Talk:Cossack Hetmanate

Fair use rationale for Image:Cossack hetmanate.jpg

Image:Cossack hetmanate.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Automatic Translation?

What on earth do the following two paragraphs mean:

After many successful military campaigns against the Poles,  Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky made a triumphant entry into Kiev 
on Christmas 1648 where he was hailed liberator of the people from Polish captivity. 
In February 1649, during negotiations in Pereiaslav with a Polish delegation, Khmelnytsky had made it clear to the Poles 
that he was the sole autocrat of Rus', positioning himself as the whole leader of all Ukraine.

There the state-building process began where Khmelnytsky's statesmanship was demonstrated in all areas of state-building: 
in the military, administration, finance, economics, and culture. With political acumen, he invested the Zaporozhian Host 
under the leadership of its hetman with supreme power in the new Ukrainian state, and he unified all the spheres of 
Ukrainian society under his authority. This would involve building a government system and a developed military and civilian
administrators out of Cossack officers and Ukrainian nobles, as well as the establishment of an elite within the Cossack 
Hetman state.

There - where? Referring to what? What is Hetman that repeatedly occurs here. Is that his first name or maybe his nationality? Somehow, "liberator of the people from Polish captivity", doesn't sound good, but my English is not good enough to come up with a better sentence. "... the sole autocrat of Rus'"? "positioning himself as the whole leader"?

Granted, on second read, I do understand that Hetman is a nationality, but make that clear somewhere. (All wiki references to Hetman return to this article (The Cossack Hetmanate). Actually I'm not sure. Is it?

How about something like: ..."clearly stated to the Polish delegation, which he met on Christmas 1648, that he saw himself as the sole ruler of the Ukrainian state. He then proceeded to establish his rule, by setting about changes in all fields of government: In the military, in administration, finance, economy and culture. He cleverly supported Hetman(...points to nationality of Hetmans) rule of the Zaporozhian Host, a region in central Ukrain. This bought his rule broad acceptance throughout all the diverse regions and nationalities in the Ukrain. He established a new government system, which included the creation of a new upper class of administrators and military commanders, from his Cossack army, and from the historic local Ukranian nobility. -- Thanks! פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy! OK, I read a bit more, and now understand what a Hetman is. IMHO there should be a wikilink to at least the first and probably to all three references in the article. The article is still unreadable, and seems to be an automatic translation. Anyway, a great reference (for whoever decides to redo these pages) is this book: Ukrain A History by Orest Sutelny. It seems written well. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Guess what! In Bohdan Khmelnitsky it says:

At Christmas 1648, Khmelnytsky made a triumphant entry into Kyiv, where he was hailed as "the Moses, savior, redeemer, 
and liberator of the people from Polish captivity ... the illustrious ruler of Rus." In February 1649, during negotiations in
Pereiaslav with a Polish delegation headed by senator Adam Kysil, Khmelnytsky declared that he was 
  "the sole autocrat of Rus" and that he had "enough power in Ukraine, Podilia, and Volhynia ... 
in his land and principality stretching as far as Lviv, Chełm, and Halych."[9] It became clear to the Polish envoys that
Khmelnytsky had positioned himself not just as a leader of the Zaporozhian Cossacks, but of Ukraine, and stated his claims 
to the heritage of the Rus. A Vilnius panegyric in Khmelnytsky's honor (1650–1651) explained it this way: 
  "While in Poland it is King Jan II Casimir Vasa, in Rus it is Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky."[10]

After the period of initial military successes the state-building process began. His leadership was demonstrated in all areas 
of state-building: in the military, administration, finance, economics, and culture. With political acumen he made the Zaporozhian
Host under the leadership of its hetman the supreme power in the new Ukrainian state, and unified all the spheres of Ukrainian 
society under his authority. Khmelnytsky built a new government system and developed military and civilian administration.

This whole subpage is translated there into good and normal English!

פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

something is broken

"Herb Viyska Zaporozkogo (Alex K).svg →"--FifthCylon (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

successor state arrow is broken

Could someone please fix that?--FifthCylon (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Ukrainian Cossack state Zaporizhian Host 1649 1653.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ukrainian Cossack state Zaporizhian Host 1649 1653.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Antihistoric statements

Excuse me, but as a history student I can not accept this article because of many antihistoric statements about "State creation" and "State existing". It's only modern modern ukrainian vission, links are from pro-ukrainian internet pages. Look discussion in Russian Talk about this article. It must be fully reviewed and fixed according professional historians statements, who analyzed the history of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Chmelnicki Uprising. Now thsi artical seems as falsification of history. --86.100.205.18 (talk) 14:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Rename article suggestion

Per Magocsi (citation added to intro), "The name Hetmanate, especially in Russian sources, referred to Cossack regiments in Left-bank Ukraine that were under of the authority of Moscow's hetman, from 1667 onward. This excludes both Zaporizha and Sloboda Ukraine" (paraphrasing). In his work, he refers to the state as the Cossack state, since it covers all attempted unified cossack statehood (and also that the cossack state only existed in the Hetmanate from 1711 onward). He says the official names were Zaporizhian Host and Army of Zaporizha.

Since this article almost entirely relies on Magocsi's work, we should use the name he suggests. As it stands, 'Hetmanate' is like calling the UK just Scotland.--Львівське (говорити) 08:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. What an ignorant claim. The entire state, not only a small part of it, is referred to as "Hetamante" (Гетьманщина) by multiple historians other than your source. For example, Mytsyk, Bazhan, and Vlasov refer to it as "Hetmanshchyna (Гетьманщина) here: [1]. Lev Okinshevych, Arkadii Zhukovsky from the Encyclopedia of Ukraine call the country "Hetman State": [2]. Oleksandr Saltovskiy refer to it as "Ukrainian state-Hetmanate" (Українська держава-Гетьманщина), "Hetman state" (гетьманська держава), and simply Hetmanate (Гетьманщина). He also says that the Hetmanate covered both sides of the Dnipro from Khmelnytsky until Doroshenko. [3] Valeriy Smoliy call the country "Ukrainian Cossack State", "Zaporizhyan Host", and "Hetmanate" (pg 14) here: [4]. I can still easily find more sources. --BoguSlav 07:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Little Russia etc.

The Hetmanate is not (was not) called "Little Russia". Little Russia and the Hetmanate are two separate historical concepts. The Hetman of the Ukrainian Cossacks didn't call himself the "Hetman of Little Russia". If you think they are the same thing, perhaps you should propose a merge between both articles, but you can't simply equate the Hetmanate to Little Russia because of your political opinions. These edits be only explained as Russification because they do not enhance the content of the article.--BoguSlav 00:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This concept is ludicrous. This is some sort of bizarre attempt to conflate the history of the Hetmanate with the politics of the Russian Empire after the razing of Sich, hence turning the Hetmanate into some sort of offshoot of Little Russia. Information for the content of the article is being turned into a strange amalgam of the later Russian Empire and the history of the Hetmanate. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It is typical ignorance in the history. The term Little Russia was used by Ivan Vyshenskyi and Archimandrite Zacharius Kopystensky. This term was an official name of Hetmanate in briefs of Bohdan Hmelnytsky. That's why existed Little Russia Prikase and then Collegium of Little Russia. If you don't know about it, how could you speak about the History of Hetmanate at all? Ушкуйник (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course the term "Little Russia" was known and possibly used by Ukrainians from the Hetmanate. That doesn't make the Hetmanate and "Little Russia" to be the same thing! That's why we have two separate articles here on wikipedia. But above all, how about a WP:SOURCE for all your claims?--BoguSlav 04:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear all (BoguSlav, and Iryna Harpy), firstly, there is a difference between Hetmanate, Zaporizhian Host and Little Russia. Hetmanate - is a historiographical term, you will not find this term in historical documents from 17. till 18. Century. The term was created to make clear the sense of Hetman's power. Zaporizhian Host and Little Russia are on the opposide side historical names of Hetmanate. Sure there is a difference between Hetmanate and Little Russia, because the term Little Russia means NOT ONLY Hetmanate, but also church Toponym (like Great Russia too) etc. But it means not, that you may ignore this name of Hetmanate just because there is a multiple-meaning of Little Russia, or even if you don't like this name of the territory of Dnieper-banks. It was an official name of Hetmanate in Tsardom of Russia and Russian Empire. The same history is with Zaporizhian Host - it means Hetmanate, but not only Hetmanate, because Zaporizhian Host not always submitted to Hetman.

Secondly, there is a historical difference between right-bank Hetmanate and left-bank Hetmanate. So it is just not correct to speak about Vassal status of Hetmanate only in context of Tsardom of Russia. After Treaty of Andrusovo right-bank Hetmanate existed as Vassal of Poland.

Thirdly, Ruthenian and Ukrainian language is not the same thing, another way we should come to conclusion, that Belarusian and Ukrainian is the same language too, but it is not true. They both - Belarusian and Ukrainian - have roots in Ruthenian language. So it is not correct to speak about official role of Ukrainian language in Hetmanate, it was Ruthenian language.

Best wishes, Ушкуйник (talk) 14:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

So - no reliable sources for all these claims?Faustian (talk) 17:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you just need to read about it the sources, which you have deleted, especially Paul Robert Magocsi and Яковенко Н. Нарис історії України з найдавніших часів до кінця ХVІІІ ст, if you can read in Ukrainian. I didn't know, that it is so new information, that Belarusian and Ukrainian languages have roots in Ruthenian. Maybe there is also some new information, that right-bank Hetmanate was under Poland and that Hetman post was abolished in Poland in 1686? Is it not clear, that Little Russian prikaz could exist only in case of using the term Little Russia as Synonym for Hetmanate? Also, it looks like you just don't have any arguments to protect your own position. Ушкуйник (talk) 00:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Still no reliable sources to back up changes to consensus version.Faustian (talk) 01:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Every time I go through your sources and your arguments for changing content, I keep coming back to the same conclusion, Ушкуйник: that you've been very busy on various articles using your own interpretation (known as original research) and cherry picking information to fit your own theories (known as WP:POV). Considering your specific interests, as is evidenced by your special contributions, I can only understand your presence on English Wikipedia to be as an SPA focussing on historical subject matter to contrive an All-Russian nation rendering of Eastern Slavic history. In fact, I checked it's German Wikipedia counterpart – "Dreieiniges russisches Volk" – out of interest, only to discover that you've been dabbling with that article only to have your additional content rejected (no one there is impressed with your 'left bank'/'right bank' arguments, either). What that adds up to is WP:NOTHERE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Iryna Harpy, actually, my remark in German Wikipedia was about Ivan Vyshenskyi and Archimandrite Zacharius Kopystensky, not about 'left bank'/'right bank' arguments, after that I have found this information in text. We can speak about All-Russian nation, but it doesn't have any matter in context of our discussion. You just try to ignore all arguments, to find some another subject of discussion. I would be appreciate, if you will speak in this discussion about the History of Hetmanate. Have you anything to say about it? Ушкуйник (talk) 14:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

And it is not "my" 'left bank'/'right bank' arguments. See: Left-bank Ukraine and Right-bank Ukraine. Ушкуйник (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Ушкуйник, your disruptive edits MUST STOP! Let's take a look at the version of the article you've been constantly reverting to. First of all, the title of the article (Cossack Hetmanate) should be bolded per WP:BOLDTITLE. "Hetmanate" is not the title of the article. Secondly, the note about the Russian definition of Hetmanate may either go in the "Etymology" Section or into the article called Hetmanate. This article is about the Cossack Hetmanate, the opening sentence should discuss the topic of the article, not go into tangents, per WP:LEDE.

Now for your Little Russia comparisons. They have NO BASIS. This source that you constantly use [5], calls it the Little Russian Hetmanate, NOT Little Russia. Same thing goes for section about the Name. There is NOT ONE mention of "Little Russia" in the Encyclopedia of Ukraine source. Another source from EoU, which you constantly remove [6] says "Muscovite sources it was called the Little-Russian state (Malorossiiskoe gosudarstvo). Again, NOT "Little Russia", but Little-Russian State.

