Talk:De-Cossackization

Act for kossacks killing

Please, translate and rewrite, using Soviet act of 24.01.1919 (see Russian wiki) Alexanderwdark (talk)

This page refers to checka forces using flamethrowers against cossaks in 1919-1920. I find this highly doubtful, as they had just been invented. I have found no reference to russian or soviet troops having flamethrowers until much later. This was in the middle of a civil war, it would not make sense to issue high tech or rare weapons to the chekists. If any were at hand it would make far more sens to give these to front line troops. Ghbborse 06:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that the main source for this article is The Black Book of Communism, a source I would not consider neutral.It has a tendency especially to always round up in their statistics detailing deaths they attribute to communism. I agree, it seems unlikely that the Russians had many flamethrowers. They could have gotten some from the Germans during WWI, but even they did not use a great amount themselves. I don't have any information supporting that they maid their own either... This whole article is fishy, if you ask me. Note that their is hardly a mention (I didn't catch one) of the Cossacks being essentially the Special Republican Guard of the Tsar's regime. --KobaVanDerLubbe 22:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the whole article reads like it was written in another language and translated badly, or just written by someone with poor English. Rcduggan 11:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This continues to be the case. If I could discern the meanings clearly enough I would repair the language, but as it stands I wouldn't be sure I wasn't introducing errors. Claudia (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Bias and Errors

The current version "Lenin's Bolsheviks' plan to exterminate the Cossacks" is not only highly biased, but is impossible to reconcile with the fact that large numbers of Cossacks served in the Red Army, including Budenny's cavalry forces. The allegation that "300 to 500 thousand were deported or killed" is not substantiated in the given reference. It is impossible to reconcile these claims with the fact that the Russian census shows some 2.5 million Cossacks in the Kuban area in 1926. From the sources I've seen, "decossackization" only spanned early 1919 when the Red Army was repelling aggression by the Cossack warlords. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadjin (talk • contribs) 17:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Get lost Jacob Peters. You have been permanently banned from Wikipedia for your vandalism and sockpuppetry. I'll make sure your edits NEVER stand.--C.J. Griffin 13:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Puppet or not, but these words is true. The Article, in the current condition, extremely breaks the neutrality rule WP:NPOV. At the middle 1918 in the Red Army was 14 cossack's regiments and in the White Army was 30 cossack's regiments - it was the Civil War. // Wilderr (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have placed the NPOV flag here as this article is largely based on one source, the Black Book of Communism. Also, would flamethrowers have not required quite a bit of fuel, possibly a specialised fuel, which would have been in very short supply in Russia by the end of the Civil War? PatGallacher (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

And another point about flamethrowers. They have tended to be used in trench warfare, attacking heavily fortified positions like bunkers. While a few might have turned up anywhere, they would not have been much use to either side in the Russian Civil War, which was a fast-moving war over open country where cavalry played an important role, so were many around?. PatGallacher (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources

The "opinion" section is uneven and disjointed. It cites people who are not specialists of Russian history such as professor of literature Donald Rayfield. Figes' book does not belong here because his is a synthesis of a broad period in Russian history from the 1890s through the 1920s. He made just a peripheral remark about this conflict. He is not an authority on this conflict. Peter Holquist, by contrast, wrote a 1000 page dissertation on the Don region during 1917-21. He is the only English-speaking historian to have studied this conflict.Matvei Blanter (talk) 05:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The last version was clearly wrong, since it says almost all Cossacks joined the Greens or other rebel forces, when a significant number joined the Reds. I thought the bulk of them did fight for the Whites or Reds, not aware that many joined the Greens, although there may be problems about how you define some forces. PatGallacher (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Bias of "Opinions"

An "opinions" section is valid in the context of an encyclopedic article if it represents a complete spectrum of opinions. All the presented quotes have a view that decossackization was "genocide" and represent figures on the high-end of death toll estimates. While all opinions except the truly far-fetched carry validity, it is an undeniable fact that very many people hold opinions contradictory to the pro-white, pro-cossack ones given herein. Perhaps redundant quotes from less historically-significant sources ought to be removed, and ones taking neutral and pro-decossackization standpoints be introduced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.163.215 (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Edits by banned user

@PatGallacher. In my first edit I undid edits by banned User:Jacob_Peters. In 2nd edit I rearranged materials (that is where I made the comment about "majority view"). I would not mind if you reverted only my second edit, but not the first one. Editing by banned user is equal to vandalism by our rules. If however you have any particular objections against my edit (note that I restored some materials - the size of the article increased), let's discuss. Why did you revert? Could you please explain per WP:BRD? Thanks. My very best wishes (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Just for starters,

