Talk:Taras Fedorovych

Old talk

Polish wiki states he was repalced by Timofiej Orendarenka as hetman, but the list at Hetmans of Ukrainian Cossacks shows his replacement as Ivan Sulyma. Which is the correct answer?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainian sources I cited state Tymofiy Orendarenko as his successor. I will start the Mykhailo Doroshenko and Treaty of Pereyaslav (1630) today/tomorrow. --Irpen 06:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

So does Polish Wikipedia; shall we than correct the error on Hetmans of Ukrainian Cossacks and put Orendarenko between Fedorovych and Sulyma?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hetman succession is not as easy as the royal one. Several hetmans could coexist with the rival claims, like those confirmed by Poland and those selected ad hoc, especially by non-registered Cossacks. So, compiling a comprehensive succession table would be tricky. --Irpen 19:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, well, first, we should note in relevant articles that there were rival hetmans, second, I don't think a succession table would be that tricky - we can just note that there were rival claims and rivals claimed the title from x to y.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Against...?

Irpen, why do you keep removing the link to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (isn't this a 3RR by any chance? please be careful)? Cossaks rose against the szlachta which was indeed often identified with 'Catholic Poles' and which represented the Commonwealth. I see no reason to remove the useful link to PLC.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If the compromise idea by Piotrus [1] is not satisfying, I suggest to create article about Fedorovych Uprising and put required and verified informations about statements of rebels there. And then if it is necessary, put them back here, but at that time we will have the proper context. Visor 22:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I was expanding the article. If this is called revert warring by someone's book, too bad. I am fine with the final compromise offered by Piotrus. Also, I am bemused that Piotrus recruited someone to help and that fellow reverted my copyedit with "-POV" summary, followed by incivil foreing language entry at Piotrus' talk. --Irpen 22:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not responsible for actions of other editors, Irpen. I reverted Matthiasrex and made a critical comment in edit summary about reverting useful changes; in the meanwhile, would you like to tell me why I'd recruit Matthiasrex for the revert which I later reverted... :>-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You are responsible of course for what you do after trolls show up. You either encourage them because they happen to troll in the right POV direction, or you block them for disruption (which I have yet to see in respect to the "correct POV" trolls). One more time, let me refer you to Nixer's activity and block log. --Irpen 06:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah. So now you are calling User:Mathiasrex a troll, and me a 'troll encourager'? May I point you in the direction of WP:PAIN, or refer you to Ghirla's activity and block log for people who throw such accusations widly?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, your threats are unimpressive. I expanded the article a great deal, added sources and made a good use of tem. And than comes someone whom I never met and accuses me in "Marxism" at your talk, refuses to use English, reverts my good faith edits with frivolous summaries and does not get reprimanded by you. Take it to WP:PAIN if you like. --Irpen 07:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I linked my reprimand above. But of course you insist that he 'does not get reprimanded by [me]'. Sometimes I wonder why we have those conversations at all...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Silly revert war

I am upset by Piotrus' revert warring again! There cannot be a Fedorovych article without uprising! Fedorovych's own life is so little documented that you take the uprising out and there is nothing left. In this case there is no need to fork. But there is even less need to keep reverting me without using the talk page. --Irpen 01:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought my edit summaries are self-explanatory. I am not suggesting gutting this article, but while Fed. life may not be well documented, the uprising is. Hence eventually the uprising article will become a larger article then the biography of its leader.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

But as of now it's being a redirect back here, what the point for a wikilink? OK, in the PL-history articles you can link to [[Fedorovych Uprising]] instead of [[Taras Fedorovych|Fedorovych Uprising]] keeping in mind that one day someone would turn a redirect into an article. I understand that. But what sense does it make to wlink this article to itself? Anyway, have it your way. --Irpen 02:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fedorovych Uprising article now created.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you find that this old article discusses the uprising in too much detail? If so, why and what should be removed? --Irpen 04:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wiki is not paper, and the article is not too long. I'd note oppose some shortening now, but I'll leave it up to you.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this article having any excessive detail. So, why shorten? --Irpen 13:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

So, we are not shortening this one. Since the so called "new" article is an exact copy of this one, I nuked it. If this here was a summary of the more detailed text from another article, that would have made sense. Having two exact mirror articles makes none of it. We would have two identical texts devoted to the same subject whose independent editing would just make them contradict each other at some point. Unless there is a more detailed article elsewhere and a summary here, we do not need to undermine the Wikipedia integrity by producing the rival articles with the identical content thus creating a fertile ground for independent edit conflicts on the same subject that would produce intra-wikipedia contradictions. --Irpen 08:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't delete notable subjects. I left it to you to shorten whatever you feel is appopriate, but if you want me to do it - I will. And since this article has no inline citations, the spin off is unreferenced, since nobody can guess what refs - if any - were used for the uprising part.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do not think I need to respond to a provocative allegation that I wrote an article not using refs, perhaps inventing the events and the whole story. I do not have a history of inventing massacres, slaughter and victories on wikipedia. For those you would have to look elsewhere in the WP rather than in the articles I have written.