Your edits are not backed up by ANY SOURCES. Even the sources that you constantly DO use, DO NOT support your claims. You are engaging in WP:ACTIVISM or WP:SPA, as Iryna has said. I think the next step would be some sort of request for WP:Probation or blocking. --BoguSlav 17:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear BoguSlav, it is not constructive to threaten with blocking. Your difference between Little Russian Hetmanate and using of the term Little Russia in sense of Hetmanate is a typical hair-splitting. I think you should see for example Gregory Teplov's «О непорядках, которые происходят от злоупотребления прав и обыкновений, грамотами подтвержденных Малороссии». Teplov was a chanceller of Hetmanate, in this work he speaks about Hetmanate, but he writes about it as about Malorossia, or Little Russia. So there is an example of using the term Little Russia in sense of Hetmanate in historical document of Hetmanate. See also this Encyclopedia about it 1, there is an information about Hetmanate in sense of Little Russia after the Treaty of Andrusovo. Do you need more sources to prove, that Little Russia and Hetmanate can be used as historical synonyms? Well, see that: 1, 2, 3. So stop your threatening and try to understand, that the term Little Russia was an official name of Hetmanate. It is a historical name. Best wishes, Ушкуйник (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

This is NOT hair-splitting. What you are doing, is over-generalizing. Little Russia = "the territory of modern-day Ukraine". The Little Russian State = "the COUNTRY that existed on that territory". This is similar to Arabia. Arabia = "the territory of the Arabian peninsula". Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Qatar = "the COUNTRIES located on that territory". All of your sources make a distinction between Little Russia (the territory) and Malorosiiske gosudarstvo (the country called "Little Russian State"). They SUPPORT what I we have all (expect you) been saying. For example, source 2 says "During that time, the former hetmanate, now called Little Russia...", indicating that Little Russia is what came AFTER the Hetmanate. Little Russia was the name of the territory of the Hetmanate, after the Hetmanate was abolished. This is called cherry-picking the sources to fit your own narrative. As for this link 1, it discusses Hetmanate, not Cossack Hetmanate. Go add that information to the Hetmanate article. But above all, STOP EDIT WARRING. Your sources DO NOT back up your narrative. --BoguSlav 20:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S. You have NOT RESPONDED to anything I brought up in my above comment. Your edits do not fit WP:MOS and they are not supported by the sources. You have not even attempted to back up the sources, instead bringing up a bunch of new sources (which do not support you, again). This shows, even more, that even you do not attempt to argue those sources because you know they don't hold any water for your narrative. STOP or you will be blocked.--BoguSlav 20:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear BoguSlav, firstly, shaw me, please, any sources, where Little Russia is called as a state in sense of Hetmanate. I can not find such sources and that's why I can not agree with you: you try to say, that it was some kind of Little Russian state, but there is no any information about it in any sources. Secondly, I seriously don't understand, how you distinguish Hetmanate and Cossack Hetmanate. Do you mean the difference between Cossack Hetmanate and Ukrainian State of Skoropadskyj? If so, than I don't understand, what is wrong with my sources. You write above: "As for this link 1, it discusses Hetmanate, not Cossack Hetmanate." - sorry, but it discuss right Cossack Hetmanate, or what do you mean under Cossack Hetmanate than? Best wishes, Ушкуйник (talk) 21:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

"firstly, shaw me, please, any sources, where Little Russia is called as state". This shows that have not taken the time to read ANY of the sources I been constantly referring to above. Now I know why my sources keep falling on deaf ears. I have actually taken the time to sift through the links you have been posting (which go against what you say btw). All of the links have made a distinction between "Little Russia", the territory, and the "Little Russian State", the country. As for Hetmanate, your source shows that Russians referred to the Hetmanate as "Left-bank Ukraine". This article is not the place for irrelevant information, regarding Left-bank Ukraine. You can take it to either 1) Hetmanate or 2) Left-bank Ukraine. Finally, you have broken the 3RR again.--BoguSlav 21:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

"Government of Ukraine" and lands of "Belarus"

Part of this article uses anachronisms, i.e. "government of Ukraine" and "Belarus." The term "government of Ukraine" evokes the modern state of Ukraine, which did not yet exist. Perhaps "government of the Hetmanate" would be better? And the reference to "lands of Belarus" also implies Belarus was a distinct political entity which was not the case, and would not be for centuries. I do not know how to correct this because I am not familiar with the original source material, if there is any. We also need a reference to what "repressions" were carried out and how the "government of Ukraine" notified the population about this. Giordano Bruno (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, you seem to be confusing what the term 'anachronism' means. What is being done is the reverse: modern conventions for areas and peoples are replacing anachronistic terminology (Ruthenians, Little Russians, White Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusins, etc.) for areas which would be meaningless to most Anglophone readers. This usage of terminology is completely in keeping with contemporary scholarly Slavic studies conventions in the Anglophone world... in fact, this usage dates back many, many decades due to the discrepancy in nomenclature for the regions in question dependent on whether the information was derived from the Grand Duchy of Moscow, the Tsardom of Russia, the Russian Empire, Polish, Hungarian, Austro-Hungarian and a myriad of other sources. If it's good enough for historical scholars and ethnologists to standardise the terms, it's perfectly fine for Wikipedia to follow the same principle in order to disentangle an already convoluted understanding of the history of Eastern Europe. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Removing 'vassal state' and 'protectorate' from infobox

I've just removed both of these 'status' parameter descriptors from their prominent position in the infobox per WP:NOR. This implies that the Hetmanate was subject to both states for the duration of its existence, which is not the case.

Phases during its existence are for the body of the article, not for POV claims as to ownership of the Cossack Hetmanate. Anyone who knows its history also knows that it was a tad more complicated than that. If any editor feels that there should be some sort of timeline of when, where and who stuffed into the infobox, please consider the issue of WP:DUE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

There was no original research so stop saying it is, especially when I brought a source, a WELL-KNOWN historically valid source from the Harvard Ukrainian Studies of the June 1984, volume 8. The Ottoman protected the Cossack Hetmanate as a protectorate. This is a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, stop using your emotions, I see you are descendant from the same Cossacks asking for the Ottoman Sultan for their help. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I find it interesting you only decided it after someone like me put the Ottoman Protectorate but when the Russian Vassalage wasn't cited, mind you I cited my sources, you flipped the chair and removed all them. Don't worry I will get your sources, so you can sleep tightly Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

So IRYNA, what is wrong with Riedlmayer, András, and Victor Ostapchuk. "Bohdan Xmel'nyc'kyj and the Porte: A Document from the Ottoman Archives." Harvard Ukrainian Studies 8.3/4 (1984): 453-73. JSTOR. Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute. Web. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

As I'd already noted to you, the only reference you had provided was "Harvard Ukrainian Studies 8". This carries no more meaning than my using "Encyclopaedia Britannica - Joe Blow" as a reference. I provided you with Wikipedia instructions on how to cite a source. What you have provided above does conform with proper referencing, so I'd be more than happy to add it on your behalf to a relevant section in the body of the article.

With regards to the use of the "status" parameter for Template:Infobox former country, I would ask that you read through the documentation carefully. Neither "Vassal state of Tsardom of Russia (from 1654)" (even if someone could come up with a citation), nor "Protectorate of Ottoman Empire (from 1655)" are valid for this parameter... and I would have simply deleted the 'Vassal state' business ages ago if it weren't for the fact that it would start off fresh bouts of edit warring by POV pushers. Information regarding changes which occurred in breaking away from the relationship with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth via treaties with the Ottoman Empire and the ('lost' treaty with) the Tsardom of Muscovy are content for a timeline, but not content that belongs directly under "Rus State".

As for dignifying your WP:ASPERSIONS as to my 'clearly nationalistic bias', I'm not even certain as to which 'nationalistic bias' you've decided I represent. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

>As I'd already noted to you, the only reference you had provided was "Harvard Ukrainian Studies 8". This carries no more meaning than my using "Encyclopaedia Britannica - Joe Blow" as a reference. I provided you with Wikipedia instructions on how to cite a source. What you have provided above does conform with proper referencing, so I'd be more than happy to add it on your behalf to a relevant section in the body of the article.

I'm learning how to do references and I learned it my refrence is ready. You are again parroting the same excuse even though my reference has changed so please bring forth a new excuse.

>With regards to the use of the "status" parameter for Template:Infobox former country, I would ask that you read through the documentation carefully.

I did, is there anything else

>Neither "Vassal state of Tsardom of Russia (from 1654)" (even if someone could come up with a citation), nor "Protectorate of Ottoman Empire (from 1655)" are valid for this parameter... and I would have simply deleted the 'Vassal state' business ages ago if it weren't for the fact that it would start off fresh bouts of edit warring by POV pushers.

What POV pushers? I don't see them, you can't stop improving Wikipedia because there are POV pushers. This is again another excuse that is not working. I am reading specifically about Bogdan and the Ottoman Empire.

>I'm not even certain as to which 'nationalistic bias' you've decided I represent.

Both Ukrainian or and Russia, it is clear once someone brought a valid references you got angry and start threatening me with a block even though I fixed my edit every-time you undid it, I find it extremely funny that the Russian Vassal was never edited out you let it there. And even when you un-did my eidt You only undid the Russian edit because I said so. Seems you have incredible love for the Tsardom of Russia that you let it be there with no citation.

Again your criticism is not working. I would like to move forward and improve this article and continue reading about the Cossack and Ottomans. Unless you want to threaten me again Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Also why are you linking to "Allegations that an editor may be violating the policy on the protection of children", you are trying so hard to be bureaucratic and you are failing. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

What on earth have you been reading? ASPERSIONS: "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums."... and enough of casting them! You keep going over and over the same ground about my 'obvious bias', but have not addressed the issue at stake here: being that the content is inappropriate for the section it is being used in in the infobox. Please try and WP:LISTEN to the point I am making about where such content is WP:DUE and UNDUE such as a timeline in the body of the article, or referenced in the article as it stands at an appropriate juncture. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The bias is obvious once I raised the issue of the Russian Vassalage you then started to get rid of it, only when I said it. How is that not a bias, unless you are just being annoying on purpose to not want to improve the article. Have you clicked on your WP:ASPERSIOn it sends me to "Allegations that an editor may be violating the policy on the protection of children", also Wikipedia is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY you are trying so hard not to improve the article by throwing false allegations.

>being that the content is inappropriate for the section it is being used in in the infobox.

It is fully appropriate unless you have a reason not to be, the Cossack Hetamnate was a vassal of the Ottoman Empire in 1655.

You actually made no point except waste my time by linking to other guidelines and being a bureaucrat so hard, I'm tired of nationalist sentiment in Wikipedia that you espouse.

I would like to move on and improve the article, without you threatening me with a block that is based on your perceived stance of the article.

Again I will point to the fact of the WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, I would like the administrator to come in and fix your issues that you have with me Alexis Ivanov (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the edit and added a better references with a page and showed the ending. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexis Ivanov (talk • contribs) 17:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The Information I added which is backed by verifiable and valid sources. Hopefully this discussion can end quickly and we can move on to improve the article. I have followed everything as you said and put in the numbers, publishers, page number and everything

Protectorate and Sanjak of the Ottoman Empire (1655 - 1663)
(June 1669 - 1685) Alexis Ivanov (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Protectorate of Ottoman Empire?

My memory for these events isn't 100%, but it seems that this was true of only part of the Hetmanate, during a period of time known as the Ruin. During that time the Hetmanate was divided and only one part (under Doroshenko) became a protectorate of the Ottomans, another part had an autonomous status under Russia. While placing "Protectorate of the Ottoman Empire" in an infobox alongside statuses as protectorate of Russia (post-Pereyaslav), independent state (1648-1650s) might be appropriate, only including the Ottoman part is a bit misleading, as doing so unrealistically magnifies the Ottoman relationship. So either add the rest, or remove this one piece.Faustian (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't have the rest since my focus is only between Ottoman Empire and the Cossack Hetmante, I have no interest in other countries, I was reading about their relationship specifically which intrigued me. Feel free to add what you want, also Petro was given the whole Hetmante even though he ruled for one year under a unified Ukraine and was attacked by Moscow who put their own Hetman and war broke out, between Moscow and the Porte. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It is indeed an interesting piece of history. The problem is that the infobox should not overemphasize this part. If only the Ottoman part is included, the result is undue weight to this aspect of the Hetmanate's relationship with other countries and affiliations. If you want to add this part, then you also ought to add the other parts at the same time. regards,Faustian (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not knowledgeable in Russian or Polish relationship with the Cossack as much as the relationship with them with the Ottoman Empire. If I find a source saying there are Armenians in Jerusalem in 11th century, it can't be my job to find evidence of Arabs, Jews, Germans dwelling in that place if my sources are limited. That is why there was citation-needed for the Russian Vassalage. But Iryna decided to attack me and threaten only after I added the Ottoman Protectorate. Maybe you can bring up a Russian Vassalage. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If you're not familiar with anything aside from your own particular area of interest, you reinstate the content with the 'citation needed' and add your own referenced content. Also, you do not continue to level unfounded accusations against other editors, particularly since you've now turned my talk page, this talk page, and your own talk page into your personal bullying pages while misrepresenting me as being the bully. I'm not even going to start enumerating the number of policies you've already violated in your 'communications' with me. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

>If you're not familiar with anything aside from your own particular area of interest,

Yes this is how you improve Wikipedia, everyone brings in what they know, and this is part of what I know about the Cossacks and the Ottoman Empire and I'm here to improve it.

