Talk:Ivan Mazepa

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

The statement about Kyiv-Mohyla Academy[edit]

"He expanded the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, the primary educational institution of Ukraine at the time, to accommodate 2,000 students, founded schools and printing houses". Since during that time Ukraine was a part of the Russian Empire, this sentence should be mentioned as "primary educational institution of Ukraine and Russian Empire". The Moscow State University has been founded only in 1755 by M. Lomonosov who spent some time in Kyiv-Mohyla Academy himself (look into appropriate articles about Moscow University and Lomonosov). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Place of death[edit]

Did Mazepa die at Bendery? My source (Lonely Planet guide to Romania says so) can someone more in the know comment on this Jackliddle 22:42, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, only the city carried the name of Bender at that time and was part of the Ottoman Empire. He ran there together with Carl XII who seeked to find an ally against the Russians. The great historian and politician Mykhailo Hrushevskiy says that in his book History of Ukraine-Rus. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another Muscovy/Russia name debate[edit]

I don't think that the Cossacks or Rus'-Ukraine used the Greek word, "Rossiya" for the Tsar's state. The Muscovites didn't adopt that as a country name until 1713, which created diplomatic difficulties. Genyo 02:00, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Absurd and incorrect. Muscovy was just an old term for Moscow, after Ivan III or perhaps Ivan IV. Marcus2 21:59, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Muscovy was known throughout Europe, as the diplomatic history of 1713 indicates, when the request by Muscovy to be called "Rossiya" was greeted with incredulity in European capitals. Document another date with facts! Don't just decide you don't like the truth! Genyo 02:24, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


What's anachronistic about calling Muscovy, "Muscovy" in 1709? Do you know what anachronism means? Genyo 02:53, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

By this time, as shown to you already, nation was referred to Great Rusia (or Rosia) and after Tsar Aleksey I, using the spelling "Rossiya". Marcus2 13:10, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

When was this "shown to me already?" Genyo 04:05, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

See Talk:Russian history, 1682-1796#Reign of Aleksey I Mikhailovich Romanov. Use of "Rusia" and "Rosia". Marcus2 11:00, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am moving this text from the article to talk for the record until anyone can find a grain of truth or at least of a known Urban myth. --Irpen 01:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hrushevskiy refers to Russia for this period as simply Moscow. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Various period maps also show 'Russia' or 'Rvssia' in Latin script. As well as 'Great Tartaria' and 'there be dragons' How about Mercator's Atlas, 1619? Says Rvssia Muchandr (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Mazeppa Ride[edit]

Mazeppa's fame lies on two foundations. One is the Battle of Poltava (1709); the other is the famous "Mazeppa ride". Curiously, the ride belongs to the domain of legend, not history. According to the legend, a young 20 year old Mazeppa was caught having an affair with the wife (or daughter) of a Polish nobleman. Wishing to rid himself of the offending young page, the nobleman had Mazeppa tied naked and backwards to a wild horse captured from the Ukrainian steppes. The intent was that Mazeppa would soon die on the inhospitable steppes. After three days of a wild ride, tied helpless, the horse finally stumbled, fell, and died. Mazeppa passed out, but at the last moment a band of cossacks happened by. They rescued him, took him to their camp, and nursed him. He rose in the ranks, ultimately becoming their leader (hetman) and ultimately "prince" of ukraine.

The story travelled to France, England, became a symbol of French romanticism, crossed the ocean as a stage play, and from the 1860s became the most performed stage play in the American west.