I said, there is nothing to shorten here and I restored all the referenced, valuable and notable content in which I invested much of my time and effort. I will convert the refs to the inline ones.

And I notice that you already started POVing the fork you created away from accuracy and neutrality. This was my major concern: having two independent edit conflicts on the same subject instead of one one. But while you play with the other article, please do not damage the integrity of this one at least. There is a lot of hard work, negotiations and compromise behind its current status. --Irpen 17:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No need for separate article on Fedorovych Uprising?

Per above discussion, I've split off Fedorovych Uprising, which is a notable subject. Per WP:SUMMARY and our other policies, notable events should be described in their own articles; this one is a biography and as such should not go into all details of the uprising. Thus the uprising article can have also appopriate categories (ex. Category:Cossack uprisings) and people looking for it will not have to search for information in other article(s). It appears that Irpen disagrees with me. Please - explain your reasons why you think Fedorovych Uprising is not notable enough to deserve its own article, and why do you want to keep all details related to the uprising in this (Taras) article. PS. As for references, please copy the ones you used in uprising paragraphs to uprising article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No one is saying that the F's uprising isn't notable. Point is that it is already covered on one hand and the amount of the detail in this article is not excessive. You are welcome to write a more detailed new article and have it there, but what you've done instead was splitting the content I've written, split ot off references and already started POV'ing it there away from accuracy.

Two forks with identical content and independent edit wars that often end up with articles making the opposite claims undermine WP's integrity.

More importantly, there are rebels in history whose life is rather known. For them, it makes perfect sence to have a life article and rebellion articles separately. There are also rebels, like this one, of who we know practically nothing except for the uprising that, unlike their lives, is more or less documented.

An example of the latter is Ivan Bolotnikov, whose rebellion also redirects to a bio article. --Irpen 19:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The Uprising is notable and should have its own article. Since it was created, there is no need to include irrelevant details in this biographical article, hence it should be summarized. Your claims of forking are only true because you keep reverting my summary. And please do tell what 'inaccurate' information am I introducing?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

So, once two editors did not give you an opinion you wanted to hear, you went further in your search. Not unexpected knowing your past habits. As for moving the fork away from reality, you changed a referenced claim about rebel's victory already.

I wonder what would happened if the article is left you your own devices. --Irpen 19:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed an unreferenced claim about a rebels victory to an impass, based on a FA article Stanisław Koniecpolski. Here's some refs: In May 1630 Koniecpolski defeated a Cossack rebellion, surrounding the rebels at Pereiaslav; Subetlny doesn't say anything about 'victory' ([2]). It does indeed appear that some historians on both sides call this a 'victory' for their side, but in fact the more detailed sources (ex. Podhorodecki in his extensive biography of Koniecpolski) mentions that the siege of Pereiaslav ended with an impasse, both sides were to weak to score any military victory - and hence the Cossacks gained more priviliges, but certainly they did not 'win a battle of Pereiaslav'. PS. To be clear: the Uprising was a (minor) Cossack victory (in following negotiations, many authors agree on that, ex. Subtelny, Plokhy [3]), but there are no reliable sources that claim they won a military victory at Pereiaslav; on the contrary all sources which go into some detail of that battle note it ended in a stalemate (which coupled with the Cossack victory at Korsun led to the favorable treaty for them). -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, as I said, I freely admit that this article should be rerefed with inline refs. I did not have time originally because it was under an attack by you and another user, the attack described in detail at your arbcom. So, the claim about rebel's victory is referenced. Once the edit war and the wierd DYK nomination were in the past, the article remained on the backburner.

The only thing I've done with it now, was structuring it into sections. This innocuous edit provoked you into a new round of fierce activity. I regret doing that. The article was not too bad but slight a improvemenet provoked a new series of your inflammatory acts. --Irpen 20:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Per the request for an outside opinion on this article, my observation is as follows:

First, the article itself is quite short and there seems no real need to break off over half the article into a new piece. Second, Upon reviewing the new article, it is clearly derived from this one and is similar in length and content to what is here.

