Christians who had come into UNion with the Catholic church. Bandurist (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Did the question of racism ever come up? Just consider that Hetman Fedorenko was a converted Tatar.Galassi (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't he the prototype (or his actions) for Taras Biulba? Bandurist (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Highly unlikely. A totally unprincipled mercenary. Galassi (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You meant Fedorovych, right?Lute88 (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Karaimovych

See sources in uk:Ілляш Караїмович. Karaimovych wa also called the Armenian. No need to cutt of information you dont like.--202.71.90.139 (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no primary source mentioned on LITOPYS.Galassi (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You've checked badly: Літопис Самовидця. видання підготував Я. І. Дзира. — Київ: «Наукова думка», 1971. — 208 с. (The cronicle of eyewitness） -

1. В Чигирині місті 9 мешкал сотник Богдан Хмелницкий, козак ростропній в ділах козацких военних, и у писмі біглій 10, и часто у двора королевского в поселстві будучій. И под час бытности своеї с козаком значним переясловским з Іваном Ілляшем (Ivan Illyash) (а тот Ілляш барзо зичливим 11 королеві 12 его милости) и упросили писмо, албо привилей, на роблений 13 челнов на море, мимо відомость гетманов коронных, що и одержавши, тое скрито держали от полковников в Переясловлю.
2. И Хмелницкій, видячи, же оного вічистіе добра оному кгвалтом видрано 18, старался фортелем, жебы тот привилей, данній от короля от 19 его милости на робленя чолновное волное 20 козаком, достати, що и доказал 2*, бо маючи в дому своем у гостях того Ілляша 21 Ормянчика (Ivan the Armenian) 22 переясловского и у оного вивідавшися 23 о схованню того привилея, упоївши оного.--202.71.90.139 (talk) 04:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say that Ormjanchyk and Karaimovych are the same person?Lute88 (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL, Read the "Chronicle" and its comments, "warrior". Do you reject other explanations because they contradict your "vision" of history? --202.71.90.139 (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say that Ormjanchyk and Karaimovych are the same person?Lute88 (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

..."Chronicle" and its comments--202.71.90.139 (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It raises a tenuous possibility in the comments, but makes no mention of sameness in the text.Galassi (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This is OR. You really need a secondary source that states they are the same person. Bandurist (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Absurd

The article must be deleted because it is absurd. Like "Jewish SS Waffen in Wehrmacht". It is not ORish, it is absurd. Wikipedia is not a place for sensational hypotesis.Vadvir (talk) 07:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The scolarly opinion differs on this matter.~-Galassi (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Krzywonos/Mickiewicz

[1] - neither the Scottishness of Krzywonos nor the Frankist roots of Mickiewicz are something that is certain. The Scottish Krzywonos thing, AFAIK, comes from a single document, where it's mentioned only in passing. So, the article should NOT prevent these things as certain.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The descriptions of Kryvonos in POlish sources are deliberate in stressing his origins in the lowest possible station, for derogatory purposes, biased, understandably. The exact genealogy of Mickiewicz's mother has been long known, documented by Meyer Balaban. But them POlish nationalists dislike that, naturally.--Galassi (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't care about POlish nationalists, that's not what I'm talking about and in fact I don't know what you are talking about. The bottom line is that some sources say Mickiewicz's mother was descendent from Frankists, others sources say that that is highly implausible. Balaban isn't the only source in the world. Some sources take that one document which mentions Krzywonos as a Scottish mercenary at face value, other sources says that that is highly implausible. Note that I didn't remove the claims just qualified it with a "possible", which at least partly reflects that sources don't agree on this. I think that's perfectly reasonable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

btw, this is the 17th century Commonwealth we're talking about. I'm not so sure that "Scottish mercenary" would have been regarded as being of higher social status than "Cossack ataman", even by (or especially by) Poles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

We are not here to interpret the primary sources. The Mytsyk article calls Maxym K. a Scotsman, and so it is, per RS, as Mytsyk is a bona fide authority on the cossack history.--Galassi (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Who's interpreting primary sources? All I'm saying is that secondary sources themselves disagree and that should be reflected in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent Additions

I don't understand what the following sentence means:

"According to the special investigation of the Russian Ministry of Military Affairs, which did not study Orthodox Catholics and Old Believers of Jewish/Karaite descent, Old Don Jewish Cossacks[5] and Judeo-Christian communities, these Jewish Cossacks per se constituted 0,1% of all Cossacks and had significant presence among Don and Kuban Cossacks only in 1879."