Please comment below. --Irpen 01:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mazeppa ride is obviously due to Lord Byron's opus Mazeppa. He was likely given a task to glorify Mazepa in spite of the Russian interests, but was secretly sympathetic to the alternate candidate, Menshikov. The British intelligentsia generally was. For example, was Menshikov presented by Newton himself as a member of the Royal Society, for geography and for economics. Specifically for discovering St. Petersburg and for horrendous amount of embezzling associated with it. What are Mazepa's academic credentials? The persistent rumor that Mazepa was made a prince of the Holy Roman Empire does not verify. Menshikov, however, was made a Duke of Cosel, which I don't think was that serious a title (see my comment elsewhere on this page)
Firstly, there was no way a prince of the HRE could get into serious trouble for getting into some Polish noble's wife's or daughter's pants. Pretty studly of Mazepa, who was like pushing 70 at the time.
Secondly, an allegory of riding horseback naked and tied-up is a known one. It means getting hanged. The horse is usually a wooden one, and here we deal with a seemingly real one.
Thirdly, the horse is guided by a giant raven, tearing on its ears. This is an obvious reference to Norse mythology, specifically Huginn or Muninn, Odin's personal companions. This means that Mazeppa is going for a personal meeting with Odin, reserved for insidious traitors. In case you didn't know, Odin was not only first among Norse gods, but also personally responsible for death and damnation. The fastest mode of transportation available to Odin was actually hanging himself on the branch of the Yggdrasil, the World Tree. Took up to 9 days ETA anywhere in the Universe. Hence, Odin was said to be riding a wooden horse for a few days. I interpret this as a horse provided courtesy of Odin's establishment, i.e. the Scandinavian Heck (Frozen Over?) Muchandr (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The whole article is false.[edit]

The article is based on rumors that were spread throughout the Empire by Russians to discredit Mazepa. The true history states a diffrent version. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, the Russian side of the story is actually more accurate than the Ukrainian narrative. Both sides lie a lot though and have political motives behind them. The article itself should be neutral to both schools and represent the true nature of Mazepa. I've written a research paper on this topic....too lazy to re-write the work into the wiki though...maybe some day...--Львівське (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am specifically objecting to the rather dubious Ukrainian source for the claim that Mazepa was made a prince of the Holy Roman Empire. Unfortunately, all the paperwork for the actual title disappeared from the Austrian archives. This is hearsay. As presented by anonymous third party at a verbal seminar at University of Vienna?
Secondly, there is no prince without principality! A grant of estate as large as a small country! Menshikov, Mazepa's nemesis, was actually offered a title of HRE Duke of Cosel (Koźle) in exchange for recognition of his title Duke of Ingria, but it looks like some kind of in-joke, because Ingria roughly corresponds to Leningrad oblast+Finland in area. This was the Tsar's personal estate administered directly from St. Pete. Cosel means goat in Russian, and is rather derogatory. Also, a Polish woiwowode title was really equal to a Count Palatine in HRE table of ranks. Between a count and a prince. Thus, the recognition of princely/ducal/royal equivalency conditional on some additional small print. Some prince-electors, the highest strata of HRE nobility were modest Palatine Counts, but most were really just counts. The only Emperor Palatine is the one from Star Wars. The Polish woiwode appears to also be the closest equivalent to Ukrainian hetman and alt-Germanic margrave, of which there was only one extant in the Anglosphere. That of Phil, Prince Consort of Lizbekistan. You know, the one who begat Chuck, their current king. Muchandr (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:OR--Aristophile (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And there were princes without principalities. Notably Turn&Taxis.--Aristophile (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, princes have a named estate within the Emperor's realm? Turns&Taxis was named after an existing private corporation. It can't be just Prince Mazepa.
I made a Google translation from Ukrainian.
On September 1, 1707, by order of the emperor, hetman Ivan Mazepa was granted the title of "Prince of the Holy Roman Empire", as evidenced by the signature of Prince Chemborn on the last page of the same letter from Mazepa and the entry in the registration book (volume XII). However, it was not possible to obtain the deed with Mazepa's princely title because it was not bought. The German diplomat, who was on duty in Russia and who, on the instructions of Peter I, came to Vienna to collect the letters with the title of count for the tsarist chancellor F. Golovkin and the titles of prince for O. Menshikov and I. Mazepa, ran out of money for the letter to the hetman, although for this matter, the hetman personally handed over three thousand ducats to Menshikov. Subsequently, this unredeemed deed disappeared.