My opinion is that it makes no sense whatsoever to have two articles with virtually identical content, and it's even worse if two articles about the same event go off in opposite editorial directions, based on the viewpoint of the respective editors. There is a need for a consensus to be reached as to content, or at least a fair discussion in a single article on the differing viewpoints. The solution is not dueling articles. Sometimes a content dispute can be solved by proper references, perhaps explaining each side with NPOV: Saying something like the following often works: "While expert ABC takes position A (then insert footnote to expert ABC's work), others disagree. For example, expert XYZ supports position X. (and insert footnote to expert XYZ's work). That said, I take no position on the actual content of this article, as your request was solely on the question of creating two articles.

For your immediate problem, I will offer two possible solutions. One suggestion is to make the article currently titled Fedorovych Uprising into a redirect (using #REDIRECT [[Insert text]]) to this biography and simply continue to work to improve the overall article here until it is meaty enough that the uprising has to be given its own article in order not to make this one too long. The advantage of a redirect is that people looking for information on the event will be able to be promptly sent to the correct article and not have to search further. The other possibility is to use the {{main|[[Insert text]]}} template at the beginning of the uprising section here to remove almost all content about the uprising in this article, other than a short sentence or two that summarizes the incident and refers the reader to the other article, which can then be expanded if needed. That would have the effect of making this article very short, however. You would want to put some work into expanding the remaining article, if you split out the duplicative material.

I hope this third opinion gives you some neutral ground for settling your dispute. Montanabw^(talk) 20:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for a very measured and valuable feedback. --Irpen 20:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. But we are aware of both options; what we remain deadlocked on is which one to chose.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Am I to assume that unhappy with the response you are to proceed to ask for more opinions now? --Irpen 22:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article is presently not too long. Also, I don't see from the article if Fedorovych has any notability outside of the uprising. I second Montanabw's recommendation to add a redirect and leave the article with its current contents and title. VisitorTalk 00:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I have seen with other articles, having one article with a redirect is a more suitable solution. As for which article to keep and which to redirect, I really have no opinion other than to be sure that one redirects to the other so whichever perspective you have, you can still find it. This version that is structured as a biography has the potential to more easily add information about the person should you find more. The version about the event has the potential to add information about other people who were inspired by the event, started a movement, or whatever. That may be the way to decide what to do -- which way is the article apt to expantd? If you cannot come to a consensus on that matter, flip a wikicoin. But end up with ONE article. Preferably footnoted. Montanabw^(talk) 02:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Normally I would say that since (1) the Fedorovych Uprising is more notable than Taras Fedorovych, and (2) Taras Fedorovych has little notability outside of his role as a cossack leader, and that most specifically in the context of the Fedorovych Uprising, that therefore a unified article should be at the Fedorovych Uprising. However, because we do have some more context for Taras Fedorovych, and because the Fedorovych Uprising text currently fits better into a Taras Fedorovych article, if I would consolidate, I would do so into just the Taras Fedorovych article. As to whether the two articles should be split, I do not see, at present, enough text to reasonably do so. In the future, if the Fedorovych Uprising article were to develop outside of the limited context of Taras Fedorovych, then I think that two articles, cross-linked, would be justified. While I agree that one cannot have a "Fedorovych article without the uprising", the uprising section of the Fedorovych article could concentrate on his actions, and not the broader context. I would allow a couple of weeks for User:Piotrus to do a revised article on the uprising, if that is too short a time-frame then instituting a REDIRECT from the Fedorovych Uprising to Taras Fedorovych until he has the revised version nicely done would keep us from having essentially duplicate material. I do think that User:Irpen is being a little too defensive about "his" text. The section on the uprising in the Taras Fedorovych article would be improved from a biographical perspective if it didn't have to go into such things as the Treaty of Kurukove and the imposition of Catholicism on Ukrainian peasants. --Bejnar 19:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Blind reverts

Piotrus, you said recently (and not once) that "PLC was Poland":

• "PLC was Poland
• Per WP:NCCN, if English literature refers to PLC as Poland, as it commonly do, in some cases so can we (to get a shorter, more common name.)

While, I think calling PLC as "Poland" is not always correct, I agree that the use of Poland is preferable in many cases, including in this article, as I argued above. Now, that you also stated that "PLC was Poland" I was glad this dispute resolved. All the more, I was surprised by your revert done so eagerly, as even to restore typos. --Irpen 23:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)