If I know that there are Armenians in 11th century Jerusalem I will add, I don't want people like you annoying me saying what about [insert random group].

>you reinstate the content with the 'citation needed' and add your own referenced content.

I didn't re-instate any content, stop lying too much, I;m tired of your lies and threats, I improved my edit there is a big difference, I added the publisher, the author, the page number and followed your silly bureaucratic rules that you are forcing upon others.

>Also, you do not continue to level unfounded accusations against other editors, particularly since you've now turned my talk page, this talk page, and your own talk page into your personal bullying pages while misrepresenting me as being the bully.

You are a bully no doubt, you only got angry once someone like me had way to improve this article, when it was a garbage in the vassal status in the infobox and you dear speak up only when I try to improve with good faith, you clearly showed bad faith from day 1, especially when you let the Russian Vassalage UN-citiated in the infobox but you cry hard when I put a reference there, grow up. How did I bully you? You are the on threatening me with a block, you are power hungry Napoleonic female who got angry. Listen hear sweetheart, you ain't gotta bully me.

> I'm not even going to start enumerating the number of policies you've already violated in your 'communications' with me.

I fixed those issues you raised, is there another issue or would you like me to wake up Bogdan and Petro from their grave to ask them if they were vassals?? Cut the crap already. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Why can't you be like User:Faustian and show respect. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. That being said, you ought to dial down your anger a bit...Faustian (talk) 05:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok I will. GOOSFRABA Alexis Ivanov (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The Hetmanate was not a puppet state of the Ottoman Empire

The sources in the article do Not say that the Cossack Hetmanate was controlled by the Ottoman Empire. In fact, the book The European Tributary States of the Ottoman Empire in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries says that the Cossack Hetmanate can't exactly be considered a protectorate of the Ottoman Empire because it never paid tribute to the Ottomans and the Ottomans had no say over who was in charge of the Hetmanate. By contrast, an Ottoman sanjak's ruler was appointed by the Ottoman Empire and it did pay tribute. For example, this was the case with Wallachia and Moldavia.

I'm not saying that the Cossack Hetmanate wasn't dependent on the Ottoman Empire on a certain level, but this terminology is wrong, especially because it is not a defining feature of the Hetmanate.--BoguSlav 03:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Boguslavmandzyuk: As you can see above, this was discussed but not concluded. My view is that this, and the information regarding agreements with Russia, should be in the body of the article, not the infobox as it implies that the Hetmanate was consistently a subsidiary of both empires (which is not the case). Hopefully, this will wake up other editors who've forgotten to conclude how best to present the content of the article. I'm pinging Alexis Ivanov and Faustian in order to see whether they have any particular preferences. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Who said it was a puppet? Hopefully you can specify which page number, and paragraph number so I can re-check my sources. It has been months since I checked upon the book. Upon looking through, page 142 Puts Cossack Ukraine as a Province/Sanjak of the Ottoman Empire and in page 137 and 138, Khmelnitsky received an ahdname from the Sultan to make the Ukraine a protectorate/Vassal. The book makes it clear that only Russian Historians argue against it. And in page 141 Doroshenko was willing to re-instate the Ottoman protectorate after defeating Bryukhovetsky and he did. You see here it is clear that they are not on the same level as Moldavia and Wallachia but even greater, Doroshenko made a great deal, they are clearly become an Ottoman protectorate minus the fact they pay tribute/Haraç and have to bring in military assistance towards the Ottoman Sultan any time he needs, but there is no garrison of Janissaries in Ukraine. At page 142, the Ottoman Sultan sent çavuş (messenger) to each of Doroshenko colonel to make sure he "really wanted to be under the Sultan or if Doroshenko had forced them to say this". Are you sure you read the book? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The term "puppet state" is the modern-day equivalent of the old term "vassal state". The book is not nearly as black and white as you try to present it, which makes me question your intentions. Its seems like you read a different book than I did. Page 148-149 says "the Ottomans... did not attempt to consolidate their position in Ukraine by building up a strong military presence there. A frontier buffer zone seemed to suit their interests." It talks about the Cossacks repeatedly requesting Ottoman help and not receiving it. In addition page 150 says "we cannot call the hetmanate an Ottoman tributary" and then reluctantly choses the term "vassal", but with many qualifications (not in the traditional meaning of the term, but more like a military alliance). Page 151 talks about "polyvassalage", meaning that the Hetmanate was a vassal state to multiple entities with which it kept up "various bilateral relations". The book then says that more active Ottoman involvement in the Hetmanate would have meant "a more independent Ukrainian state". It is clear to everyone here that the Cossack Hetmanate switched allegiance between the Ottomans, Poles, and Muscovites in a game to stay alive. These were the political games being played by the Cossack Hetmanate's leaders. Page 145 says that "Cossack Ukraine maintained autonomy under Ottoman protection." It's as simple as that.

Going back to my original statement, the Ottomans did not have all of the traditional power over Cossack Ukraine as it did with its sanjaks. You have contributed nothing to this article in terms of content, except your edits to the infobox. Your edits to the article are one-sided, and therefore, inaccurate.--BoguSlav 04:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

>The term "puppet state" is the modern-day equivalent of the old term "vassal state".
'Well we are not using such terminology here are we. Vassal isn't an Old term, there is no Vassal States nowadays'
>The book is not nearly as black and white as you try to present it, which makes me question your intentions.
I never said or implied it was black and white, I never presented it as such. I'm also questioning your intentions because as far as I'm aware you show no evidence of reading the book.
>Its seems like you read a different book than I did.
I read the same book.
>Page 148-149 says "the Ottomans... did not attempt to consolidate their position in Ukraine by building up a strong military presence there. A frontier buffer zone seemed to suit their interests."
How is Ottoman's consolidation any evidence lack of vassalage, when the book established it clearly. Have you read page 150 which calls it a Vassal and points to the same points I have already conveyed towards you.>It talks about the Cossacks repeatedly requesting Ottoman help and not receiving it.
Please show me the pages and paragraphs.
>In addition page 150 says "we cannot call the hetmanate an Ottoman tributary"
That is what I said in my previous point, and you ignored it, I'm questioning your comprehensions skills right here. You can be a vassal that is not a tributary like the Crimean Khanate for example.
>and then reluctantly choses the term "vassal"
That is the closest term we have in English to describe their relationship.
>but with many qualifications (not in the traditional meaning of the term, but more like a military alliance).
Same as the Crimean Khanate and the Wallachian and Moldavian principalities
>Page 151 talks about "polyvassalage", meaning that the Hetmanate was a vassal state to multiple entities with which it kept up "various bilateral relations".
Still a vassal of the Ottoman Empire. This is not mutually exclusive to my points.
> The book then says that more active Ottoman involvement in the Hetmanate would have meant "a more independent Ukrainian state".
You are quoting out context "a more independent Ukrainian state would not come to be".
>It is clear to everyone here that the Cossack Hetmanate switched allegiance between the Ottomans, Poles, and Muscovites in a game to stay alive.
Therefore?
>Page 145 says that "Cossack Ukraine maintained autonomy under Ottoman protection." It's as simple as that.
Which further proves my point, Ottoman sultan have the ability to delegate the autonomousness of their protectorates in the Empire.
>Going back to my original statement, the Ottomans did not have all of the traditional power over Cossack Ukraine as it did with its sanjaks.
It didn't need to, because it agreed not to.
>You have contributed nothing to this article in terms of content, except your edits to the infobox.
Petty attacks against me, I was waiting when you are going to make such vile moves against me, I have contributed to many articles, I love editing infoboxes, are you saying I should edit the article before editing the infobox. Please direct me where in Wikipedia it says that. The same way I have changed the flag in the Principality of Transylvania article.
>Your edits to the article are one-sided, and therefore, inaccurate.
How two sided can an Cossack vassalage towards Ottoman Empire be? That is like saying if you edit that the fact nation A is vassal to nation B, you are one-sided, weak argument, you need to find something else to attack me with. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• The term vassal state, especially the term "sanjak", implies that the Ottomans had full control over the Cossack Hetmanate's internal affairs. The Ottomans DID NOT have full control over the Hetmanate. That is why the Cossack Hetmanate was not a puppet state of the Ottoman Empire. In making your case, you have cherry-picked only the parts of the book that mention aspects of the Hetmanate's dependence on the Ottoamsn, when in reality there is considerable ambiguity in the book about how to label the Hetmanate's relationship with the Ottomans. When it comes to the traditional criteria of a vassal state, the book recognizes that this term is technically incorrect. That is why is inappropriate FOR US ON WIKIPEDIA to call the Cossack Hetmanate a sanjak. This is a controversial claim that is disputed WITHIN THE BOOK ITSELF.
• Going back to the book, "the Ottomans... did not attempt to consolidate their position in Ukraine by building up a strong military presence there. A frontier buffer zone seemed to suit their interests". Now let me break this quote down for you. This means that even though on some level the Porte may have accepted the Hetmanate to be a vassal, they DID NOT COMMIT to ACTUALLY CONSOLIDATING this in practice. So, the Porte may have possibly considered the Hetmanate as a vassal de jure, but de facto, not much was done to turn it into a legitimate vassal state.
• Regarding the quote "a more independent Ukrainian state would not come to be", please try to comprehend what this means. The book claims that Ottoman dis-involvement resulted in less independence for the Ukrainian state. Therefore, more Ottoman involvement would result in a more independent Ukrainian state. How does this square up with your claim that the Hetmanate was merely a sanjak?
• "Which further proves my point, Ottoman sultan have the ability to delegate the autonomousness of their protectorates in the Empire". Ummm... No it DOESN'T prove your point. It just proves that this was a military alliance and YOU ARE ASSUMING that the Ottoman sultan decided the degree of autonomy. THAT IS NOT what the book says. The book says that the Hetmanate swore allegiance to the Ottomans in return for protection. The Ottomans DID NOT collect tribute or take over the Hetmanate politically, because the Hetmanate REMAINED AUTONOMOUS. The Hetmanate was NOT SUBSERVIENT to the Porte.
• As for your personal attacks, I have noticed that you treat everyone who disagrees with you on this talk page as an "attacker" and attacked them. This is inappropriate. Please be WP:CIVIL and follow WP:Etiquette.--BoguSlav 02:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that, firstly, we shouldn't be applying modern concepts like 'puppet state' to an era where 'official' relationships were quite different to contemporary times (even for discussions as to the content of the article on the talk page). As I see it, ultimately the only problem here is in the presentation of the infobox... which is hardly insurmountable. If we're to have a section in the infobox outlining political agreements with other states, it would also need to include relationships with the Russian state which, in itself, is problematic for a simple infobox as it covers the transition period from the precursor state to the newly formed Russian Empire.