To summarize. There is no deed. Estate name is unknown. There is a signature, by somebody who is not the Emperor, on the original petition letter. This looks like an acknowledgement of message receipt, not a grant. Muchandr (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:Verify Your own source does not verify. The title was never granted, because allegedly, the fee was not paid. Unfortunately, the deed disappeared subsequently. This is hearsay. Also, it was not "for services to the Holy League", but based on a hypothetical personal petition to the Emperor by Mazepa. Muchandr (talk) 05:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:CONSENSUS & WP:EDITORIALIZE & WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Aristophile (talk) 11:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I merely cited a verbatim Google translation from the relevant paragraph in Ukrainian, because this here is a talk page in English. (section in Italics)
Let's suppose that none of my comments apply. This still leaves the claim of a) the deed being unclaimed due to an unpaid fee, b) the deed subsequently disappearing. This is actually stated directly by your original source.
Which makes it not too original, but rather anecdotal. Muchandr (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The consensus version would be something like, "Mazepa was rumored to be granted a title of HRE prince, which he never consummated due to an unpaid fee"
Come to think of that, the story of passing the money to Menshikov is also highly suspect. Why would you pass the money for an important errand to your mortal enemy? Muchandr (talk) 12:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] this has detailed info. So - cease and desist.--Aristophile (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is simply a more verbose version of the same. There is only the entry in "incoming folder", but no record of the actual title grant
According to the government notes on the last page of Mazepa's letter, on charging the emperor and under the signature of the book Schönborn, on September 1, 1707, only Mazepa was awarded the title of "Prince of the Holy Roman Empire", which is also indicated in the registration book on the awarding of noble titles (volume XII). On the same page of Mazepa's letter is the note "l Sept. 1707, Nulla expeditio." In our opinion, this postscript comes from a later time, as indicated by a different handwriting. This postscript is also proof that this letter was not sent to Mazepa, but today it is not in the Austrian State Archives, although it was seen there as early as 1887 by the German researcher M. Gritzner, its further fate is unknown. Muchandr (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is irrelevant whether it exists or not. We have a WP:SECONDARY source, and as such it is WP:RS preferred to any primary one.--Aristophile (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You do realize that both of your sources are archived materials? Primary has a new version, secondary is defunct from 2013? This stretches the 'published' requirement of WP:RS, I reckon. Anyhow, I don't really have a problem with the content of your sources. You simply have to read them carefully.
A deed signed by the Emperor personally is a requirement for princely title. Both of your sources mention it being lost. How is it not relevant? Muchandr (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another note from your own source detailing what the Austrian vibe was. The Austrians were obviously no real allies of the Swedes
Before the transition of Mazepa to the Swedish side, as we have seen, German, and above all, Austrian magazines, writing about the hetman, called him "His Excellency", "Prince", "Field Marshal" and. etc. Now, after the transition of the Hetman to the side of the Swedes, the tone of the Austrian press has completely changed. When writing about the military events of that time, there are no longer those enthusiastic or favorable notes or high titles addressed to Mazepa. He is mentioned only as "Der Mazeppa", not sparing at the same time such epithets as "traitor", "perjurer", "egoist", etc. About the transfer of Mazepa to the Swedes, Winnerses Diaryum (ch. 563) writes, for December 22-25, 1708, that the hetman wanted to go over to the side of the Swedish king with his entire army, but his intention was "discovered in time" and only about a thousand went over with him Cossacks. Muchandr (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ivan Mazepa. 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) 12:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mazepa vs. Mazeppa[edit]