Could the author (from Saint-Petersburg) please explain? Specifically does "these Jewish Cossacks" refer to "Old Don Jewish Cossacks[5] and Judeo-Christian communities" or to "Orthodox Catholics" or to "Old Believers of Jewish/Karaite descent"? By "Orthodox Catholics" does the author mean "Orthodox Christians" or "Uniates" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniat#.22Uniate.22)? And what does "Old Don Jewish Cossacks" mean? 72.74.255.146 (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This means that the Russian Ministry of Military affairs located in Saint-Petertsburg calculated only orthodox Jews from the military estate of Cossacks as Jewish Cossacks in 1879 contrary to the description of the article before additions. The article before additions had been relevant to noblemen, for example, those, whose descendants are united in the "Russian schlahta" society in Ukraine now.

The Ministry did not calculate other Cossacks of Jewish /Karaite etc. descent or Cossacks converted to Judeo-Christian confessions and their descendants in this study. These latter communities had had no intense connections to the discriminated Jewish communities and their loyalty was not in question from the point of view of the Ministry. Even this study has never been initiated by Cossacks themselves. Cossacks were used to fire their archives when the government had been trying to trace the Jewish ancestry of any particular Cossack . Cossacks had nothing common with Waffen SS, they had no racial prejudices at all. Even religious prejudices of some Cossacks did not prevent religious Orthodox Jews from being Cossacks.

Only Orthodox Christians not belonging to Ancient Eastern Orthodox Churches are called Orthodox Catholics according to the English language. Wikipedia emphasizes that Orthodox Catholics is the self-name (endonym) of these Christians in English as well. "Uniates" is the exonym of Greek Catholics, which belong to the same confession as Roman Catholics according to the current Roman Catholic Church.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.66.217.189 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 6 July 2013

Agreed completely. THis is illiterate gibberish.--Lute88 (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The New Version is Insane

The new version of this article is simply insane. There are some useful interesting facts added, but there are also some striking, undocumented claims, written in an extremely bad English. I propose to revert back to the older version, and then add new facts, step by step. 74.104.168.24 (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The old version was insane. It declared the Jewish cossacks in the Ukraine only because of the so called Russian antisemitism. The Russian schlahta society uniting all descendants of noblemen in Ukraine emphasized that contrary to Jewish Cossacks Ukrainian Cossacks had always been an anachronism. Cossacks, schlahta and Ukrainians in the current meaning have never crossed in times. The servicemen of Ukrainian national army of Simon Petlura called themselves Cossacks but they had no relevance to the military estate of Cossacks contrary to Jewish Cossacks.

Jewish Cossacks as Cossacks were obliged to protect the Orthodox Catholic faith and their settlements in Palestine were to protect Christian pilgrims and aboriginal Christian population in Palestine, not only Jews. This is why the Cossack Hosts did not oppose Aliyah activities of Jewish Cossacks. The Ukrainian national army servicemen called themselves Cossacks but had never been relevant to the military estate of Cossacks contrary to Jewish Cossacks. Simon Petlura emphasized that Ukrainians was the new name for Russians without Russian antisemitism. His servicemen were called Cossacks to emphasize that they would protect any Ukrainian citizen irrelevant to his/her ethnicity and faith. Petlura called his army Jewish servicemen Jewish Cossacks. (See, for example Antisemitism in Ukraine). But his self-proclaimed Cossacks in spite of capital punishments used by Petlura to stop pogroms organized bloody massacres of Jews and Romani during any retreat to save Jews and Gypsies from Russian antisemitism and Russian pogroms thus. This originated legends about Cossack antisemitism.

http://www.willzuzak.ca/tp/ukrainophobia/grytsenko20121029KyivPost.html Please see that even Svoboda party disagrees with xenophobia. Irina Farion, a Svoboda Jew with anti-Muscovite and anti-Semitic statements is present in the Ukrainian parliament because of her personal victory only. The party could not stop her. The Svoboda party persecuted Odessa extremists who claimed that Cossacks had always been homosexuals of the North Caucasian origin and this is why Cossacks were to hate Jews because of the Jewish heterosexual Testament. In fact, for example the massacres of Jews were made by nude guys and homosexuals which had self-proclaimed themselves Cossacks even during the Khmelnitsky's time. They thought that Jews had been responsible on clothes and heterosexualism. It was very hard to have them to put on any trousers, to stop self-proclaiming themselves Cossacks and hating Jews even in the 17th century. They did not know real facts about Cossacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MVanova (talk • contribs) 09:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Your input so far has been really destructive. I don't know how Wikipedia can protect against "editors" such as yourself. (74.104.168.24 (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC))

