Talk:Khotyn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feb 2005 talk[edit]

it has been in Turkish possession by the 17th century.

It was a Moldavian possession, while Moldavia was under the suzeranity of the Ottomans, so it had Moldavian administration, not Turkish.

Some 11000 cilvilians are estimated to have been killed during the massacre instigated by Romanian authorities.

I'd like a reference on this figure. Also, the article did not mentioned that this was staged by the Soviet Army... user:Bogdangiusca 21:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My source is the Great Russian Encyclopedia, as reproduced at http://www.booksite.ru/fulltext/1/001/008/119/731.htm Ghirlandajo 06:54, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
My source is the book Bessarabia, by Charles Upson Clark, New York, 1927.
This last organization acted precipitately and without warning the Central Committee; after a distribution of manifestoes early in January 1919, armed bands were sent in from Podolia at midnight Jan. 10, O.S., and it took ten days' fighting and the death of Gen. Stan Poetash before the invaders were driven back and the local Bolshevist uprising quelled.
And I believe that is more accurate than a propaganda-filled Soviet encyclopedia. Bogdan | Talk 08:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Soviet Union didn't exist in 1919;
Sorry, I meant the Bolsheviks, not the Soviets.
leave the Ukrainian history to the Ukes)
That is also Romanian history. Bogdan | Talk 08:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Leave Ukrainian history to Ukes?[edit]

HAHAHA! Hotin was a possetion of the Romanian principality of Moldova until the Austro-Hungarians took it, so I would very much say that Hotin is part of Romanian history, not Ukrainian! (unsigned by anon)

Battle of Chocim[edit]

Shouldn't this battle have its own article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voting in Bukovina[edit]

On 28 November 1918, in Cernăuţi, the General Congress of Bukovina voted for the union of Bukovina with Romania.

I couln't find anywhere how representative was this body, but it did vote for the union. Anyway, I supposed that at least the Romanians, the Germans and part of the Jews (they were an important minority in Bukovina) would have voted for. bogdan 23:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to this at Talk:Bukovina#Declaration_of_Union. --Irpen 00:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian annexation of Khotin[edit]