So, I think it's pretty clear from a cursory search that "Mazepa" is the most common spelling, but "Mazeppa" does exist in some sources, e.g. [1][2]. I've matched the way that Britannica presented the spelling. Hopefully this is an acceptable solution for the editor that is trying to change the whole article to Mazeppa. Mz7 (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For what it's worth, when I was (re)writing Cultural legacy of Mazeppa, I came to this conclusion:
The spelling "Mazepa" refers to the historical person; the double-p "Mazeppa" is used for the artistic and literary works
Might it be worth pasting that into this article too?? --Carbon Caryatid (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


[3] - yes, he was perceived/described in fiction (like the poem by Pushkin) as a traitor, but it does not mean he actually was. A lot of politicians changed sides in history. It does not mean all of them should be assigned to category "traitor". One could create a new category like "traitor in fiction" where this page would belong. My very best wishes (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whether he was a traitor or not is a position taken by you, me or a particular author, but the article describes this in quite some detail: "The image of a disgraceful traitor persisted throughout Russian and Soviet history", "Until 1869, his name was even added to the list of traitors publicly cursed in Russian churches during the Feast of Orthodoxy service, along with Pugachev, Razin and False Dmitry I", "30 percent of the population of Ukraine views Mazepa as "a man who fought for the independence of Ukraine", while 28 percent view him "as a turncoat who joined the enemy's ranks"". You (we) can pin that on Pushkin, but his reputation as a traitor is a fact. Let me point to a couple of names from that category: Benedict Arnold was either an American traitor or a loyal British subject, depending on the position you take, but he has gone down in history, especially in the US, as an archetypical traitor. Pavlik Morozov, also on the list, was either a Bolshevik hero or someone who betrayed his family for ideological reasons (aka brainwashing), and I assume it's this fame as a snitch that landed him in the category. Ostalgia (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What you refer to is unsourced on the page since 2008. I checked some other related refs. They are dead links and hardly reliable like Interfax, etc. But even if this is a correct info ("his name was even added to the list of traitors publicly cursed in Russian churches"), let's assume it is, this is all propaganda/mythology, just like Goldstein in Nineteen Eighty-Four or Trotsky in Stalinist propaganda. My very best wishes (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In addition, your argument is self-defeating. Were Pugachev and Razin traitors? Should they be included to such category? My very best wishes (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And no, Pavlik Morozov is not generally regarded in sources as a traitor of historical proportions. The kid was a victim of propaganda. Benedict Arnold? Yes, this is probably a justified inclusion, but neither Morozov nor Mazepa was Benedict Arnold. My very best wishes (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would appreciate it if you could reply in one go, if possible (or edit your message as long as it hasn't been replied to). The list includes people who have been convicted of treason (whether you or I consider them to be traitors is inconsequential and OR) as well as people are perceived as traitors or easily and popularly identified as such (see Judas, for instance). Mazepa easily fits the bill. As for Morozov, two weeks ago at ANI a user accused me of being a "Pavlik Morozov" for "snitching" on him. Once again, what we personally think of Morozov is inconsequential (and OR!) as long as there's a perception of him as such. As long as we're here, we do not do research or "exonerate" people we presume to have been wronged by history. Ostalgia (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ostalgia, please don't be edit warring over the category. Your argument is inconclusive: "Traitors in history" is not the same as "People referred to as traitors in propaganda". The category itself is problematic of course and if it were up to me it wouldn't exist, but that's beside the point. Please do not add that again. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have not added it - it has been in the page for months, and I took issue with removing it without consensus, or without discussion. I would appreciate it if you would check what actually happened before accusing me of edit warring to introduce content. Ostalgia (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We're having discussion here. You are not making a cogent argument, and you continue to edit war. You just reverted again, with a phony edit summary. My very best wishes, this editor's work is the very definition of disruption: if they do this again, with or without a fake edit summary, report them to WP:AIV please, unless you want to write up an AN3 report. If you do that, you could consider pinging Canterbury Tail, 331dot, PhilKnight, and Daniel Case, who have all been administratively involved with their previous block for edit warring. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I have just told you, I was introducing links to the content My very best wishes removed because is unsourced on the page since 2008. I checked some other related refs. They are dead links. How is my edit summary deceptive? Ostalgia (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, we do have Category:People convicted of treason. Was he convicted of treason? If so, he can be included. I do not think he was. My very best wishes (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I believe he was declared a traitor by the Emperor and anathemised by the church, was he not? That's the best we can get from an absolute monarchy. //Edit: so as to be completely above board here, if you agree I will restore the bits you removed due to dead links, with links added for clarity. I actually did that 10 minutes ago but Drmies made edits in between and I apparently reverted his changes in the process. Ostalgia (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hence he was not convicted for treason by any court. Looking at sources you linked, such as [4] (an anonymous news posting by Interfax), I do not think they are sufficiently good RS. With regard to public opinion, one needs a better source explaining how the survey was conducted (who was asked and what, exactly, etc.). Yes, he is a controversial historical figure (who is not?), but my arguments above stand. My very best wishes (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neither were most traitors in history, because there were just no courts to judge them, and even when there were, no court could overrule the dictum of the monarch - your logic would basically mean we cannot call anyone a traitor before the existence of an independent judiciary!
Regarding the second part of your message, the Interfax source (it's Interfax-Ukraine, not Russian Interfax) does not deal with the survey, but with the protests in Simferopol against the honouring of Mazepa (it's the exact same bit, and source, that you removed). It's merely a factual report typical of a news agency. The survey is referenced in the article by The Local (which, in turn, seems to be based on AFP). It is a reasonable description of the results of the survey. To add the survey itself (and I'm not sure it could be found at this point) would be to add a primary source, which is frowned upon. But it (or rather, the formulation we had on Wikipedia until a couple hours ago!) is also quoted in a textbook for foreign students published by a Ukrainian university and approved by the ministry of education of Ukraine (you can look for "turncoat" to get to that part more quickly). Ostalgia (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:POV, WP:WEIGHT.--Aristophile (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you find a citation from Magoczi or Snyder calling him a traitor, we may give it a consideration.
Otherwise: he was perfectly faithful to his land.--Aristophile (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Welcome to the talk page. Going forward, it would be ideal if you did this at the start.
If you find any historian from the 20th century onwards simply talking about "the traitor Mazepa", then you can be sure he's not a historian at all, not one of any worth, at any rate.
On the other hand, that Mazepa was declared a traitor by his (by then nominal) suzerain is a fact, as was the anathema pronounced against him. The effects of this have been discussed by historians, including Ukrainian ones (Drmies removed an interesting article by Subtelny that apparently --I've only had time to give it a glance-- advances the hypothesis that Mazepa's conviction of treason on secular grounds played a role in the formation of the idea of the state in Imperial Russia). Furthermore, the role of Mazepa in the historical consciousness of Russia (and part of Ukraine, if the sources in the article are to be believed) is akin to that of Benedict Arnold in the US - that of the archetypical traitor. That was (and to an extent is), I think, more or less clear from the article. With these things in mind, it is not illogical that he would be included into the "traitors in history" category. I will also remind you that I am not trying to introduce the category - it is you who is trying to remove it. I will not lose any sleep either way, but I do not believe it's a wrong category. Another questions is whether the category makes any sense at all, but as Drmies above said, that is beside the point. Cheers Ostalgia (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You should know that convictions for treason are a normal practice in Russia to persecute independent thinkers. And they certainly do not make one a traitor.--Aristophile (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Technically ALL Ukrainians are traitors to Russia, but that is not encyclopedic.--Aristophile (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not think that comparison is a particularly apt one - you're taking a country (Putin's Russia, but this could be pushed back to large periods of Soviet Russia) "blessed" with what is undoubtedly an uncommonly authoritarian government for the modern day (especially for modern day Europe) and comparing it with a country that was governed well in line with the standards of the time (Peter the Great's Russia). I also do not believe that Ukrainians have been declared traitors by Russia (although that line of thought is probably what underlies some of the more unhinged nationalist takes), but that is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Nevertheless, there's another issue here. Drmies seems to believe the problem lies in the fact that the category seems to suggest that it is Wikipedia that considers them traitors, when in fact it's individual entities (different countries, movements, etc.) that have declared them as such. In that case, I would believe the bigger question is not whether or not Mazepa should be in the category, but whether the category should exist at all. Would you agree with this assessment? If so, would you (I don't mean you alone, mind you) be willing to bring its removal or reworking up for discussion? Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speaking on the category, that was just a minor passing-by edit (I frequently check categories on various pages). Contrary to your edit summary [5], that was not a revert of anything. Having such prolonged conversation about this is not normal. I already stated my justification above. Speaking about other changes, that was poorly sourced, not just broken links (see above). I do not mind this to be restored if better sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 00:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S. You seem to say that he is perceived as a traitor in Russia and Ukraine. Well, I have no idea. How many people in Russia and Ukraine even know about the existence of Mazepa? I bet very few in Russia. This is just a matter of good sourcing. Please find a sociological study about it and cite it on the page. End of story. What was cited was a news article about something else, and what exactly it said on this issse was not very clear. My very best wishes (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for the delayed reply, busy day today. I am sorry you feel the discussion has dragged on, but I think civil discussion is the only way forward on any topic in this encyclopedia. I do not mind a discussion extending over a couple of days if it's conducted in reasonable terms and respectfully. Regarding my edit summary, I meant to say removal, not revert - my apologies for any confusion. As for the sourcing issue, I cannot help but disagree - the Interfax link you removed as dead was supporting the statement that about 100 people rallied in the Ukrainian city of Simferopol to protest against Mazepa. Being merely a factual claim, I would not say it's badly sourced. The second bit you removed (an opinion poll on Mazepa showing a rough split among Ukrainians in 2009) was sourced to The Local (which I don't think is untrustworthy), which in turn attributes it largely to AFP (clear RS). I do not believe that's badly sourced either, but in any case a similar description of the poll can be found here, again linked to AFP and in particular to Anya Tsukanova (AFP Ukraine bureau).
As for your post scriptum, my apologies once again - I was assuming you were better acquainted with Russia and perhaps taking things for granted (for some reason I was convinced you were Russian, but I must've been thinking of someone else). It is not me who says he's perceived as a traitor in Russia, but experts in the region. For instance, Andreas Kappeler states that "[i]n Russia, he has the reputation of the archetype of a traitor" [6]. He also elaborates on how in some quarters people continue to use "mazepist" as an insult. Even a quick Google search should acquaint you with other articles touching on the topic, if you're interested in that.
Once again, and this was my point, we're not passing value-judgment on Mazepa (and neither are serious historians in any country, including Russia). However, if the category is meant to list people convicted of treason by their state, then he was officially declared one and belongs there, and if the category is meant to list people who have this reputation as traitors in some countries/cultures/regions, then he also belongs there. The question then becomes, as stated above, whether the category is pertinent at all, as (regardless of any value it could have) it could be suggesting that Wikipedia is endorsing a decision taken by a state or entity. Ostalgia (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(1) With regard to category, the consensus is not on your side, hence no. (2) With regard to "30 percent of the population of Ukraine views Mazepa..." you need a better source, with more detailed results on the survey. Who and where did they ask? How many people took part in the survey? How many people said "I do not know", etc. (3) "around 100 people held a protest in Simferopol" is hardly due on the page. But again, I am not opposed to re-including anything if properly sourced except only the category. My very best wishes (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Consensus has to be based on something, otherwise it comes down to WP:IDLI. One way or the other, the question of whether the category is useful or not supersedes that of whether we should add this or that person to it.
As for the survey, what you're asking borders on requesting a primary source, which is not admissible in the article, or an article on the survey itself, doing a detailed breakdown of everything, which would be borderline impossible to find. Here is an interview published by the Russian service of RFE/RL where a bit more info is shared, namely the % of non-respondents and people who chose not to go with either option. I repeat that I consider the previous sources were good had the links not been dead. It's neither a controversial claim nor complex information and the source was reliable enough.
Finally, regarding your third point, if you take the phrase out of context it, of course, makes little sense, but I believe it was there as an example of the resistance elicited by the figure of Mazepa among some quarters. Not a gamechanger, though. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are giving good sources. In particular, this one you gave is probably a scholarly one. But what does it say? "Hetman Mazepa – traitor or national hero?" A discussion follows saying he is controversial historical figure that has been perceived as a hero by some people and as a traitor by others. This is an argument against including him to the category "Traitors in history" because it is debatable if he was a traitor. But whatever this source says in terms of content is OK to include.My very best wishes (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kappeler is a noted specialist and I would expect his article to be good. It hardly is an argument against the inclusion, though - many traitors are seen positively by others (a man's traitor can be another man's freedom fighter, if you will) or, at the very least, indifferently (off the top of my head an exception I can think of is Quisling, who probably has no backers beyond the narrow circle of bizarre Norwegian nazism). To bring back an example from the list, Benedict Arnold is the traitor for Americans, but for the British he's probably just another general (and for everyone else he's a nobody). This is why I believe the bigger question has become what purpose the category serves, and whether listing someone there is endorsing a conviction for treason or just listing people who have achieved the status of an archetypical traitor in certain places.