1. Question 1. Did you see that your edit broke at least seven references "Cite error:..."? This needs to be fixed.
2. Question 2. Version you restored tells the following: "Decossackization (Raskazachivaniye) is a term used to describe the disestablishment of the Cossacks as a legal estate in Russia". In which source did you see such claim? My very best wishes (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Two more problems:

1. The article is not wikified and terribly written: "Cossack units under the command of PV Bakhturov, MF Blinov, SM Budennyi, BM Dumenko, ND Kashirin, FK Mironov"
2. Background section provides a lot of irrelevant information. This is not an article about the role of Cossacks in Russian Civil war, but article about specific policy by Bolshevik regime.

Can I fix it? My very best wishes (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Earlier versions (pre-Jacob Peters) were quite complete; similarly to your edits, I tried to restore/revert to them, but Jacob Peters kept deleting everything but Futoryanskiy's opinion (a communist historian with "leninist views"). I managed to restore all the missing links, but Peters deleted all the references. In the end I was able to only include Shean O'Rourke qualification of Decossackization as a genocide of an ethnic group at the header of the session. There is something strange going on, with PatGallacher acting very much like Jacob Peters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ViktorC (talk • contribs) 04:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not a banned user or a sockpuppet, I will look into the other issues you raise. PatGallacher (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

@PatGallacher. Yes, I am waiting for your response. @VictorC. I can see what you are talking about [1],[2],[3], but there is hardly anything actionable at this point. (Perhaps you need an additional explanation about last diff. User:Altenmann played a "double game" here. Once, he came to my talk page asking to help with highly POV editing by User:Jacob_Peters, but at the same time, Altenmann supported Jacob Peters through his sock Mukaderrat (last diff). If you want to improve this or other articles about Cossacks, please do. My very best wishes (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

So, if there are no objections, I would fix a few things per my comments above. My very best wishes (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your comments and suggested edits, and have no objections. --ViktorC (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can't edit the same article on the Soviet Union-related subjects more frequently than once a week (1RR restriction). Some guys are waiting to report me on AE if I do. My very best wishes (talk) 04:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 27 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Decossackization → De-Cossackization – Capitalizes name of a people or national group (with the understanding that in sentence case the capitalization is de-Cossackization):

• An English-language convention preferred by some dictionaries and style guides, to hyphenate compounds when it’s necessary for capitalizing the name of a national group.
• For consistency in mixed usage, e.g., for equal treatment among other national groups mentioned in List of massacres in the Soviet Union, Template:Repression in the Soviet Union, Category:Genocides in Europe, etcetera, as recommended in WP:PEOPLANG.
• WP:CONSISTENT with treatment of other national groups, e.g., de-Tatarization of Crimea (moved from “detatarization of Crimea” in March 2020), 1966 anti-Igbo pogrom, anti-Romani sentiment, 1984 anti-Sikh riots, Deportation of the Chechens and Ingush, and scores of articles about anti- isms and anti-national sentiment (antisemitism/anti-Semitism is a specific exception because its meaning is inconsistent with the definition of Semite).
• For consistent capitalization with name of the subject of the main article Cossacks

Capitalization of names of national groups is in contrast to, e.g., dekulakization, the repression of a politically defined socioeconomic stratum, kulaks.

Frequency of usage shows the current title spelling is most popular, but others are also very commonly used. In this case, WP:COMMONNAME shouldn’t be the only arbiter since it contradicts the five WP:CRITERIA that it’s meant to support, and we should reach a consensus that the WP:CRITERIA of naturalness and consistency take precedence, while also satisfying WP:PEOPLANG to overcome a WP:BIAS against a stateless people whose political status has not allowed them to write their own national history.  —Michael Z. 17:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Super Ψ Dro 20:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom--RicardoNixon97 (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The first letter of a title still must be capitalized just like it is at the beginning of a sentence even if it's not capitalized in the middle of sentences. Move to De-Cossackization. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  Right. I assume that’s a technical requirement, or at least an absolute rule on this website (viz. IPhone). I’m updating the request. When we move an article we should also explicitly agree on the canonical conventional capitalization used in sentence case, to avoid confusion and inconsistency. —Michael Z. 16:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  I support your updated proposal. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.