Talk:Kuzma Minin

header

I took the liberty to make the header NPOV. Of course I was reverted on sight by my faithful shadow, but I'm sure Irpen would agree with my changes if only he read them. Previous version read:

Kuzma Minich Minin (...) was a Russian patriot who (...) rallied an army to defend Russia against Polish invasion.

I consider all the bolded statements highly POVed. Who is a patriot depends solely on one's own POV, just like it's mirror on the other side of the scene- traitor. Calling Muscovy "Russia" or limiting Rus to the lands of Muscovy is also highly debatable and represents solely the modern Russian point of view. Finally, calling the Dymitriads, that is a de facto civil war in Russia a "Polish invasion" is a complete nonsense, although quite popular among Russian nationalists. Yet, Wiki should remain impartial. Because of that I took the liberty to change the header into:

Kuzma Minich Minin (...) was a Russian butcher who, together with Prince Dmitry Pozharsky, became the commander of the forces of Muscovy during the Polish-Muscovite War of 1605–1618.

//Halibutt 22:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, first, this article has been on my watch list ever since I edited them. You assume too much by the "shadow" thing.

Now, to the merit. Muscovy/Russia is an old debate. It was discussed elsewhere that while Russia and Rus cannot be used interchangibly, Muscovy and Russia can. In fact, Piotrus, who wrote with PMW agreed to that. Minin's historic role is much more importand than his profession. That he was a butcher (a meat trader) says write into the next paragraph. If you only cared to read a three paragraph article before playing with the first paragraph. Polish invasion, is not a POV of Russian nationalists. It is a POV of Britannica ("Time of Troubles" article) and a variety of books [1]. You took a liberty to replace a commonly accepted termilonolgy by that of your liking, two times refused to use talk (you also used popups to revert a non-vandalism). Because your edits lack merit , I took a liberty to revert them. --Irpen 22:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

All right, then please explain to me why do you call him a patriot and not a traitor? Or perhaps a saviour of the motherland? Liberator of Mother Russia from a foreign yoke? All of these are just names used to express our own views on the personality. Whether he was a patriot or not depends on what we (me, you, whoever) think of him. That he was a butcher and a military commander is a fact - regardless of what we think of him. That is NPOV. Your version is not.

Whether the Polish-Russian intervention in the internal Russian problems is an invasion of Russia or not is again a matter of one's own opinion. From your perspective the invitation of the Polish troops to Muscovy by the boyars was an invasion. By the same logic if I invite my neighbour to my place he invades it. But even if there was no logical flaw in such reasoning, the very term invasion is heavily loaded as in modern usage people consider the "invader" the bad guys, while the "defenders" are always the good guys. This is pure POV my dear. The fact is that there was something one could call the Polish-Muscovite War. Whether it was an invasion or not is just your (or someone's else's) point of view. Note that our small Polish club here does not propose to call the Smolensk War a Russian invasion, eventhough it was. Yet, you insist on such terms. Besides, the article on invasion states clearly that rebellions, civil wars, coups d'etat, and internal acts of democide or other acts of oppression are generally not considered invasions.

Finally, as to mere terms: Muscovy is not equal to Russia, nor does this work the other way around. This might look so from the perspective of Russian 19th century books (and EB1911, of course), but this is by no means that certain. The state was most surely the Princedom of Muscovy. Whether it was also Russia (the Russia) is a matter of debate. Yet, you insist Wikipedia took sides in this debate and supported one of the sides instead of switching to neutral terms. Care to explain why? //Halibutt 23:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, Halibutt, I brought up more sources that call the Polish whatever an invasion and the country as Russia. I can bring more, as many as you ask. Not cherry picking some ideological writing but modern Western books on the Russian history. Your opinion is very interesting and all but articles should be based on the terminology accepted by scholars who established themselves through peer-reviewed publication. This conserns all the terms: Russia, invasion, patriot, and whatever other stuff you bring up. --Irpen 23:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid POVed terms. We can surely find many that would be much less supportive of the view. Instead of bickering over the details, I would much rather see this article expanded, especially with information on how his legend was used in Russian and Soviet propaganda.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I am surprized the Piotrus also removes and established in mainstream historiography term for the event. I guess, someone has to remove it from PSC to make it more clear. The article I linked in the bottom elaborates on Propaganda usage as well. At due time, this issue would be expanded too. --Irpen 23:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

On a second thought, Polish invasion is *somewhat* appopriate here, although I think it is more correct to use the name of the war. Or why don't we move the article to the Polish invasion of Muscovy? I beleive this was discussed and rejected on the talk page.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea to have Kiliński linked! Take a look at that article's header. It reads Jan Kiliński (1760-1819) was one of the most illustrious commanders of the Kościuszko Uprising. A shoemaker by trade, he commanded the Warsaw Uprising of 1794, an uprising against the Russian garrison in Warsaw. He became a member of Polish provisional government as well. and not, say, Jan Kiliński (1760-1819) was an ardent Polish patriot and one of the most illustrious commanders of the war against the Muscovite invasion of Poland. A shoemaker by trade, he commanded the glorious struggle against the Muscovite occupation of Warsaw. He became a member of Polish provisional government as well.. Why not? Because there are POV terms we could avoid. Just because. //Halibutt 02:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the source does not say Minin and Pozharski were patriots. It says they joined the patriotic movement, which is quite a different thing. //Halibutt

Halibutt, in the last version trolled by Molobo, it didn't say "patriot" but a "national hero" which is more notable for the lead than his pre-war profession, listed in the first line of the very next paragraph, btw. And "glorious struggle against..." is much more POV phrasing than the "invasion" used all around in the mainstream sources, including EB. Find an equally respected source that uses "glorious struggle against the Muscovite occupation of Warsaw" and come back with that. The rest is self-explanatory. Care to read not only yourself but what other people write at talk pages. --Irpen 02:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No NPOV solution possible at all, I see. Fine with me. //Halibutt 06:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I completly agree with Halibutt that there is POV and NPOV. And I object to slandering Molobo's edits as 'trolling'. Either get a formal ruling of ArbCom that he is a troll or stop abusing WP:CIVIL in such personal attacks.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Kostomarov's opinion

From my talkpage on ruwiki

Уважаемый Alex Bakharev! Помогите, пожалуйста, исправить статью en:Kuzma Minin. В ней написано: Other historians, like Kostomarov, considered him an ill-tempered, stubborn and unscrupulous man. Поскольку ссылки на источник нет, то я предполагаю, что это перевод из русской Вики. Но на самом деле в русскоязычной статье Кузьма Минин слова Костомарова переданы неточно. На самом деле Костомаров пишет: «Меры Минина были круты и жестоки, но время было чересчур жестокое и крутое: приходилось спасать существование народа и державы на грядущие времена». Вот здесь находится статья Костомарова: http://www.magister.msk.ru/library/history/kostomar/kostom30.htm Я не достаточно хорошо знаю английский и не знаю, как точно перевести эту фразу. Не могли бы Вы мне помочь? С уважением No evidence 15:53, 22 декабря 2013 (UTC)

It appears that Kostomarov's opinion is misstated Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kuzma Minin. 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/20060622032632/http://www.cnit.uniyar.ac.ru/yaros/wwe00060.htm to http://www.cnit.uniyar.ac.ru/yaros/wwe00060.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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 01:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)