If anyone has any ideas as to how to create a section in the infobox that somehow informs the reader of how these relationships could be broken down realistically, it would be appreciated. At the moment we only have one such relationship (that is, with the Ottoman Empire) depicted. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy I agree with you about the presentation of the infobox because the Cossack Hetmanate had bilateral relations with other countries besides the Ottoman Empire, called "polyvassalage" in the book. Defining the Hetmanate to simply be a vassal of the Ottomans places WP:UNDUE weight on one the many international relationships that the Ukrainian state upheld, especially considering the fact that the Ottomans did not consolidate this agreement de facto and this was only a brief period of the Hetmanate's history.--BoguSlav 03:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

They did consolidate de-facto and de-jure even if it was a one second agreement, it should be worth mentioning, so your silly antics have no place by looking for excuses under the bed now. Nobody is stopping you for adding more information, you have any other questions Mr.Bogus? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

>The term vassal state, especially the term "sanjak", implies that the Ottomans had full control over the Cossack Hetmanate's internal affairs.
No it doesn't, Sanjak was used for certain vassals, Doroshenko was assigned to be Sanjakbey.
>The Ottomans DID NOT have full control over the Hetmanate.
I never said that or implied that
>That is why the Cossack Hetmanate was not a puppet state of the Ottoman Empire.
It was a vassal and protectorate of the Ottoman Empire. Nobody used the word puppet, stop spreading misinformation and repeating words that I have never used or mentioned.
> In making your case, you have cherry-picked only the parts of the book that mention aspects of the Hetmanate's dependence on the Ottoamsn, when in reality there is considerable ambiguity in the book about how to label the Hetmanate's relationship with the Ottomans.
I never cherry picked in fact I provided multiple sources, you are the one here is cherry picking and twisting my argument to further push your own goals.
>When it comes to the traditional criteria of a vassal state, the book recognizes that this term is technically incorrect.
It is the closest term we have. Therefore it is the term we use and the term this book and other books used.
>That is why is inappropriate FOR US ON WIKIPEDIA to call the Cossack Hetmanate a sanjak. This is a controversial claim that is disputed WITHIN THE BOOK ITSELF.
It is appropriate. Based on the evidence provided. It is inappropriate because you don't like it and your feelings got hurt?
>Going back to the book, "the Ottomans... did not attempt to consolidate their position in Ukraine by building up a strong military presence there. A frontier buffer zone seemed to suit their interests".
Yes they never put any military presence there, per their agreement.
>Now let me break this quote down for you. This means that even though on some level the Porte may have accepted the Hetmanate to be a vassal, they DID NOT COMMIT to ACTUALLY CONSOLIDATING this in practice.
Let me break it down for you because you are misreading it, they didn't consolidate because they didn't put any military presence there because this is a buffer zone between them and their northern neighbors. Ottomans can have vassals with no military presence in them.
>So, the Porte may have possibly considered the Hetmanate as a vassal de jure, but de facto, not much was done to turn it into a legitimate vassal state.
With that logic every vassal is not de facto, every vassal had their own head managing their local affairs, Crimean Khanate is another example.
>Regarding the quote "a more independent Ukrainian state would not come to be", please try to comprehend what this means.
Please finish the sentence that your wrote, before misquoting it, I hate when people do that, we can see the ways you are trying to do here
>The book claims that Ottoman dis-involvement resulted in less independence for the Ukrainian state. Therefore, more Ottoman involvement would result in a more independent Ukrainian state.
Independent to sort out their own affairs. Not independent to be their own country. You can't apply that analogy when Cossacks were thrown in the pits of war in the Russo-Ottoman wars. If they opt out of their signed agreement then that means a war to bring back them back in to the Imperial sphere.
> How does this square up with your claim that the Hetmanate was merely a sanjak?
Based on the fact that Doroshenko was Sanjak bey and so was Yurii Khmelnytsky
>"Which further proves my point, Ottoman sultan have the ability to delegate the autonomousness of their protectorates in the Empire". Ummm... No it DOESN'T prove your point.
yes it does. They delegated for each of their vassal their duties, and what they pay and what their military presence of Ottoman troops and military assistance that the vassals send to the porte.
>It just proves that this was a military alliance and YOU ARE ASSUMING that the Ottoman sultan decided the degree of autonomy.
This was never a military alliance, in fact being a vassal makes you send military assistance to the Ottoman Sultan himself. So the Sultan needs no military alliance if he can do more than by giving the Cossack the vassalage/protectorate they wanted. Which again proves my point.
>THAT IS NOT what the book says. The book says that the Hetmanate swore allegiance to the Ottomans in return for protection.
Yes, which proves my point that they were a protectorate.
>The Ottomans DID NOT collect tribute or take over the Hetmanate politically,
The Ottomans agreed not to collect tribute from certain vassals like the Cossack Hetmanate and the Crimean Khanate, yet both were vassals and protectorates
>because the Hetmanate REMAINED AUTONOMOUS
Level of autonomous bears nothing towards it's vassalage.
>The Hetmanate was NOT SUBSERVIENT to the Porte.
It was.
>As for your personal attacks, I have noticed that you treat everyone who disagrees with you on this talk page as an "attacker" and attacked them.
That is based on your subjective opinion on what you think of me. It's up to you.
>This is inappropriate. Please be WP:CIVIL and follow WP:Etiquette
Pleases stop misqutoing and start reading more. You are starting to behave unkindly when you misquote purposely and twist my words. And then you come here asking to be civil. I'm being civil with you at the moment. Anytime your feelings get hurt tell me so I can delete it as you wish. Don't want to hurt your feeling. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

What a long drawn-out way to respond, by commenting on every single fragment of my reply. That was painful to read the play-by-play. Get to your point! I think I will reply to you exactly as you keep replying to me.
>No it doesn't, Sanjak was used for certain vassals,
According to Oxford Dictionary, a sanjak is "one of several administrative districts into which a larger district (vilayet) was divided". Please give me some sources to your definition of a Sanjak and that show that the Hetmanate met these criteria.
>Doroshenko was assigned to be Sanjakbey.
Sources please.
>I never said that or implied that
Yes you did, when you called the Hetmanate a "sanjak" of the Ottoman Empire.
>It was a vassal and protectorate of the Ottoman Empire. Nobody used the word puppet, stop spreading misinformation and repeating words that I have never used or mentioned.
I'm using the modern-day equivalent. Don't you just love to knit-pick at specific words when you run out of things to say?
>I never cherry picked in fact I provided multiple sources, you are the one here is cherry picking and twisting my argument to further push your own goals.
Here you did not address the point that I brought up that there is considerable ambiguity in the book about what to label the Hetmanate. You HAVE cherry-picked only the parts of the book that speak about aspects of the Hetmanate's dependence on the Hetmanate in an attempt to further push your own goals. You were hoping that no one else has the book that you are citing and your misinformation will go unchallenged. I see you have had previous problems with endless arguments on other pages and the users there weren't impressed either.
>It is the closest term we have. Therefore it is the term we use and the term this book and other books used.
This is the term that the book uses only for lack of a better term, because the Hetmanate does not fit traditional criteria of a vassal state.
>It is appropriate. Based on the evidence provided. It is inappropriate because you don't like it and your feelings got hurt?
Don't you love pulling sentences out of context and then pretending like you have proved something? Here I made a list of reasons why it is inappropriate to call the Hetmanate a vassal state based on evidence that I cited, but you pull one sentence out of context and in your mind you have just said something clever. It is inappropriate because it is a controversial claim at best, and inaccurate at worst.
>Yes they never put any military presence there, per their agreement.
The agreement was that they station 1000 janissaries in Kodak. So, NO, this WAS NOT their agreement. This proves that you haven't read the book. The Ottomans did not fulfill the agreement.
>Let me break it down for you because you are misreading it
Okay. Please explain to me how I misread it. You haven't read the book and your keep cherry-picking the parts and wrongly explaining the quotes that I cite, but I will try to follow your logic.
>they didn't consolidate because they didn't put any military presence there because this is a buffer zone between them and their northern neighbors. Ottomans can have vassals with no military presence in them.
This again proves that you haven't read the book. The agreement was that the Ottomans would station their military in the Hetmanate, but they never did. Per the agreement, the Hetmanate could be a vassal if the Ottomans station their military in in the Hetmanate, but they never did it. They didn't consolidate the Hetmanate as their vassal state because they did not follow through with the agreement. I am already expecting you to reply to this paragraph sentence-by-sentence, pulling them out of context. It so much harder for you to formulate an argument against a paragraph.
>With that logic every vassal is not de facto,
No. That is not what I was saying because Ottomans did station their troops in their territories, making it de facto their territory. The Ottomans made this agreement with the Hetmanate, but they didn't follow through. Now I understand why your responses make no sense. You haven't read the book.
>every vassal had their own head managing their local affairs, Crimean Khanate is another example.
What's your point?
>Please finish the sentence that your wrote, before misquoting it, I hate when people do that, we can see the ways you are trying to do here
You haven't read the book. What a hypocritical request of you to make. Almost every quote you make is out of context. This conversation is very difficult to have.
>Independent to sort out their own affairs. Not independent to be their own country. You can't apply that analogy when Cossacks were thrown in the pits of war in the Russo-Ottoman wars.
You definitely didn't get that out of the book. This is YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION. You didn't read the book and you don't know what the word "state" means. The book talks about an independent Ukrainian state. Please look it up, because you will be embarrassed that your statement above did not make any sense.
>If they opt out of their signed agreement then that means a war to bring back them back in to the Imperial sphere.
You have lost me with your pronouns. Who is "they" and "them"? Also, I would like some sources for this claim.
>Based on the fact that Doroshenko was Sanjak bey and so was Yurii Khmelnytsky
Please give me a source that says they were called "Sanjak bey".
>yes it does. They delegated for each of their vassal their duties, and what they pay and what their military presence of Ottoman troops and military assistance that the vassals send to the porte.
Again, you are adding your own spin. You are still assuming that the Ottoman sultan decided, but the book says that the Hetmanate and the Ottoman Empire made a bilateral agreement that defined their relationship. The sultan did not delegate the degree of autonomy.
>This was never a military alliance, in fact being a vassal makes you send military assistance to the Ottoman Sultan himself.
It WAS a military alliance. It was a military alliance that never quite turned in to a vassal state, even though the Hetman really wanted it to happen. The Ottomans never fully followed through with the request.
>So the Sultan needs no military alliance if he can do more than by giving the Cossack the vassalage/protectorate they wanted. Which again proves my point.
The syntax of this sentence is brutal. I have no idea what it's trying to say. This is weak English. I don't understand this.
>Yes, which proves my point that they were a protectorate.
Israel receives protection from the United States. Do you call Israel a protectorate of the United States. No! Because this is a military alliance.
>The Ottomans agreed not to collect tribute from certain vassals like the Cossack Hetmanate and the Crimean Khanate, yet both were vassals and protectorates The Ottomans agreed not to collect tribute because they knew this would never happen, because the Hetmanate remained independent. The agreement with the Ottomans just added some military obligations to the Hetmanate. The Hetmanate was not a vassal.
>Level of autonomous bears nothing towards it's vassalage.
You made this up in order to advance your narrative. Please provide sources.
>It was.
It wasn't subservient to the Ottoman Empire. Please provide me with some specific decrees of the Ottoman Sultan (other than military cooperation, like the joint war against Poland-Lithuania, because this was a military alliance) from reliable sources that show that the Hetmanate was taking commands from the Ottomans
>That is based on your subjective opinion on what you think of me. It's up to you.
That is based on your replies to myself and other users on this talk page. Should I quote them for you directly?
>Pleases stop misquoting and start reading more.
What is that supposed to mean? Perhaps you should read WP:Etiquette and WP:CIVIL, instead of keeping up with the insults. Clearly it looks like YOU haven't read these pages.
>You are starting to behave unkindly when you misquote purposely and twist my words.
"The best defense is a good offense" in your opinion, isn't it? When your arguments start running out, just attack the person you're arguing with.
>And then you come here asking to be civil. I'm being civil with you at the moment. Anytime your feelings get hurt tell me so I can delete it as you wish. Don't want to hurt your feeling.
Ah, some more sarcasm and insults from Mr. Ivanov. Sounds like you have a lot of substance to your argument.--BoguSlav 20:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