Anyways, if you're OK with the sources let me know and I'll add a few lines which you can comment on later. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You say: "a man's traitor can be another man's freedom fighter". Yes, exactly. This is an argument against including to the category. Would you classify Che Guevara to Category:Terrorism? I have no idea about Benedict Arnold. It does not matter British or American. Was he described in vast majority of RS as a traitor? If not, he does not belong there. As about other refs, I am not asking anything impossible, just something on the subject of the poll about Mazepa like. [7]. My very best wishes (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If Guevara were described as a terrorist widely in a country/countries, and his behaviour were described widely as terrorism, then yes, he could be described as a terrorist and added to the category. I believe that is quite literally what Wikipedia is about.
As for the poll, I don't think public opinion polls on an active (and in this case, serving) politician are a valid comparison, as they receive constant and extend coverage in the press, and even in that case, we do not hold any figure on Wikipedia to your standards provided reliable sources are reporting on those polls. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 11:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Leocadii changed "Ukrainian" to "Ruthenian" so the article starts with "Ivan Stepanovych Mazepa was a Ruthenian military, political, and civic leader ...". Lute88 changed it back to Ukrainian, Leocadii changed it to Ruthenian again. Now Leocadii is blocked so it's probably safe to change to Ukrainian again, but I'll specify the arguments here and see whether there are strong feelings. The argument of course is that "Ukrainian" was not what the inhabitants of the area generally called themselves in those days, and I can think of other examples, for example the start of Wikipedia's Wallenstein article says Bohemian not Czech. However, (a) the Name of Ukraine article suggests the name wouldn't have been utterly unknown even at the time, (b) the Wikipedia article on Socrates starts by calling him "Greek" not "Athenian" and the Wikipedia article on Cortez starts by calling him "Spanish" not "Castilian", (c) when this article was created, it started by calling Mazepa "Hetman of the Leftbank Ukraine". I think the argument for Ukrainian is stronger. Any other opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've changed it back. I don't think there any contradictory opinions. Wallenstein was half ethnic Czech, half German Bohemian.--Aristophile (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ukrainians is 20 century term (quoute from wikiarticle: "ethnonym Ukrainians came into wide use only in the 20th century"), in 19 or even more 17 century there was no Ukrainians, but Ruthenians. In Polish wikipedia he is even named "Polish nobelman of Ruthenian descent" he was actualy citizen of Polish-Lithuanian, maybe more accurate is Ruthenian, but for sure he couldnt be Ukrainian — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aristophile, this is about: the article starts with "Ivan Stepanovych Mazepa was a Ruthenian military, political, and civic leader ...". You didn't change it back. You changed the infobox. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the previous and next hetman was Ruthenian, but Mazepa is Ukrainian? Stop fake history for your propaganda. You trying to use 20 century term for 17 century person. Stop putting lies in history for your propaganda. The only discussion is was he Polish or Ruthenian, Ukrainian wasnt in equasion for 3 centuries! Currynistan (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Currynistan has also started WP:NPOVN thread Ukrainian propaganda. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The NPOVN thread appears to have ended. I undid so the sentence reads once again the article starts with "Ivan Stepanovych Mazepa was a Ukrainian military, political, and civic leader ...". However, if there are objections that don't involve accusing me of putting lies in history for my propaganda etc., and if Aristophile goes along with it, I suppose we could compromise by saying nothing about nationality in the first sentence (as was done for Ivan Mazepa's predecessor). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update: Alexander Danilovich Menshikov sent a letter to Tsar Peter on October 17, 1708 referring to Mazepa: "он сие учинил, то не для одной своей особы, но и всей ради Украины" ("he did this, not for the sake of his person alone, but for the whole of Ukraine"). Due to Wikipedia censorship I cannot link to the Russian source, but English translations of Menshikov's missive appear elsewhere so we know that an important Russian was using the name Ukraine in a Mazepa context at the time. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
before 20 century term is Ruthenian. He was Rzeczpospolita noble, so maybe even Polish is more accurate. We don't know if he lived in 20 century he will identify as Ukrainian or Belerusian, maybe more probaly Polish, but there is historical term, that is Ruthenian. Ukraine before 20 century was a name for Polish-Lithuania borderland region. You couldn't use 20 century term for historical figure because you have him on banknote, especially all previous and next hetman are named Ruthenians. The Belerusian, Ukrainian and other evolved from Ruthenian only in 20 century31.161.138.184 (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The redirect Jan Kołodyński has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 5 § Jan Kołodyński until a consensus is reached. TartarTorte 18:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]