Why did you revert the part where it said that the Romanians of Bukovina voted to reunite with Romania? That's not a POV, is it? It's a fact, correct? Why did you remove that part? --Anittas 11:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In mainstream history, this event is described as annexation. If you think there was some sort of plebiscite, you are free to provide your refs. --Ghirla | talk 11:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What mainstream history? The Soviet history that also said that we annexed Basarabia, where in fact they voted to reunite with Romania? Do not remove non-POVs again! It is a fact that the Romanians of Bukovina voted to reunite with Romania and we have the right to write that! --Anittas 11:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of events is highly disputable. There is no need to dissimulate Romanian imperialism. You should provide valid English-language authorities if you want your allegations to be mentioned in the text. Take care, this is not a cheap Romanian prop booklet but an international encyclopedia. --Ghirla | talk 11:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are insultive. Romanian Imperialism? Cheap Romanian prop booklet? Please remove yourself from this article. If you go against a fact that is not disputed, then you got issues. Allegations? What allegations? I make no allegations. --Anittas 11:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Provide references for your allegation and stop trolling, or you will be reported. --Ghirla | talk 11:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, Ghirlandajo! This is a content dispute, not vandalism or trolling. I'm not yet endorsing any point of view because I don't know enough about this issue (history tends to be double-sided, always), but saying things like "take care, this is not a cheap Romanian prop booklet" is insulting and not constructive at all. I don't think Anittas' edits have been aggressive or tendentious at this article. If anything, your attitude and edit summaries have been more aggressive and less civil then Anittas'. This is simply a (quite minor) content dispute from two sides, as tends to happen in cases like these. So please, treat each other nicely. Ronline ✉ 01:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ronline, I welcome the attention of more reasonable Romanian editors to this article. Please note, that my edit was reverted without any discussion and than rereverted 3 or 4 times. People do get annoyed in content disputes and sometimes this reaches talk but reverting the disliked edit without discussion and references or with bad-faith explanations (like "Britannica is not a valid reference") has become a custom in several article on contentious between UA/RO topics. Saying "your sources is propaganda" is mutual at least. For more, I invite you to read recent talk:Bukovina and comment on some editors' discussion style. If I know what trolling is, talk:Bukovina is a good example. More eyes to check these disputes are always welcome but calls in this form are unhelpful. --Irpen 02:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is why I didn't involve myself in the dispute - I was just making a point that Ghirla's attitudes did not conform to WP:CIVIL, referring only to this article, not Bukovina, but I will inform myself about the dispute over there as well. For Khotyn, I think what we need to is this: look at the two versions that are constantly being reverted back and forth, and pick out the particular sentences of contention, and then try to either 1) make them more neutral or 2) back them up with sources. I think the dispute is centred on:
  • Was Khotyn annexed or did it vote for unification?
  • Which of the below is correct:
Ukrainian population rebelled against the Romanian oppression (see Khotyn uprising) but the the uprizing was brutally suppressed by the Romanian Army. An insurrection took place against the Romanians (see Khotyn uprising). The Romanian Army defeated the Bolsheviks within a month.
In my opinion, the version to the left makes a lot of judgement calls. It claims that there was a Romanian oppression and that the uprising was brutally suprpressed. This is in not NPOV. On the other hand, the statement to the right talks about the defeat of the Bolsheviks (was this not a civil uprising?) and as simple insurrection against the Romanians, when it was an uprising. So, both forms are POV, even though the one to the right makes less judgements.
I propose saying either of the two below:
The Ukrainian population rebelled against the Romanian occupation of the city (see Khotyn uprising). The uprising was, however, defeated by the Romanian Army within a month.
Shortly after the town became part of Romania, in January 1919, Ukrainian Bolshevik troops dressed as civilians entered Khotyn and encouraged the ethnic Ukrainians to revolt (this part already exists and is now sourced), leading to the Khotyn uprising. The Romanian Army, however, defeated the uprising in a month.
My first version is, I would say, more Ukrainian POV, the second one is move Romanian POV, however, both are broadly NPOV in their language, since they don't make any judgement calls.
Now, in comparison to disputes like Moldovan language, this is a very minor dispute, about two sentences are in dispute. So, it should be worked out quite easily. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 08:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for the former version. Also, Ronline, since you recalled your admin duties here, please pay attention to the doings of your compatriots on the Romanian noticeboard, such as their regular postings in Romanian and persistent deletion of my admonitions to speak in English accompanied with a summary "we don't need it here". --Ghirla | talk 08:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ghirla, as you probably know, I am a free speech advocate. For that reason, I think it's that what Anittas did (posting on the RO notice board) is OK, but that you also have the right to make any comments. For that reason, I made sure your comments were included. Now, onto the actual content: so you support this version - "The Ukrainian population rebelled against the Romanian occupation of the city (see Khotyn uprising). The uprising was, however, defeated by the Romanian Army within a month." OK, I suppose it should be inserted in then. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 08:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have changed to:
The Ukrainian population rebelled against the Romanian annexation (this sounds most neutral) of the city (see Khotyn uprising). The uprising was, however, defeated by the Romanian Army within a month. This is still a preliminary version and one that is, IMO, still slightly biased towards a Ukrainian POV. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 08:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protected[edit]

I have temporarily protected this page to deal with the mind-boggling edit warring that has been taking place here. Please discuss your changes on the talk pages rather than reverting; uncivil edit summaries aren't that productive either. I urge you to consider Mediation or another form of dispute resolution. If you have reached agreement or want the page unprotecting, please post a request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection or ask me on my talk page. Thanks. Izehar 11:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've unprotected the page, since I think that the dispute wasn't significant enough to affect the article in a generalised way (I was surprised that the source of dispute was basically one statement). For this reason, if reverting goes on, 3RR should be applied (i.e. blocking) and not page protection. Ronline ✉ 08:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Early history of Khotin[edit]