>What a long drawn-out way to respond
What did you expect one word or two words, or did you expect me to give up? How long is based on how long you responded to my initial comment. So don't act surprised.
> by commenting on every single fragment of my reply. That was painful to read the play-by-play.
Painful for you , pleasure for me, this is how I write things.
>Get to your point! I think I will reply to you exactly as you keep replying to me.
Good for you.
>According to Oxford Dictionary, a sanjak is "one of several administrative districts into which a larger district (vilayet) was divided". Please give me some sources to your definition of a Sanjak and that show that the Hetmanate met these criteria.
Doroshenko and Yurii Khmelnytsky were Sanjakbey. The title of the vassal in Ukraine was called Sanjak. They were given a berat and a horsetail.
>Sources please.
Ask you shall receive "By 1669 the Porte issued a patent (berat, nişan) granting Doroshenko all of Cossack Ukraine as an Ottoman Sancak or province." p.142, it feels good when I have to shut you down for good and let you eat your words, happy now.
>Yes you did, when you called the Hetmanate a "sanjak" of the Ottoman Empire.
You are twisting my words again yet again, can you stop spreading misinformation, Enough with these childish lies you are pushing against me. You do realize I said they were Sanjak, I never said they have "have full control over the Hetmanate.", please increase your comprehension skill.
>I'm using the modern-day equivalent
You need to stop using since I never used any modern day equivalent. But if you want to use it you can, But I will remind again and again that I never called them puppet.
> Don't you just love to knit-pick at specific words when you run out of things to say?
It is not nitpicking, when I never used the word puppet, I consider it blatant false statement.
>Here you did not address the point that I brought up that there is considerable ambiguity in the book about what to label the Hetmanate.
Which part of the book? Please bring it forth.
> You HAVE cherry-picked only the parts of the book that speak about aspects of the Hetmanate's dependence on the Hetmanate in an attempt to further push your own goals.
I never cherry picked, in fact I added the reference that Iryna told me to add per Wikipedia rules, since I posted an amibgious reference in the beginning, with your logic, If I posted the age of an Ottoman Sultan in certain battle, I'm cherry picking.
>You were hoping that no one else has the book that you are citing and your misinformation will go unchallenged
I never hoped, that again another lie, HAHAHAHAHAHHA, continue with your lies. You are the one who is misinformed, I added the information properly In fact you challenged nothing, you are running in circles.
>I see you have had previous problems with endless arguments on other pages and the users there weren't impressed either.
And I see have I had previous excellent relationship with endless users that I have cooperated in various Wikipedia pages. You can choose what you want to see, it's up to you.
>This is the term that the book uses only for lack of a better term
So we will use that term. Since it's the closest term we have.
>because the Hetmanate does not fit traditional criteria of a vassal state.
It does fit perfectly.
>Don't you love pulling sentences out of context and then pretending like you have proved something?
You are the one who actually did that, and I helped you with your English, by adding the rest of the quote, don't you love when we help each other.
>Here I made a list of reasons why it is inappropriate to call the Hetmanate a vassal state based on evidence that I cited
And I have countered every claim you posted.
>but you pull one sentence out of context and in your mind you have just said something clever. It is inappropriate because it is a controversial claim at best, and inaccurate at worst.
In my mind I have said something that was needed, I never assigned any intelligence level, it is actually not controversial, you think it's controversial. But that doesn't mean it is.
>The agreement was that they station 1000 janissaries in Kodak.
Doroshenko never agreed to that, that is why they were never stationed.
>So, NO, this WAS NOT their agreement. This proves that you haven't read the book. The Ottomans did not fulfill the agreement.
The Ottoman did fulfill their agreement, these were terms and Doroshenko as being the subject has the right to choose the terms.
>Okay. Please explain to me how I misread it. You haven't read the book and your keep cherry-picking the parts and wrongly explaining the quotes that I cite, but I will try to follow your logic.
Me not reading the book is your opinion and not a fact, I have read the book multiple times, before. You are the one misquoting and then you say I'm misquoting. That makes no sense
>This again proves that you haven't read the book.
That actually proves I read the book.
>The agreement was that the Ottomans would station their military in the Hetmanate
That wasn't the agreement, the agreement was that the Ottomans will not station any troops in Kodak
>but they never did.
Because they agreed not to put troops there
> Per the agreement, the Hetmanate could be a vassal if the Ottomans station their military in in the Hetmanate, but they never did it.
You could be a vassal without a military present of your ottoman overlords. You can be a vassal that pay not tribute, there are different agreements that each vassals reached with the Ottoman Empire, and Doroshenko secured the agreement of not putting any troops in Kodak, per the agreement. Even if the Ottomans had no military presence they are still a vassal.
>They didn't consolidate the Hetmanate as their vassal state because they did not follow through with the agreement.
They did follow through in the agreement.
> I am already expecting you to reply to this paragraph sentence-by-sentence, pulling them out of context. It so much harder for you to formulate an argument against a paragraph.
I already expect for you to whine and whine, and misquote the book which you did.
>No. That is not what I was saying because Ottomans did station their troops in their territories, making it de facto their territory.
Ottomans don't have to station troops in those territories to be a vassal, they agreed not to put any military presence. The deal included many other things which includes that Doroshenko will lend some troops in case of war
>What's your point?
That every Ottoman vassal had different agreement with the Ottoman Empire. Honestly it seems you don't know anything about how the Ottoman Empire organizes it's relationship with it's various subjects, you have shown how ignorant you are. Another example, Republic of Ragusa is a vassal that pays tribute, but doesn't military assistance (if you exempt their expertise in the Ottoman Navy), Crimean Khanate and the Cossack Hetmanate is opposite, they don't send tribute but they send military assistance. Principality of Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldavia send both.
>You haven't read the book.
I have read the book that is why I know you are misquoting.
>What a hypocritical request of you to make. Almost every quote you make is out of context. This conversation is very difficult to have.
It is very difficult to have because you don't know what you are talking about, where is the out of context quotes I have used, while I caught you doing
>This is YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION.
No it's not, in fact the book goes on and at page 143, at the beginging it follows the page 142 when the author talks about the agreement and mentions the "Important points in the berat include the broad of degree of autonomy granted" and then at the last part of the page, the last paragraph, it shows how the Ottoman intervened, because of Polish incursions.
>You didn't read the book
Yes I did
>and you don't know what the word "state" means.
Yes I know.
>The book talks about an independent Ukrainian state
Yes, that is what I said exactly, had the relationship between the Cossacks and Ottomans continued without no war with either Poland or Russia, an "independent Ukrainian state" might have come to fruition, if you continue reading the book you will see that Cossacks were dragged to wars with either Poland and Russia which means Ottoman intervention which equals to delayed "independent Ukrainian state". The author says "The lapse of active Ottoman involvement there meant that at this stage a more independent Ukrainian state would not come to be. For the Ottomans it eventually meant repeated direct confrontations with the Russian Empire"
It seems you didn't read the book at all.
>Please look it up, because you will be embarrassed that your statement above did not make any sense.
It made perfect sense, I just regurgitated what the author mentions.
>You have lost me with your pronouns. Who is "they" and "them"? Also, I would like some sources for this claim.
They is the Ottoman Empire and them is the Cossacks.
>Please give me a source that says they were called "Sanjak bey".
The book clearly mentions that the Cossack Hetmanate is a Sanjak, so what do you think the title is of the Sanjak? Use your brain.
>Again, you are adding your own spin.
No I didn't. Where is the spin
>You are still assuming that the Ottoman sultan decided, but the book says that the Hetmanate and the Ottoman Empire made a bilateral agreement that defined their relationship.
Yes and the Ottoman Sultan decided each term, in fact presents the terms of the agreement
> The sultan did not delegate the degree of autonomy.
Yes he did, page 142 "Important points in the berat include the broad of degree of autonomy granted"
>It WAS a military alliance.
Military Assistance is the correct word, Military Alliance implies that they help each other out but they are not vassal. They are indeed vassals, Ottomans as the protectorate o the Cossack Hetmamnate and the Cossacks as the subject of the Ottoman lend him military assistance to any campaign he deems fit.
>Israel receives protection from the United States. Do you call Israel a protectorate of the United States. No! Because this is a military alliance.
This is False analogy.
>Hetmanate remained independent
They were granted "broad degree of autonomy"
> The agreement with the Ottomans just added some military obligations to the Hetmanate. The Hetmanate was not a vassal.
It was indeed a vassal, it was also a Sanjak.
>You made this up in order to advance your narrative
No I didn't, the Ottoman Empire can grant autonomy to any vassal they want.
>It wasn't subservient to the Ottoman Empire.
Yes it was
>Please provide me with some specific decrees of the Ottoman Sultan (other than military cooperation, like the joint war against Poland-Lithuania, because this was a military alliance)
That was a Military assistance that is part of the obligation of the Ottoman vassals to provide in case of wars.
>from reliable sources that show that the Hetmanate was taking commands from the Ottomans
They agreed that they were being a vassal of the Ottoman Empire.
>That is based on your replies to myself and other users on this talk page.
I have participated in many talk pages, your pool of evidence is intentional biased, and again it is your subjective opinion that is not based on facts.
>Should I quote them for you directly?
You can do whatever you want.
>What is that supposed to mean? Perhaps you should read WP:Etiquette and WP:CIVIL, instead of keeping up with the insults. Clearly it looks like YOU haven't read these pages.
Clearly I have read the pages, I'm asking you one more time please stop spreading misinformation and misquoting and twisting my words.>"The best defense is a good offense" in your opinion, isn't it?
Actually I believe the best defense is a GOOD DEFENSE, that is just an opinion.
> When your arguments start running out, just attack the person you're arguing with.
When I call you out in your misquoting and twisting, I'm attacking how you presented the argument and telling you to stop walking up and twisting my words and misquoting the book.
>Ah, some more sarcasm and insults from Mr. Ivanov.
For you it is Sir Ivanov, so please don't call me Mr. Ivanov.
>Sounds like you have a lot of substance to your argument
You think so? Mr. Boguslav Alexis Ivanov (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, a lot of words but no substance. No source provided that Doroshenko was called "sanjak bey". Also no sources to say that the Hetmanate took any commands from the Ottoman Empire (apart from military cooperation). The agreement: "Doroshenko reportedly consented to these terms, with the exception that 1,000 janissaries be garrisoned only in Kodak." (Page 141) There WERE supposed to be troops stationed in Kodak based on both Doroshenko and the Ottomans' terms. Later, the book says that the Ottomans never did it: " Rather than occupying and defending the Cossack land of Doroshenko, the Ottomans directed their thrust further west against Kamianets’, the magnificent fortress that guarded some important routes into both Ukraine and Poland." (Page 145). So, they never carried through with their agreement: the Ottomans chose not to defend it and did not occupy it with their troops (as they agreed to do), even though it is true that they did call the Cossack Hetmanate a protectorate.--BoguSlav 22:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

>Again, a lot of words but no substance.
Again more excuses from someone who never read the book. You are getting lazy as usual. It's not my problem that you don't want to read and throw fake accusation HAHAHHAHAHAHAHA pathetic.
>No source provided that Doroshenko was called "sanjak bey".
I gave you a source saying he ruled a Sanjak.
>Also no sources to say that the Hetmanate took any commands from the Ottoman Empire (apart from military cooperation).
Which is the right of the overlords on the vassal to provide military assistance towards the Ottomans.
>The agreement: "Doroshenko reportedly consented to these terms, with the exception that 1,000 janissaries be garrisoned only in Kodak." (Page 141)
Those terms he consented where those agreed upon. He didn't consent to the 1,000 Janissaries therefore Ottoman and Doroshenko reached a mutual agreement. After these agreement, on June 1669 the Porte gave him the berat.
>There WERE supposed to be troops stationed in Kodak based on both Doroshenko and the Ottomans' terms
No the Ottomans were never supposed to be out troops in Kodak, they wanted, and Doroshenko didn't consent to those terms, the negotiations continued.
>Later, the book says that the Ottomans never did it: " Rather than occupying and defending the Cossack land of Doroshenko, the Ottomans directed their thrust further west against Kamianets’, the magnificent fortress that guarded some important routes into both Ukraine and Poland." (Page 145).
Yes because they agreed not to put troops in there and instead put troops in Podolia Eyalet
>So, they never carried through with their agreement: the Ottomans chose not to defend it and did not occupy it with their troops (as they agreed to do
They never agreed to occupy troops in Kodak.
>even though it is true that they did call the Cossack Hetmanate a protectorate
It was still a protectorate and a vassal. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

There are two options: you are a troll OR you can't read. Re-read this sentence slowly: "Doroshenko reportedly consented to these terms, with the exception that 1,000 janissaries be garrisoned only in Kodak." Again, no sources that Doroshenko was called "sanjak bey". No sources that show the Hetmanate following orders of the sultan (other than mutually agreed-upon military obligations).--BoguSlav 04:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Please could someone who has a copy of The European Tributary States of the Ottoman Empire in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries add the relevant information (complete with citations) to the sections of History that are relevant to the timescales. This should be done irrespective of whether one likes the point of view expressed in the book. It is surely better to have properly cited history, than not to.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course, I'm looking to diversify my references and going back to the Harvard Ukrainian Studies to dig up some information from the Ottoman Archives that is going to shed light, there is different periods of Vassalage, I'm focusing on the 1655 correspondence between the Ottoman porte and the Cossacks. Before moving to the 1669 correspondence Alexis Ivanov (talk) 03:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Please remember that you can only use information from the Ottoman Archives for facts. You need to use secondary sources for interpretations.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course, of course, The Harvard Ukranian Studies will be the secondary source I'm using. I'm reading it and analyzing it. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Am I completely losing it, or am I imagining that it had already been cited properly in the article at some point and has gone missing? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: "Am I completely losing it" - no. It went missing from the infobox, but does not appear to have been in the article.