I agree with the IP74etc. The MVanova edits make no sense in English (or in any language), and they are insultingly presented.--15:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I am certain the protecting admin made a point by not reverting before protecting. If you have never heard about Jewish Cossacks (I have not) and you are met with an 8k chunk of text like the current, starting in medias res, chances are you neither become much wiser nor will have patience to read the article in understandable English. I made it through the lead. I still do not have a good idea about the subject. The lead could sound pointy and OS, but I can not judge it. One thing I can judge is: it should not have been there. It breaks I do not know how many policies points in WP:LEAD. Could an understanding between involved editors be reached on the talk page about including current lead text in the article body? Best, Sam 🎤 16:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

There used to be a brief lead, which was not "in medias res." I guess MVanova tried to make the point that there were Cossacks of Jewish faith and/or descent among Cossacks of Russia, not just Cossacks of Ukraine (Zaporozhian and Hetmanate Cossacks). For example, general Bukhretov, of Jewish descent, was elected the Ataman of the Kuban Host. There were also Subbotniks (non-ethnic Jews who accepted a version of Jewish faith) amongst Don and Line Host Cossacks, though not in great numbers. I guess he is trying to say that Cossacks generally did not harbor anti-semitic feeling. (I agree, but this article is not about that). But instead of gently and slowly changing the article to reflect such facts, MVanova overrode the whole lead of the previous article in a very brutal, uncompromising manner (also please see his entries above in this Talk page). He also mixed in some other "facts" from fringe sources (e.g. Koestler) and his OR and his original views on the subject. For the most part, I can not understand what this guy is saying, because either his English or his manner of expressing himself is so bad. 74.104.168.24 (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Not only that, but also inexplicably referring to me as Lute Heil Hitler, an insult.--Lute88 (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Please explain new meaning of 88 then in your nick. And please stop insulting Kuban and Don Cossacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MVanova (talk • contribs) 06:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Then dear 74....Lute88 please stop delete information with reliable and verifiable sources. It is vandalism. And please stop offending and insulting the people of Western Ukraine calling them Uniates. It is not English in any way.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MVanova (talk • contribs) 19:04, 28 August 2013

I am not Lute88, but if I were to guess what it means, I would have guessed that Lute is a musical instrument, and 88 is someone's year of birth.74.104.168.24 (talk) 01:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Lute88 is according to her page a Lutheran and a woman not born in 1988, but trying to present herself as an US musician Roman Turovsky-Savchuk. The latter was born in 1961. Lute88 with many other nicks is acting from the IP address in Kiiv where Roman does not live.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.66.220.213 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 5 September 2013

I think there are some errors here involving my persona, but this is irrelevant. What is relevant is that apparently codes 14 and 88 and combinations thereof are used by Neonazis to identify themselves and each other in various fora. So MVanova is insinuating that I'm a neonazi. And he/she is already edit-warring from an IP address.--Lute88 (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The input of 74.104.158.24 is destructive because it declares any common sense and any verifiability destructive for Wikipedia. There was no brutality. The previous introduction tried to deny the Don Cossack host in the Ukraine and the Ukrainian language of its Lugansk division. Those who design Cossack Lutheran faith and Cossack Ukrainian ethnicity in the 17th century and deny Cossack majority Orthodox Catholic faith and Cossack Russian, Wallachian, Polish, Jewish, Karaite etc. ethnicity in the 17th century in no way help Ukraine. Americans do not deny their Anglo-Saxon identity in no way in spite of the US independence. Similar to Anglo-Saxons Russians from the territory of modern Ukraine inhabited the territory of modern Russia. Stalin's terror sent millions Ukrainians from Western Ukraine to camps, prisons, exiles for their refuse to deny their Russian ethnicity according to the CPSU order to have Ukrainians deny their Russian ethnicity only because of the so called Russian antisemitism in Ukraine. The Marxist idea of Social Democrat Petlura to oppose exaggerated by him antisemitism in Ukraine by creating a new man , called an Ukrainian, was not an evil idea. But just such good ideas lead to the hell. Petlura has never denied Russian ethnicity of Ukrainians. He wanted to create an Ukrainian power similar to the US father founders desire to have the independent USA and the American identity without the loss of their Anglo-Saxon identity. Jefferson and Washington have never designed any Lutheran faith of Anglo-Saxons contrary to Wikipedia vandals.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MVanova (talk • contribs) 06:40, 28 August 2013