Khotyn was founded as an ancient fortified settlement located on cliffs above the Dniester, and is said to have been named after Kotizon, a 3rd-century Dacian chieftain. By the 10th century, it had become a minor settlement of the Kievan Rus. It later became part of the Principality of Halych and its successor, Halych-Volhynia. The town became an important trading center due to its position as a river crossing and by the 13th century became the site of a Genoese trading colony. Khotyn's famous castle was built by the Genoese and expanded by subsequent rulers.

where does all this info come from. Khotin was first mentioned in that 14th century List of Russian cities as a romanian and bulgarian minor town. If you can't source the info about Kievan/Halychian/Genoese rule, please remove it. Also where the z from Kotizo dissapeared if it really was named after him. I think the theory that claims it was named after the 13th century Cuman chieftain Kuthen/Kothen is more logical. Anonimu 17:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite clear that Khotyn has absolutely nothing with Kotizo, it's just wishful thinking. If it were passed from Ancient times on to Romanian, it would have a peculiar form of "Cuţez" or something like that. :-) bogdan 14:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalist mythology[edit]

I removed unsustainable claims about the Dacian chieftain who founded Khotin, about the "vlakhs" who were supposedly documented in the area in the 10th century, about the slave-trading Field-Marshal Munnich, the "Romanian-Nazi liberation" of the area during WWII, the "Soviet dictatorship" in the 1960s-1980s, and other such stuff. Bogdanguisca, please stop hijacking the article towards nationalist mythology. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they did take slaves. Maybe they didn't. But even if it's false, how in the world is that "Russophobic"? As a Russian friend of mine explains: "when we're good, we're very good, but when we're bad, we're very bad indeed." Perhaps the Russians were manifesting their barbaric, inhuman side in Hotin - a side that people in the region know all to well - and contemporary sources appear to back up that assertion. Biruitorul 08:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your claims about "the barbaric, inhuman side" of the Russians and Bogdan's attempts to represent them as a slave-trading society in the 18th century certainly merit a mention in our article about Russophobia. Neither do I buy you claims that "barbarity" and "inhumanity" of Russians is "too well known" in the region where most inhabitants were massacred during the 1919 campaign of ethnic cleansing, conducted by the Romanian government. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was not anti-Russian, but anti-Bolshevik. Romania has long looked up to Russia as a large, powerful Orthodox protector. The Reds were anything but, and represented a direct threat to the Church in Romania, should they have seized land, and of course in Russia itself. And given that the 61 million murders ordered by Stalin (himself a Georgian) were largely committed by Russians, I would say that that qualifies as barbaric and inhumane - there's a reason Russia isn't very popular in Poland, for instance. However, I certainly do not claim that Russians are more barbaric and inhumane than other peoples. but since Russia is the biggest country in the world, and the biggest in Europe by population, its barbarity and inhumanity will naturally be felt more keenly than that of, say, Belgium or Slovenia. Biruitorul 09:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The claim about the uprising being incited by the Bolshevic provocateurs is outright ridiculous and, besides, anachronistic. Bolsheviks really had other things to worry about at the time. Also, they were separated from the area by UNR. The claim is referenced to the book published as long ago as at the interwar time. The author of the book, in turn, references the info the the Romanian own court documents. Sorry, guys, but this is unacceptable. When I was writing the uprising article, I checked several modern Ukrainian sources. Such sources usually have little sympathy to Bolshevism, and often to Russia in general as well. They all attribute the uprising to the nationalist policies of the Romanian state. One source specifically notes that the claim about Bolshevik provocateurs makes no sense. BOlsheviks were far away fighting with UNR at the time and Bolsheviks were never popular among the Ukrainian peasantry. --Irpen 10:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that the article also says :"Ukrainian Bolshevik troops". This is not even funny. Ukrainian bolsheviks, were relatively few and those where in Kharkiv. Elsewhere, support of Bolsheviks among Ukrainians was rather rare. The only exception where it went on the rise was