• Version by Iryna Harpy at 00:32, 10 November 2015 has two citations to Kármán, et al in the infobox, and none in the text.
• Revision as of 05:32, 10 January 2016, Boguslavmandzyuk deleted citation to Riedlmayer, András, and Victor Ostapchuk, Bohdan Xmel'nyc'kyj and the Porte: A Document from the Ottoman Archives
• Revision as of 20:38, 18 January 2016, Boguslavmandzyuk deleted citation to Kármán, Gábor, and Lovro Kunčević, The European Tributary States of the Ottoman Empire in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries

-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Facepalm... okay, I'm not mad, just a moron. I'll go back and salvage the refs ASAP. I also need to do a general ref clean-up before link rot sets in. On a final note, I have a couple of ideas as to how to fix the infobox so that info isn't replicated, plus stop the text being sandwiched so that it's painful to try and read. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

There are differences of view expressed in sources about the extent to which the Hetmanate was a protectorate. This needs to be brought out in the article text. Quotations such as the following, belong in the article text, not as footnotes to the infobox:

"So to what degree was Cossack Ukraine an Ottoman entity in this period? Since Islamic-style tribute (harac) was never imposed and scarcely discussed, technically speaking, we cannot call the hetmanate an Ottoman tributary. This is, of course, why we have preferred the term “vassal,” of course not in the original Western medieval sense, but in the sense of the relationship between a subject state and a suzerain, a state in which there are mutual obligations—mainly non-aggression and protection of the subject by the suzerain in exchange for, when needed, military service by the subject on behalf of the suzerain, and possibly rendering tribute."

-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Toddy I will tell you this sincerly, Mr.BoguSlav doesn't know what he is talking about, now hear me out before you reach any conclusions. First of all the book is titled "The European Tributary States of the Ottoman Empire in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries", it is an anthology book meaning every chapter is written by multiple people with different expertise in Ottoman relations with their tributary. One man is focusing on Cossack, another is focusing on Crimea, another on Moldavia and so on. On the publisher's page it says "The European Tributary States of the Ottoman Empire is the first comprehensive overview of the empire’s relationship to its various European tributaries, Moldavia, Wallachia, Transylvania, Ragusa, the Crimean Khanate and the Cossack Hetmanate. " the word tributary hear simple means "The term tributary state refers to one of the two main ways in which a pre-modern state might be subordinate to a more powerful state", in a sense a vassal, but a detailed meaning of the world is to pay a tribute, and the Crimean Khanate and the Cossack Hetmanate never payed tribute, and the book makes it clear at that. Page 49 says "There is no evidence of any taxes from the Khanate being paid into the Ottoman treasury. The tribute paid by Muscovy and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to the Crimea constituted an important part of khan's income." Moscow and Poland are both not a tributary of Crimean Khanate yet they pay a tribute or as Russian and Polish folks call it "gifts" to be less-humiliating. You see the author clears up the defintion that they don't pay a tribute but they are still a vassal and not paying a tribute doesn't mean you are not a vassal, and the word tributary used in the book's title means a vassal in it's old fashion sense. The book has two chapters dedicated to two vassals that never payed tribute yet called them that in the title which is wrong but understandable both are the Crimean Khanate and the Cossack Hetmanate. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 09:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yet the author only uses the word "vassal" in quotation marks. For the sake of accuracy, the term "vassal" should also be included in quotation marks as the author says it in the book. Otherwise, you are oversimplifying the information in the book and adding your own interpretation. For this reason, my revision to infobox was correct.--BoguSlav 05:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

In Ukrainian historiography the Cossack Hetmanate is regarded as a state

There is a view expressed in edits to the article page that the article should say "In Ukrainian historiography the Cossack Hetmanate is regarded as a state". One of the citations given for this is the Encyclopedia of Ukraine. But this article does not say this; it says that it was a "Ukrainian Cossack state". Another source is Ізборник, Проблема Держави в Козацьку Добу also says it was a state. (Тодді не розуміє української мови.) I failed to download the third source.

Wikipedia:No original research says "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Does someone have a reliable source that explicitly says that it is only in Ukrainian historiography that the Cossack Hetmanate is regarded as a state?-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Toddy1 You're right. This is original research, and precisely why I have been removing it. The Encyclopedia of Ukraine is a Canadian publication. You can simply go to its Wikipedia page and find that University of Toronto Press publishes it. This is already proof that not only Ukrainian historiography sees it this way. As for the first Ukrainian-language link, there are many references to the statehood of the Hetmanate. Here is a google translate of the link that you couldn't access: [7]. It clearly says the phrase "Ukrainian Cossack state". I will pin Iryna Harpy and Aleksandr Grigoryev, who have also contributed to this article.--BoguSlav 04:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to let you know that the PDF wasn't archived, but I found another link for it here, so I've updated the reference in the article. It's referred to as being a Cossack State, so any form of descriptor like 'historiography' implying that it's problematic should be eradicated per WP:WORDS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of foreign relations section

@Alexis Ivanov:, was there a reason for your deletion of the section on foreign relations? Or was it an accident?-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Toddy1: accident returned information I deleted and returned information he deleted. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I think this was no accident. It was fairly obvious based on the huge loss of information in his edit, that he was aware that he was deleting more than just the information in the infobox.--BoguSlav 05:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It was an accident, or else I wouldn't restore it. You can think however you want. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox information gets out of proportion. There is really no need to emphasize the military political status of the country. The article on Moldavia has nothing like that, while Cossack Hetmanate openly supported the faction of Vasile Lupu against his opposition which was supported by the Polish Crown and Transylvania. Same goes for Kingdom of Hungary and even Grand Duchy of Moscow where it is never mentioned in the infobox about Muscovy being part of the Golden Horde for most of its history. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I have made two minor edits[8] to the formatting of the status in the infobox. Does that help?-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks much better visually, excellent edit. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Aleksandr Grigoryev. Placing the status of "protectorate" in the infobox undermines the periods in the history of the Cossack Hetmanate when it was independent of any agreement that bound it to either the Ottoman Empire or Muscovy. Also, under hetman Ivan Vyhovsky, the Cossack Hetmanate negotiated the Treaty of Hadiach, during which Ukraine was considered an equal partner in the Polish-Lithuanian union. This would also have to be included in an already-overcrowded infobox. For these reasons, the "protectorate" status in the infobox places WP:UNDUE weight on a very brief period in the Cossack Hetmanate's history. This should best be reserved for the history section, foreign relations section, or both. Moreover, as I documented with multiple quotes above, the Cossack Hetmanate was entirely autonomous under Ottoman protection; the agreement only practically included mutual military obligations. Finally, it seems like the common consensus for other similar articles on Wikipedia (such as Moldavia, the Grand Duchy of Muscovy, etc) pointed out by Aleksandr Grigoryev, is to exclude this information from the infobox.--BoguSlav 05:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

>Placing the status of "protectorate" in the infobox undermines the periods in the history of the Cossack Hetmanate when it was independent of any agreement that bound it to either the Ottoman Empire or Muscovy.
It was never independent when it was bound by the 1655 and 1669 Vassalage and Protectorate of the Ottoman Empire.
>Also, under hetman Ivan Vyhovsky, the Cossack Hetmanate negotiated the Treaty of Hadiach, during which Ukraine was considered an equal partner in the Polish-Lithuanian union. This would also have to be included in an already-overcrowded infobox
And then a year later Moscow imposed the "Pereyaslav Articles" such a short lived Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian union, YAWN
>For these reasons, the "protectorate" status in the infobox places WP:UNDUE weight on a very brief period in the Cossack Hetmanate's history.
The "Treaty of Hadiach" is much shorter than the protectorate status that the Cossack Hetmanate gained.
>This should best be reserved for the history section, foreign relations section, or both. Moreover, as I documented with multiple quotes above, the Cossack Hetmanate was entirely autonomous under Ottoman protection; the agreement only practically included mutual military obligations.
Being autonomous and being a vassal aren't mutually exclusive. Saying "mutual military obligations" is twisting the author's word, when in fact every vassal of the Ottoman Empire, the Ottoman lends protection and some of those vassals are required to send in military assistance.
>Finally, it seems like the common consensus for other similar articles on Wikipedia (such as Moldavia, the Grand Duchy of Muscovy, etc) pointed out by Aleksandr Grigoryev, is to exclude this information from the infobox
Yet Principality of Transylvania and Wallachia have the Ottoman vassalage in their infobox. Moldavia will get it's own Ottoman Vassalage in the infobox once we have reputable source and the specific dates. The Cossack didn't have a vassalage, but with reputable sources and excellent time frames we have the ability to add them in as editors. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not up to you to decide what happened in history. The Treaty of Hadiach did happen. Also, for the first few years of its existence the Hetmanate was not a signatory to any treaty or alliance. "Being autonomous and being a vassal aren't mutually exclusive.Sure, but the author only places "vassal" in quotation marks because the Hetmanate was never a true vassal. Part of his explanation is that the Hetmanate remained autonomous and the two parties took on a deal of mutual non-agresssion and mutual military assistance. Furthermore, the author says that the Hetmanate was not much of a Ottoman entity. The Ottomans agreed to station its troops in the Hetmanate, but never did occupy the Cossack land per their agreement. In the end, the Ottomans were never really invested in the Cossack Hetmanate, which made it very easy for the Ottomans to just abandon the Cossacks and leave them to join the Muscovites. Presenting the Cossack Hetmanate as a protectorate, vassal, or sanjak of the Ottoman Empire only exaggerates the level of involvement that Ottoman Empire had with the Ukrainian state.--BoguSlav 22:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