The old version of introduction was insane because it insisted on striking undocumented claims of the 17th century deep eurointegration of Ukrainians into Waffen SS and other structures of the united Europe of 1942-1945, struggling against antisemitism of Churchill, Roosevelt, Ukrainian speaking Kuban and Don Cossacks and all other Russians, Americans and United Nations in general!!!! There were no Waffen SS, united Europe, Churchill, Roosevelt etc. etc. in the 17th century... — Preceding unsigned comment added by MVanova (talk • contribs) 19:04, 28 August 2013

The insanity of the old version is clear because of the order of Hitler to use Ukrainian, Russian, Cossack and all other KONR forces not on the Eastern front. They were to oppose not Russian antisemitism in any way, but only WWII American, British, Yugoslavian, French etc. antisemitism according to the Hitler's order. They did not fight against the Soviets but had been the best force in the Western front and heavily damaged the western allies. This is why the western allies sent many prisoners from these units, including people of Jewish descent, to Russia, though Russia had wanted the former Soviet citizens only. See, for example http://www.feldgrau.com/articles.php?ID=54. There are mistakes in the aforementioned article http://www.feldgrau.com/articles.php?ID=54, relevant to the Cossack support of Nazis, because Nazi documents only are quoted, but the Hitler's order is quoted properly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MVanova (talk • contribs) 09:46, 29 August 2013

Please see article of Kutuzov. http://www.gipanis.ru/?level=827&type=page

Kutuzov apart from the discussion of Jewish cossack problem "insanity" emphasizes that though Don statistics is not available because of the archive fire the history of many Don Cossack families of Jewish descent is well known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MVanova (talk • contribs) 08:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Just as I thought the limits of my imagination were endless I was proved wrong: "In fact, for example the massacres of Jews were made by nude guys and homosexuals which had self-proclaimed themselves Cossacks even during the Khmelnitsky's time. They thought that Jews had been responsible on clothes and heterosexualism. It was very hard to have them to put on any trousers..." Are there references to support this unusual scenario and the claims? Best, Sam 🎤 22:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

There are well-known reports of Orthodox Catholic priest Grigoryev describing self-proclaimed nude "Cossacks" in Fastov. http://hvylya.org/analytics/history/bej-hasidov-spasaj-ukrainu-ili-zdravstvuj-kamennyj-vek.html

And Svoboda party in Odessa complained to prosecutors and to authorities many times trying to stop Sam Sailor's style propaganda that all Cossacks must be homosexuals now as well to have nothing common with Jewish Cossacks, Don Cossacks and all other free masons in trousers because just self-proclaimed Fastov nude "Cossacks" had been Cossacks contrary to real Cossacks, in opinion of the "Circular ass" block of Ukraine. "Mazepa" poem by Lord Byron was the first LGBT poem in European literature. There is a Kozaki dance team in Ukraine which attracts gay dancers from Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MVanova (talk • contribs) 10:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

AFAICT there is nothing in the article you link to, that supports your claim about nude, homosexual cossacks killing jews. Other editors may want to correct me, I am reading the Google Translate. I have, as other editors before me, difficulties understanding what you write. You seem to imply that I should have propogated "that all Cossacks must be homosexuals". I can't see where you get this from, and it is not the case. (On another note: Do you understand MOS:TALK, and could you post according to it? Indent and sign? This section is a mess.) I suggest taking this to ANI to discuss if we have a WP:COMPETENCE issue here. Sam 🎤 11:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The claim of the 17th century priest Grigoryev was that nude gays killing Jews during the Khmelnistsky's uprising had called themselves Cossacks. They were self-proclaimed Cossacks only. They were not real Cossacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MVanova (talk • contribs) 20:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You supported vandals which had denied any heterosexual ancestry of Cossacks.

http://odnarodyna.com.ua/content/mif-o-konstitucii-pilipa-orlika-chast-ii Please see the analysis of the Constitution by Pylip Orlik which claimed the ancient Jewish Cossack ancestry of Cossacks and called them Russians in the Latin translation. The Old Byelorussian translation called Cossacks Malorosy. Vandals which deleted the introduction are not competent thus at all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvanova (talk • contribs) 21:03, 30 August 2013