a year later during the invasion of Ukraine by Poland. Since Petlura collaborated with the invaders, more Ukrainians looked towards the Bolsheviks as the source of protection since, unlike the western neighbores, the Soviets actually had the national revival in their program which they also put into action once they won. (The brutal reversal in 10+ years is another matter). --Irpen 10:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but let's say Hotin and its surroundings had become independent. That state would not have been viable on its own - look what happened to the UNR. The Cold War, which one could say began in 1917, didn't leave much room for nuance. Territory that was on the East-West border (like Bucovina) stood a great chance of falling, domino-like, to the Bolshevik onslaught. Plus, think of the atmosphere in 1919 - it was very tense, and there was a real fear of global revolution. So while the actions of the Romanian Army may seem excessive to us, I think one needs to put them into perspective. Plus, the Ukrainians who survived (and most did) were done a good turn to be kept in Romania because many more would doubtless have perished during the Holodomor.
As for the slavery claim, would this be a good compromise: "according to one 18th-century Moldavian chronicler...". That way, we highlight any implicit bias in the source. Biruitorul 16:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biruitorul, I am not good in building the alternative histories and other what-ifs. The Holodomor took place ~15 years later and could not have been predicted at the time. In the immediate aftermath of these events, the Ukrainians of the Soviet Ukraine enjoyed an unheard of cultural revival in their history while in Poland and Romania they were subject to strong assimilationist policies of the respective nationalist governments. From the onstart, and my ref confirms that, Ukrainians of Khotyn were alienated by the nationalist policy of the Greater Romania and, as they saw the Ukrainian state (UNR) right across the river, they held their hopes on the help of UNR and rebelled against the Romanian rule. I am not talking here about Romanian suppression being excessive by the modern standards. This is not an Uprising article and a bare mention that the suppression was cruel is enough. However, I have several refs that say that Ukrainians revolted on their own rather than being "incited by Bolshevik provocateurs". The ref that claims the latter (Clarke) is unreliable as it was written in 1930s and is based on the documents of the Romanian own tribunal against the rebels, as Clarke acknowledges. I supplied three modern refs (two of them academic, and one an article in a newspaper, but still written by a historian) that claim otherwise. --Irpen 19:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Irpen, I did veer a little to much into hypotheticals. And I agree that, though understandable to me, the policy of the Romanian government was, in retrospect, misguided, and it undoubtedly over-reacted at Hotin. However, I would still like to emphasise that 1)in Soviet Ukraine, the church was probably (correct me if I'm wrong) being persecuted even in the heyday of the Ukrainian revival, while she was safe in Romania; and 2)the risk of worldwide revolution was quite powerful at this point - soviets were still functioning in Germany, while in Hungary, an already-resurgent Bolshevik movement would seize power in March. However, what I don't know is if the Romanian authorities put down the uprising blindly, or if they thought through any of these wider strategic aims, justifying it as pre-emptory action against a possible Soviet takeover. Biruitorul 20:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken re (1). During those years exactly the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, the first genuinly Ukrainian OC in centuries, was created; and it enjoyed the encouragment of the Bolshevik authorities. While Soviets were generally anti-religion, the UAOC was seen as a tool to further suppress the ROC, always viewed by authorities with suspicion for its opposition to the revolution. Therefore, the government tolerated the new Ukrainian national church for quite some time, and did not suppress it in any way until the reversal of Ukrainization that started in early 30s. The church gained a relatively wide following among the Ukrainians. In 30s, when the policies changed, it was dismantled, true enough. --Irpen 20:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, and quite duplicitous on the Soviets' part. They were certainly masters of manipulation. Biruitorul 22:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Khotyn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Khotyn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Khotyn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Khotyn&oldid=1203275663"