>It's not up to you to decide what happened in history.
I never said it's up nor have I implied that, so please don't lie about me
>The Treaty of Hadiach did happen.
I never said it didn't happen, you are telling me things I already know
>Also, for the first few years of its existence the Hetmanate was not a signatory to any treaty or allianceWhat time period is that please mention it here. Just want to make sure before you change your mind on the definition of the word "few years" I want to be specific and detailed.
>"Being autonomous and being a vassal aren't mutually exclusive.Sure
Maybe try to understand that first before telling me it is "autonomous" like other Ottoman Vassals.
"but the author only places "vassal" in quotation marks because the Hetmanate was never a true vassal."
Which page, please, because the author didn't put a quotation mark in page 146 and page 138.
>Part of his explanation is that the Hetmanate remained autonomous and the two parties took on a deal of mutual non-agresssion and mutual military assistance.
With that logic, every vassal had a mutual obligation which isn't the case, the overlords have the power to protect their vassals, and the vassal is required to lend in military assistance. This isn't a military alliance as you make it to be nor are they equal in status.
>Furthermore, the author says that the Hetmanate was not much of a Ottoman entity.
Who said it was an Ottoman entity?? It was an Ottoman vassal.
>The Ottomans agreed to station its troops in the Hetmanate
No they didn't, the Ottomans offered to do that in on 10 August 1668 but they agreed not to that and the agreement was signed on by the granting of an Ottoman patent on June 1669. Maybe you need to re-read the book again.
>but never did occupy the Cossack land per their agreement.
The agreement was not to station troops in Kodak.
>In the end, the Ottomans were never really invested in the Cossack Hetmanate
In the end, the Cossack Hetmanate were an Ottoman vassal. Doesn't matter how much the Ottomans were invested in it.
>which made it very easy for the Ottomans to just abandon the Cossacks and leave them to join the Muscovites
This is false, the never abandoned them, in the whole time frame of the vassalage and in fact protected the Cossacks in the Polish–Ottoman War (1672–76)
>Presenting the Cossack Hetmanate as a protectorate, vassal, or sanjak of the Ottoman Empire only exaggerates the level of involvement that Ottoman Empire had with the Ukrainian state.
If you read the book and look at the pages sited you will see, again read the book. There needs to be no level of involvement to be an Ottoman vassal, and yet the Ottomans did involved themselves with their vassals based on their needs. Page 143 makes it clear. Please tell me how does 0% involvement makes the Cossack not a a vassal. Also how was there a 0% involvement when the Ottomans did involved themselves to protect their vassals and appoint two people to rule their vassal, the sounds like me TOO MUCH involvement. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Alexis Ivanov You are currently engaged in an WP:Edit war on this page, as you revert every single one of my edits. Keep in mind, 3 reverts lead to a block per the WP:3RR. You have also went back to the WP:Personal attacks when you asked me of lying above. This is unacceptable. There is currently a discussion going on about your conduct at WP:ANI. As for the substance of the discussion above, "Which page, please, because the author didn't put a quotation mark in page 146 and page 138." Page 150, which I cited in the infobox. "Who said it was an Ottoman entity??" You did multiple times when you called it a "sanjak". A "sanjak" is "(In the Ottoman Empire) one of the several administrative districts into which a larger district (vilayet) was divided." in the Ottoman Empire (According to the Oxford Dictionary. As for the agreement, I have to tell you again to re-read this sentence: "Doroshenko reportedly consented to these terms, with the exception that 1,000 janissaries be garrisoned only in Kodak." (Page 141). Finally, the Ottomans DID ABANDON THEM after that war. Read this sentence from page 149: "That the Ottomans were not inclined to develop their control in Ukraine and instead left it as it was and went on to fight a probably even more dangerous war for Vienna tells us much about Ottoman goals and policy in the northern Black Sea region." I think these questions are settled.--BoguSlav 03:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

>Alexis Ivanov You are currently engaged in an WP:Edit war on this page
Boguslavmandzyuk and you are vandalizing the page by not following the parameters set by the Template:Infobox former country, per the status_text and status
>Keep in mind, 3 reverts lead to a block per the WP:3RR
You need to tell yourself that first. Here is my evidence and you clearly started it Diff1, after you vandalized the infobox and removed what Me and Toddy have already established and here is Diff2 another vandalism, the fact it is an equal memeber to any entity and hwo many years it didn;t sign a treaty is not qualified to be on the status_text which applies to the status= protectorate field in the infobox. And your THIRD DIFF3. I'm assuming rules apply to you too.
>This is unacceptable.
Maybe you can stop reverting and changing my established edits, especially when you never care about the "since 1654" edit, but only about the 1655 and 1699 vassalage, one of those don't even have an edit and you never cared about it, HMMMMMM!!!! What does that mean
>As for the substance of the discussion above, "Which page, please, because the author didn't put a quotation mark in page 146 and page 138." Page 150, which I cited in the infobox.
You need to cite it again in the talk page since we are discussing the book, and in the same page, the auhtor PREFERS to call the Cossack Hetmanate a vassal
>"Who said it was an Ottoman entity??" You did multiple times when you called it a "sanjak". A "sanjak" is "(In the Ottoman Empire) one of the several administrative districts into which a larger district (vilayet) was divided." in the Ottoman Empire (According to the Oxford Dictionary.
The Author of the book called it Sanjak. On page 142 "By June 1669 the Porte issued a patent (berat, nişan) granting Doroshenko all of Cossack Ukraine as an Ottoman sancak or province."
Your oxford dictionary excuse is not working, many eyalets and sanjcaks in the Ottoman Empire had autonomy.
>As for the agreement, I have to tell you again to re-read this sentence: "Doroshenko reportedly consented to these terms, with the exception that 1,000 janissaries be garrisoned only in Kodak." (Page 141).
Those were the terms the Ottomans offered 10 August 1668 not the one they agreed on on June 1669. There is a big difference when an entity offers something and an entity issues patent of the agreement and the agreemnt includes no Ottomans troops in Kodak.
>Finally, the Ottomans DID ABANDON THEM after that war.
Yes but they never abandon them before the war, and even if they abandon them, they are still a vassal.
>Read this sentence from page 149: "That the Ottomans were not inclined to develop their control in Ukraine and instead left it as it was and went on to fight a probably even more dangerous war for Vienna tells us much about Ottoman goals and policy in the northern Black Sea region." I think these questions are settled.
Yes it settles the fact the Cossacks are still a vassal even though the Ottomans were busy fighting Vienna and yet protected the Cossacks when they were able to do it like in 1672. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I also find it hilarious how there is no reference on the infobox and there is an incorrect timeline of the Muscovite vassalge, "since 1654" is simply wrong. Yurii Khmelnytsky returned to be a Muscovite vassalage in 1659 Pereyaslav Articles after the they had been with Poland in 1658 due to the Treaty of Hadiach Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Alexis Ivanov, you need to take it easy with your vassalage argument. Military assistance treaties are not necessary the same as to be a vassal. Moreover there are no evidences of Ukrainian Cossacks fighting for the Ottoman Empire outside of Ukraine. Also, it is totally wrong to place information in the infobox and completely avoiding to disclose it in the article, which totally undermines the article. Also, a vassal state usually cannot conduct own foreign policy, while the Korsun Treaty of 1669 stated that both the Ottoman Empire and the Crimean Khanate cannot conclude any treaties with national entities that are in war with Doroshenko. That certainly does not look like regular vassal to lord obligations. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Aleksandr Grigoryev The Cossacks are the subject that lends military assistance towards the suzerain, the same way with the Crimean Khanate, the same way Moldavia, same way with Wallachia, same way with Transylvania, same way with other vassals.
>Moreover there are no evidences of Ukrainian Cossacks fighting for the Ottoman Empire outside of Ukraine.
That makes no sense. The point is they fought for their overlords as subject who had to lend in military assistance, secondly Cossakcs did fight for Ottoman during the Polish–Ottoman War (1672–76) out side of the Cossack Hetmanate which is smaller than modern Ukraine. For example Lviv belongs to the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and so is the famous Siege of Kamianets-Podilskyi, that belonged to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Fun fact the Cossacks did enter outside of the Ukranian borders of the 21st century and into the Republic of Poland, that is if you want to know look no further than Krasnobród in 1672.
So by the way I proved you wrong right there
>Also, it is totally wrong to place information in the infobox and completely avoiding to disclose it in the article
Your friend Boguslave, is doing the job, but as always he gets here and says it is an edit war once I edit out his vandalism.
> Also, a vassal state usually cannot conduct own foreign policy
yes they can, look no further than Crimean Khanate, Principolaty of Transylvania and Republic of Ragusa
>while the Korsun Treaty of 1669 stated that both the Ottoman Empire and the Crimean Khanate cannot conclude any treaties with national entities that are in war with Doroshenko.
So which national entity at war did they make treaty with, because this is baffling, in what way does that not make the 1669 treaty a vassalage?? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Alexis Ivanov, you refuse to listen to me. I told you before that your claim argues at least the fact that there was a protectorate treaty between Muscovy and Cossack Hetmanate. Also it seems that you have no idea about the history of Ukraine. Ivan Vyhovsky at his meeting with Swedes in 1657 was requesting to yield the whole Ancient Ukraine where there was Greek faith and survived Ukrainian language upto Vistula (Outline of History of Ukraine by Natalia Yakovenko in 1997). Therefore the idea of Ukraine existed back then, while the western borders with the Polish Crown were purely conditional and majorly were not recognized by Poles anyway. For example, during the Pereyaslav negotiations between Polish side and Khmelnytsky in 1649 where Halychyna was considered part of Cossack Hetmanate (see the same source). The same sources however points out that the Ottoman sanjaks were sent to hetman in 1653, but it also says that instead of them Khmelnytsky was able to sign protectorate with Muscovy (does not says vassalage). Cossack Hetmanate was not vassal of the Ottomans until Petro Doroshenko who was forced to do so due to the Treaty of Andrusovo. There is no way Muscovites would continue with the union and go to war on Poles if the Cossack Hetmanate became a vassal of the Ottoman Empire. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Aleksandr Grigoryev I listened to you, but you are simply stating wrong and false statements. The blame can't be on me, it's only yours.
>I told you before that your claim argues at least the fact that there was a protectorate treaty between Muscovy and Cossack Hetmanate.
And yet nobody giving a proper reference to the "since 1654" in the infobox, but you get edit when we put correct and detailed reference for the Ottoman vassalage, I find that interesting.
> Also it seems that you have no idea about the history of Ukraine.
I have an idea, in what way did you assume that?
>Ivan Vyhovsky at his meeting with Swedes in 1657 was requesting to yield the whole Ancient Ukraine where there was Greek faith and survived Ukrainian language upto Vistula (Outline of History of Ukraine by Natalia Yakovenko in 1997). Therefore the idea of Ukraine existed back then
I never said or implied that the idea of Ukraine never existed, so there you go another misinformation about me as usual.
>while the western borders with the Polish Crown were purely conditional and majorly were not recognized by Poles anyway. For example, during the Pereyaslav negotiations between Polish side and Khmelnytsky in 1649 where Halychyna was considered part of Cossack Hetmanate (see the same source)
My source of Magocsi, Paul Robert.
History of Ukraine: The Land and Its Peoples. 2nd ed. Toronto: U of Toronto, 2010. Print. Clearly shows the map of the 1649 and Galicia is not included. So how correct can your source be in that matter Are you implying Lviv was part of the Cossack Hetmamnate even the Wikipedia pages indicate a Polish possession.
>The same sources however points out that the Ottoman sanjaks were sent to hetman in 1653, but it also says that instead of them Khmelnytsky was able to sign protectorate with Muscovy (does not says vassalage).
Yet Khmelnytsky in 1655 he received an 'ahdname from the Sublime Porte, which showed a "formal vassal status"
>Cossack Hetmanate was not vassal of the Ottomans until Petro Doroshenko who was forced to do so due to the Treaty of Andrusovo.
It was before during Khmelnytsky
>There is no way Muscovites would continue with the union and go to war on Poles if the Cossack Hetmanate became a vassal of the Ottoman Empire.
Well they did, and how does going to war with Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1654 affect the vassalage?.Give credit to Khmelnytsky and how intelligent he was before the 1654 treaty he was already in communication with the Ottoman Porte asking to be a slave of the Sultan. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, during that time Khmelnytsy was involved in the civil war in Moldavia supporting Vasile Lupu who was not supported by the Ottoman Empire (see Tymofiy Khmelnytsky). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I have already seen that before, I have seen his 1652 incursion in Moldavia, and his need for legitimacy by marrying his son towards the Moldavian nobility and maybe in fact be appointed the voievodship of Moldavia himself. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

So here is a summary of the concensus. Feel free to add to or change your position. This is my attempt to put this issue to rest.