Would it be possible for you to explain how allegations like "You supported vandals which had denied any heterosexual ancestry of Cossacks" and "Sam Sailor's style propaganda that all Cossacks must be homosexuals now" suddenly enters this talk? Sam Sailor ^Sing 17:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

As protection is now lifted I will restore the latest version with a lead of a decent length in understandable English. If MVanova can explain his suggested additions in a way the rest of us can understand, and support them with sources, that would be helpful. I fully support the view that a "brutal [and] uncompromising" pasting of an incomprehensible lead is not beneficial for the article. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 07:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Cossacks in Russia

The idea that Zaporozhian Cossacks had been Amshen Vakhabbis and their example inspired the Tzarnayev brothers IS AN ORIGINAL RESEARCH. The authors of this research are to be interrogated by the FBI. Moreover even the followers of both Armenian Apostolic faith and Armenian Uniat faith, being Christians, might not join the Cossack Kosh. They were to be baptized into either Roman Catholic church or Orthodox Catholic church for this. The idea that only Galichina SS Division Cossacks are real Cossacks is an ORIGINAL RESEARCH. This division was created in 1943 to wage a war against Anglo-American forces during the WWII, not against Russians. Moreover, there were no real Cossacks in this division. Cossacks were on the same side as the USA and UK in two world wars in general. Jewish Cossacks are usually Cossacks of Jewish faith. Just they usually were the guards of Russian emperors and their heirs during their visits on Don, because other Cossacks were used to ask for equal rights for Old-Believers and other democratic reforms during their guard service. Jewish Cossacks were not discriminated contrary to other Jews and to Old-Believers and were considered more reliable than other Cossacks. If Cossacks of Jewish descent are called Jewish Cossacks then the majority of Don and Kuban Cossacks can be called such ones according to OUN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.66.196.208 (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC) The idea that there have never been Cossacks in Russia is AN ORIGINAL RESEARCH. The idea that the only Cossack branch having documents about Jews in their community is the Cossacks of Ukraine but Don Cossacks in spite of the Lugansk division of the Don Host famous by its bilingual Russian-Ukrainian Cossacks are not Cossacks of Ukraine is A PURE ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Vladimir Dal explained many times that contrary to Lugansk Cossacks Zaporozhian Cossacks had not been Ukrainian ones. The author of the first Ukrainian vocabulary, though the government prohibited to publish it, signed his works Lugansk Cossack because these bilingual Cossacks had been known by their love to etimology. Many Ukrainians were enlisted to Kuban Cossacks only after Cossack resettlement in the Kuban region. The idea that there were no Jewish Cossacks in 18th-20th centuries is AN ORIGINAL RESEARCH. General Denikin mentioned many such Cossacks in his memoirs. Their numbers were hundreds -thousands times more than numbers of Cossacks, described in the article, which were not Jewish Cossacks usually but only Cossacks of Jewish descent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.66.249.219 (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jewish Cossacks. 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/20080117124516/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_200009/ai_n8917384/pg_1 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_200009/ai_n8917384/pg_1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080117124516/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_200009/ai_n8917384/pg_1 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_200009/ai_n8917384/pg_1

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) 05:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jewish Cossacks. 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/20100327192511/http://www.politarena.org.ua/2008/08/30/kak_evrei_byli_kazakami.html to http://www.politarena.org.ua/2008/08/30/kak_evrei_byli_kazakami.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928000544/http://stratum.ant.md/6_00/articles/dobroliub/dobroliub01.htm to http://stratum.ant.md/6_00/articles/dobroliub/dobroliub01.htm

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) 03:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Saul Borovoy - correction?

It mentions documents “… written in Hebrew and Ukrainian…” for one it’s best to mention that the Hebrew language during the period was used for religious practices and not regularly as Israel has it now. The language would be yiddish and likely the Ukrainian dialect of it . The yiddish alphabet is part of hebrew but it is still different from it In the Ukrainian people’s republic, Yiddish was a state language as it History of the Jews in Ukraine Yiddish dialects History of the Jews in Ukraine#Ukrainian People's Republic Shelly098 (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The sources say explicitly the documents were written in Hebrew. --Aristophile (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I mean, I just believe that the source link would help. Shelly098 (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)