Talk:Hetmans of Ukrainian Cossacks

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, the usage of the term Ukrainian here is as vague as it can get. Some of the hetmans were Poles, some were Russians, moreover in ethnical terms the Cossacks were never regarded as Ukrainian, but as Dnieper or Zaporozhian. --
  Kuban Cossack 12:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strongly oppose The term Ukrainian does not refer to nationality but to a geography. These were Cossacks from Ukraine as opposed to Cossacks from Zaporizhia. What is more important, is the fact that the term Ukrainian Cossacks is well established in historiographic literature and had almost twice the number of publications with this name then the proposed change. [1][2] Thus, it is evident that the present name of the article is generally accepted among historians and is widely used. There is no need for the move. --Hillock65 (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose In terms of geography, Ukraine is much better known than Dnieper for the general reader. Also, my google search showed 48,200 hits for "Ukrainian cossacks" [3] and 2,710 for "Dnieper cossacks" [4] - not even close. Googlescholar showed 420 for "Ukrainian cossacks [5] versus only 50 for Dnieper cossacks [6]. Google books shows the closest results - about 650 for Ukrainian cossacks versus 450 for Dnieper cossacks. I know that google results fluctuate with time, but the difference is so large that I can't imagine Dnieper even coming close. I'm not against placing Skoropadsky on the list, either, although Yushchenko would be ridiculous.Faustian (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is placing Skoropadsky on the list is as dubious as adding all of the

  Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

That is a good point. On the other hand, if the Russian tsars had referred to themselves and were primarily known as Kniazi of Kiev then perhaps their inclusion in the same list as Yaroslav the Wise would make sense. But I don't feel as strongly about Skoropadsky as I do about Ukrainian Cossacks.Faustian (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, as seen below the term Ukrainian cossacks was clearly used already in the early 1700s. So Hetmans of Ukrainian Cossacks would be an accurate title for the article, and for most readers it would also be more understandable. And BTW the Swedish officers also wrote about Zaporozhian Cossacks (who in the end were the ones that supported Mazepa). Narking (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Irpen's year-old argument is about a different title (“Hetmans of Ukraine”) for a template which appears in a completely different context (I hope you checked with him before you used this as sole justification for this request).

  Neither Skoropadsky's Hetmanate nor Yushchenko's Ukraine is in danger of being mistaken for Ukrainian Cossacks. Subtelny uses the term, and even defines hetman as “highest military, administrative, and judicial office among Ukrainian Cossacks” (p 650). Magocsi uses the term too, but only attributively—I am speculating that he may be using Ukrainian here as a geographic but not ethnic reference, but that makes no difference to this argument. Neither author uses “Dnieper Cossack(s)”. —Michael Z. 2008-07-16 21:35 z

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• • Why strongly? There is no doubt that the term
    Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 12:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

To begin with, please use the discussion section if you have anything to say, that's what it is for. Strongly, because the move plainly doesn't make sense. 1). Again, Ukrainian has nothing to with nationality. 2) Ukrainian Cossacks in book publications exceeds by 700 publications the proposed change, this is a substantial number. 3) Definition of Ukraine as a region is obscure only to Russian imperialists looking for every exuse to get rid of the name. 4) There are no reasons to necessitate the move from a well established title to the one with questionable pupularity. I am yet to see any intelligent reasoning to the opposite. --Hillock65 (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1)If that was the case then there would not be a problem, however alas, Ukrainian has multiple meanings, and it equally makes little sense. 2) Pupularity? Well that was never a criterion for naming convention, considering that a majority of 700 is not really a majority when put percentage wise. One thing is 1000:1 another is 3:2 which we have here 3)The namings of the Cossacks, who never called themselves Ukrainian are clear to all but the Ukrainian chauvinists who are looking for every excuse to privatise history. 4) Indeed there is every reason to move a title that is as questionable and dubious as this one, to one that has still gained no actual questions, and that is equally found in literature and has been widely applied here in Wikipedia. --

Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

At least the Swedish officers that entered Ukraine in 1708 wrote in their diaries that when Mazepa entered the Swedish headquarters he brought some "distinguished Ukrainian cossacks" with him. So the term was apparently in use at that time. Narking (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that "oppose" in the survey section above? --Hillock65 (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.