For including "status" in infobx	Against "status" in the infobox (for status in article body)	Other solution
Alexis Ivanov	Boguslavmandzyuk
	Aleksandr Grigoryev
	Iryna Harpy

--BoguSlav 06:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

You mean mob rule? The issue has been resolved. Also your tactic is not working, you never gave the Russian protectorate any reference, and your only agenda is to overpopulate the infobox to remove all reference to valid, detailed and well references Ottoman vassalage of the Cossack Hetmanate. I will remind you with WP:IGNORE. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 06:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It's only fair to include everything or nothing. There were SO MANY hetmans in the history of the Cossack Hetmanate and ONLY TWO had any formal relationship with the Ottomans, yet you want to give this information front seat on the infobox to make it look like an Ottoman dependency and exclude all of the other agreements. There were so many more treaties where Ukraine swore allegiance to other entities. All or none must be included for sake of historic accuracy.--BoguSlav 06:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, consensus means "the opinion arrived to by a majority of people involved in the discussion". So no, this is not simple mob rule. Everyone who voiced their opinion gave their reasons for their argument. Your tactic seems to be, if you respond with the most words on the talk page, then you must be most correct.--BoguSlav 06:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It is a mob rule, when you used previous editors of the article to reach consensus, shunning other editors from doing any improvement of the article who have never been here for long enough. So let me get this straight, if someone else comes in and edits the article and you don't like it you just scream consensus???? after you failed overloading the article, after you failed going to other articles talk pages asking questions, after you failed in the ANI after all that this is your last plan?
>Everyone who voiced their opinion gave their reasons for their argument.
That is the definition of mob rule, you voiced your opinion that was clearly different than mine and then say consensus. How is that improving and maintaining the article, nobody even cared about putting the Russian protectorate until I came here. It just shows you the mentality. And still the Russian protectorate has no references, since that is part of your end goal, to delete the status_text field. That seems dishonest attempt at vandalizing the page.
>Your tactic seems to be, if you respond with the most words on the talk page, then you must be most correct.-
That was never my tactic again another misinformation about me, if I use the L word you will go to ANI, did you expect for me to shut up and let you vandalize the page? that makes no sense. Talk page was made to be used with words "A talk page (also known as a discussion page) is a page which editors can use to discuss improvements to an article or other Wikipedia page.", you might want to go back and look at the guidelines. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 06:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Also please remove my name from the box you put in my name in, this is more than a status field, this is stopping you vandalizing the page and then saying let's do a consensus. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 06:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

More mistakes in the article by ‎Boguslavmandzyuk

But if I edit them out, he will yell edit war, excellent double standard. I will let you have the podium this time Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Is this the reason you removed the referenced information from the infobox about being an equal member of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? Who is edit warring here? It looks like you are dead set on promoting the image of the Ottoman Empire on Wikipedia, regardless of nuance or alternative definitions. Either we include all Cossack treaties in the status section of the infobox, or none.--BoguSlav 06:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

No based on the status_text in the template, you are not allowed to do that, the status field is being occupied by protectorate, hence you have to list the protectorate and references them, but since I put a well referenced statement there, you get angry at the same time push a double standard of not giving the Russian protectorate any references. Not only that you failed to out the tributary state in the Grandy Duchy of Moscow's article. You might want to check Template:Infobox former country, and please stop vandalizing the page, we get it you ant to overload the infobox, with information that is not suppose to be there.
>It looks like you are dead set on promoting the image of the Ottoman Empire on WikipediaYes just because I edit Ottoman articles it means I'm promoting, how about the Golden Horde, does that mean I'm promoting them too????? Another false information about me
>regardless of nuance or alternative definitions
It is not "nuance or alternative definitions".
>Either we include all Cossack treaties in the status section of the infobox, or none
Yeah I see what you are doing, but that is not working, in fact you need to put every Suzerain protecting their protectorate in the infobox and not the treaties, per the Template:Infobox former country. You are going into the vandalism territory. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Your new edits lack cohesion, you might want to step back and cool down and not look like someone who is doing this out of spite Alexis Ivanov (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

They are well-referenced from the text. Every one is historically accurate. Go ahead and check. I am happy to answer any of your questions and provide quotes for each one.--BoguSlav 06:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I never said they weren't well referenced. Maybe you need to drink some cold water come back and re-read my comment. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, please specify which Khmelnytsky in the article. There is a father and a son. Both were hetmans.--BoguSlav 06:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Which sentence is giving you the problem, please provide the full quote here so I can fix it for you, if you can't fix it yourself, I would love to do that Alexis Ivanov (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

This one --BoguSlav 06:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Alexis Ivanov: I would suggest that it is you who needs to take some time out. You have already shown yourself to be prone to getting hot under the collar very, very quickly. I'm also more than a little concerned as to how well someone knows the subject area if they have to ask 'which Khmelnytsky'. Sincerely, Bohdan's son is barely a fleck of dust in the annals of history. Please calm down. (As an aside, I'm just checking in to find out whether things have been sorted out so, Bogu, have the issues been ironed out?) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Gawd, I've come in far too late. I've just gone through this 'revamped' version of the article and it reads like an edit war from go to whoa. It's unencyclopaedic, almost illiterate, and every sentence is having a punch-up with its neighbour (not just a bit of a disagreement). I have to get over the migraine it's going to give me, but it is in serious need of a thorough reformatting and copy edit. Doesn't anyone get tired of these unabashed edit wars? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Language

User:Iryna Harpy, just to assuage your nationalist concerns (seen you argue with someone on the "Triune Russian Nation" up the talkpage), the term "Ruthenian" is not connected with "Russians". The proto-Russians back then were called "Muscovites". Ruthenians are the Ukrainians+Belorussians. No one "spoke" Church Slavonic, it was an important administrative, written language. There were no Ukrainian or Russian languages until late 18th century. What people spoke was Ruthenian language. I'll supply you with external sources if you want, but first note that my additions are identical with what's written in the parallel wiki-uk article, see for yourself. AddMore-III (talk) 04:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@AddMore-III: I don't need to be "assuaged". Consensus on multiple articles has been to use Ukrainian and Russian as terminology familiar to the reader, whether or not they were prototypes. All of the articles surrounding the history of Eastern Europe have been venues for WP:POVPUSH from both sides (which is why there are ARB sanctions in place). Such precise qualifications are not made for the use of 'English language', 'French language', 'Polish language', or any other languages in the same era. This is only a useful convention for medieval states, but is not edifying for a reader within the context of this article as it's an 'at a glance' method of identifying ethnic groups, and (per WP:TITLE) not a venue for parsing the linguistic evolution of the ethnic groups involved. Magocsi, the Encyclopedia of Ukraine, and Britannica do not discuss Ruthenia or the Ruthenian language.

I have no objections to a fresh discussion of the use the languages in this context as a method of putting this to rest but, given that you've been lurking, you won't mind my saying that you seem to have an extremely limited set of subject area interests, and that I think that you should consider using article talk pages more rather than making unilateral decisions as to what is 'correct' and what is 'incorrect'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean? How what you say is relevant? The slight problem is that none of these two sources discusses language at all. I refer you again to the Ukrainian article. AddMore-III (talk) 05:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

So, you're suggesting that the article should follow Ukrainian Wikipedia's entry? Why not the Russian Wikipedia article, or the Turkish entry? Neither of those mention include the language... which may be the best option. Interestingly, neither feature Ottoman vassalage as a glaringly prominent feature of the Hetmanate. You may have a good point. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Dubious revert

Alexis Ivanov, Boguslavmandzyuk Iryna Harpy, please, note that there is a new article on History of Ukraine created by PANONIAN and called Ottoman Ukraine. Ottoman Ukraine was a puppet state (vassal state) of the Ottoman Empire in 1669 to 1685 exactly as it is stated at the article on Cossack Hetmanate. After I edited a pointing reference, my edit was reverted with the comment "you are joking" from Alexis Ivanov. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Playing the victim is a good way to get sympathies from your friend, nice tactic. Ottoman Ukraine is a region controlled by the Ottoman Empire and the Cossack state itself Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Ottoman Ukraine is a region that corresponds to modern day Ukranian lands that includes, Yedisan and Bujan and Crimean territories. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Alexis Ivanov: Have you learnt nothing from your mentoring by Simon? A) Edit summaries like this are not appropriate, and explain nothing. B) We've come full circle since you first introduced these short periods of agreements to the infobox which was argued to be WP:UNDUE given that the first 'alliance' lasted for the sum total of 2 years, while the second 'alliance' lasted for 16 years. Given that it was, virtually contemporaneously, a protectorate of the Russian Empire, it doesn't even make sense for the reader and was better dealt with in the body of the article. It was a WP:BADIDEA to use the 'status' parameter for a former country infobox in the first place. The fact that at some stage, someone had POV pushed the "Vassal state of the Tsardom of Russia" in did not make it a good idea in the first place: just POV pushing. I'm still of the opinion that it belongs in the body considering that the state was not exactly famous for honouring any of the agreements and were constantly at war with the very empires they'd entered into agreements with until Catherine the Great finally had Sich razed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: You have to bring up the mentoring because that is your only angle that you can attack me with, as if someone was mentored that means they have become an angel that can commit no mistakes, if you are angry about the edit summary I will gladly edit it, but I don't know how to edit the edit summary and I have mentioned my reasoning here in the talk page and Alexander's talk page, no reason to moan about it, in front of me like that, as If I have committed a grievous mistake. B) Alexander removes my work, and you accuse me of coming to full circle for putting back my work back to it's place. Excellent accusation Iryna. I have done nothing to you but you like doing this again. What alliance are you talking about, you have to be more specific, since I have worked in this article long time ago. Now I have to drop everything and come back here to this discussion Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I also like how you compared my work to some random guy adding another vassal state of whatever and didn't bring any references and then you imply I'm POV-pushing, all these accusation have been thrown out of the window, because you and your friends I forgot, but you got many accused me of pushing POV. Do you have a dog in this fight?, are you are accusing me of POV-pushing? Your words are not clear. Hopefully you will make it clearer next time. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

A merge of Ottoman Ukraine into Cossack Hetmanate was first proposed on 7 Sep 17 and reinvigorated as an RfC 15 May 19, with intermediate efforts to source further contributors. There is no consensus to merge among contributors and further contributions are unlikely to achieve consensus. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

---

Requesting more input on the following merge proposal ElectroChip123 (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Propose to merge Ottoman Ukraine into Cossack Hetmanate, as it specifically deals with the Ottoman vassal period of the hetmanate and was not a separate state of Eyalet. GreyShark (dibra) 08:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support merge. As noted, there was no separate state, therefore all the "Ottoman Ukraine" article tracks is one of short-lived (and quickly broken) treaties with contemporary powers/Empires as a matter of the survival of the Hetmanate. The article WP:TITLE is WP:OR in and of itself. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. The Cossack Hetmanate was not really the Ottomans' vassal, per se. Created following the treaty of Andrusovo, the Ottoman Ukraine was indeed the Ottomans' vassal. It is two different entities located in different places one at the Right-bank Ukraine, another at the Left-bank Ukraine. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment As this seems to be a controversial merge requireing a grasp of the history involved I will tag Shotgun pete (talk · contribs) and Faustian (talk · contribs) two users that have contributed significantly to the pages and post about it on WikiProject Ukraine's talk page. Hopefukky this will generate enough attention to achieve consensus on this issue.Trialpears (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. Though the article should be improved in order to secure notability. The Ottoman Ukraine was a Turkish vassal state with a Cossack style government consisting of the Bratslav province, and a southern portion of the Kiev province recognized by the Treaty of Buchach. The original hetman of the Ottoman Ukraine was Petro Doroshenko, a former Right-bank Ukraine hetman who later pledged loyalty to the Sultan. While the remainder of the Right-bank regiments remained loyal to the Polish crown while the Hetmanate (Left-bank Ukraine) regiments remained loyal to the Tsar. So their were a variety of different parties trying to claim dominion over the Ruthenian lands. The Ottoman Ukraine was a separate entity from the Hetmanate, which was formed by Bohdan Khmelnytsky and later was partitioned into the Right and Left - Bank Ukraine. Shotgun pete 2:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support merge Per Iryna Harpy's argument.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC))
• Support merge as the former article relies heavily on "cossackdom.com." That content can live in the latter article until it merits a standalone article per WP:SPINOUT. Aleksandr Grigoryev had no business hijacking the redirect. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2019 (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.

To add to article

To add to this article: how were the Hetmanate's Jewish inhabitants treated during the period of the Cossack Hetmanate? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Location of Cossack Hetmanate.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Fiefdom of Poland

@Joaziela: please add citations for this to the body, as far as i can tell none of the sources here or in Treaty of Zboriv support that it was a Polish fife—blindlynx 16:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2023

the status page in the right shouldn't exist because its not true so will you please remove it? Dan69182 (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Tollens (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

the protectorate is wrong

as the treaty of pereyaslav was signed in 1654 to help the cossack

hetmanate to not fight the commonwealth. on 24 october 1656 russia made a treaty with poland and khmelnytsky said that russia violated the treaty so he broke the treaty of pereyaslav and joined a coalition with Sweden Dan69182 (talk) 09:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

My revert

I reverted massive changes that included removal big referenced chunks with unconvincing edit summaries such as "Most of it was wrong so i decided to delete it for the better" and addition of large unreferenced pieces. Please explain your deletions here, in article talk page. - Altenmann >talk 16:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)