![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please, translate and rewrite, using Soviet act of 24.01.1919 (see Russian wiki) Alexanderwdark ( talk)
This page refers to checka forces using flamethrowers against cossaks in 1919-1920. I find this highly doubtful, as they had just been invented. I have found no reference to russian or soviet troops having flamethrowers until much later. This was in the middle of a civil war, it would not make sense to issue high tech or rare weapons to the chekists. If any were at hand it would make far more sens to give these to front line troops. Ghbborse 06:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention the whole article reads like it was written in another language and translated badly, or just written by someone with poor English. Rcduggan 11:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The current version "Lenin's Bolsheviks' plan to exterminate the Cossacks" is not only highly biased, but is impossible to reconcile with the fact that large numbers of Cossacks served in the Red Army, including Budenny's cavalry forces. The allegation that "300 to 500 thousand were deported or killed" is not substantiated in the given reference. It is impossible to reconcile these claims with the fact that the Russian census shows some 2.5 million Cossacks in the Kuban area in 1926. From the sources I've seen, "decossackization" only spanned early 1919 when the Red Army was repelling aggression by the Cossack warlords. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadjin ( talk • contribs) 17:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I have placed the NPOV flag here as this article is largely based on one source, the Black Book of Communism. Also, would flamethrowers have not required quite a bit of fuel, possibly a specialised fuel, which would have been in very short supply in Russia by the end of the Civil War? PatGallacher ( talk) 17:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
The "opinion" section is uneven and disjointed. It cites people who are not specialists of Russian history such as professor of literature Donald Rayfield. Figes' book does not belong here because his is a synthesis of a broad period in Russian history from the 1890s through the 1920s. He made just a peripheral remark about this conflict. He is not an authority on this conflict. Peter Holquist, by contrast, wrote a 1000 page dissertation on the Don region during 1917-21. He is the only English-speaking historian to have studied this conflict. Matvei Blanter ( talk) 05:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The last version was clearly wrong, since it says almost all Cossacks joined the Greens or other rebel forces, when a significant number joined the Reds. I thought the bulk of them did fight for the Whites or Reds, not aware that many joined the Greens, although there may be problems about how you define some forces. PatGallacher ( talk) 14:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
An "opinions" section is valid in the context of an encyclopedic article if it represents a complete spectrum of opinions. All the presented quotes have a view that decossackization was "genocide" and represent figures on the high-end of death toll estimates. While all opinions except the truly far-fetched carry validity, it is an undeniable fact that very many people hold opinions contradictory to the pro-white, pro-cossack ones given herein. Perhaps redundant quotes from less historically-significant sources ought to be removed, and ones taking neutral and pro-decossackization standpoints be introduced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.163.215 ( talk) 06:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
@PatGallacher. In my first edit I undid edits by banned User:Jacob_Peters. In 2nd edit I rearranged materials (that is where I made the comment about "majority view"). I would not mind if you reverted only my second edit, but not the first one. Editing by banned user is equal to vandalism by our rules. If however you have any particular objections against my edit (note that I restored some materials - the size of the article increased), let's discuss. Why did you revert? Could you please explain per WP:BRD? Thanks. My very best wishes ( talk) 03:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Earlier versions (pre-Jacob Peters) were quite complete; similarly to your edits, I tried to restore/revert to them, but Jacob Peters kept deleting everything but Futoryanskiy's opinion (a communist historian with "leninist views"). I managed to restore all the missing links, but Peters deleted all the references. In the end I was able to only include Shean O'Rourke qualification of Decossackization as a genocide of an ethnic group at the header of the session. There is something strange going on, with PatGallacher acting very much like Jacob Peters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ViktorC ( talk • contribs) 04:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I am not a banned user or a sockpuppet, I will look into the other issues you raise. PatGallacher ( talk) 09:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian ( talk) 18:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Decossackization → De-Cossackization – Capitalizes name of a people or national group (with the understanding that in sentence case the capitalization is de-Cossackization):
Capitalization of names of national groups is in contrast to, e.g., dekulakization, the repression of a politically defined socioeconomic stratum, kulaks.
Frequency of usage shows the current title spelling is most popular, but others are also very commonly used. In this case, WP:COMMONNAME shouldn’t be the only arbiter since it contradicts the five WP:CRITERIA that it’s meant to support, and we should reach a consensus that the WP:CRITERIA of naturalness and consistency take precedence, while also satisfying WP:PEOPLANG to overcome a WP:BIAS against a stateless people whose political status has not allowed them to write their own national history. — Michael Z. 17:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)