Talk:Zemstvo

Please process anon's additions into the text:

The Zemstva were local governments, similar to local councils, which supposedly were set up to make Russia more democratic. Local people could join, and vote about certain things. The middle classes were represented in government for the first time. However, roughly 74% of them were made up of nobility. Also, provincial governers could overrule anything the Zemstva agreed on, if it didn’t suit the Tsarist regime. The Zemstva were under funded by central government, and not given a lot of power, and therefore developed an anti-Tsarist feeling. For many years they were places were locals could go and discuss their contempt for the Tsar. . --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the word zemstvo is written with a small letter in English unless it refers to any specific zemstvo, i.e. Archangel Zemstvo etc, so I think the words " Zemstvo" in the article should be respelled. Also I wonder if it would be more correct to spell the plural of the word Zemstvo as zemstvos, not zemstva?

I think the plural form should at least be consistent throughout the article. All of the dictionaries I've consulted have "zemstvos," not "zemstva," so I will change them to that for now.Yarjka (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Orenburg, Astrakhan, and Stavropol were not "Provinces of the Don."

The Don, Kuban, Astrakhan, Ural, and Orenburg were separate Cossack hosts, and had separate territories. Stavropol was one of the regular guberniyas. 108.45.79.25 (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

1890 Reforms

"These Zemstvos' original powers were severely restricted by Alexander III" I am not sure that the claim in this article is accurate (or at least unbiased) I am seeing this source which makes me think otherwise. "Authorities agree that zemstvo competence was not constricted, but expanded by the 1890 statue" Czarking0 (talk) 02:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• I reworked this section a bit with more detail and what I think is a more neutral POV.

I have this sentence at the end of the section now which I think really begs additional comment but my source does not go deeper. "Prior to 1890, zemstvo sessions were often cut short due to assemblies not meeting the quorum. This was in part because officials were not allowed to receive a salary or other compensation for their position." This is well sourced and what is additionally sourced is that part of the motivation of the 1890 law was to decrease absenteeism. What I would like to know is if the measures in the 1890 law actually succeed in reducing absenteeism. Czarking0 (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

References

1905 Connections

Dolgorukov

My source lists Prince Dolgorukov as a notable participant in zemstvo affairs and the 1905 revolution. However, I was unable to determine which Prince Dolorukov is being referred to as House of Dolgorukov has several men whom could be referred to. Czarking0 (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• The Figes source clarifies this is Pavel Dolgorukov Czarking0 (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Reactionary Element

Sources indicate the post October change in political attitude of the zemstvos with examples like "At least a third [of zemstvos] went as far as to petition the government to postpone the introduction of the 'freedoms' promised by the October Manifesto until 'law and order' could be restored in Russia." I am not sure how much detail should be gone into for political movements and have tried to not paint the zemstvos' alignment as particularly liberal, conservative, constitutionalist, or reactionary since all these elements are present in different portions and at different times and it seems like too much detail for WP. I would appreciate others' opinions on how the reactionary element should be covered.

• The Fidges source has some more info on this and I have started to add some detail but my comment still stands Czarking0 (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

References

1907

I believe some mention should be made of the national zemstvo congress of 1907. However this is all a bit over my head. Czarking0 (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Non-Russian Zemstvos

I think this article could use a section on non-russian zemstvos but my source is lacking in that regard. I found this source but I cannot read its language:

Ludmila Coadă, Zemstva Basarabiei. Aspecte istorico-juridice. Chișinău: Editura Pontos, 2009. ISBN 978-9975-72-286-5 Czarking0 (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

More Sources

• Manning "Zemstvo and Politics"
• Emmons "The Zemstvo in Historical Perspective"
• McKenzie "Zemstvo Organizations and Their Role within the Administrative Structure"

Czarking0 (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Pre 1865

The article does not really discuss any use of the word Zemstvo pre 1864. This was evidently used before 1864 and I think the article would benefit from mentioning how the word was used before 1864. Czarking0 (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Bluetext

Thanks @Pagliaccious: Ministry of Internal Affairs (Russia) might be a better link for Minister of Interior than the Minister of Interior you have. I presume that a reader of this article is familiar with the concept of Minister of Interior but may want to reference the Russia specific page for the office. Czarking0 (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello Czarking0. You're quite right. I've fixed the link. Kind regards, Pagliaccious (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Please dont edit things that you do not understand. YOur linking of ministries reverted. --Altenmann >talk 21:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Altenmann: I see that you have removed the links to ministries in the article, saying that I do not understand. What is it that I do not understand? Is it perhaps that these link to the ministries within modern Russia, and you would prefer links to Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Empire and Ministry of National Education (Russian Empire)? Kind regards, Pagliaccious (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer that you do not edit things you do not understand. If you think that you have to link to a proper article just because "I would prefer" then you really should not edit articles in areas you have no knowledge. --Altenmann >talk 22:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Please be more polite in your responses. I will note that I effectively wrote this entire article and I am the one that suggested the link change. I'd like to further note that I thanked @Pagliaccious: after reviewing their edits because I think they improved the article. My recommendation for the article is that if the three of us cannot agree on bluetext for the ministries than they should stay white Czarking0 (talk) 05:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

It is absolutely ridiculous that you cannot agree on the correct link. Meaning that you genuinely do not understand what anachronism is. --Altenmann >talk 16:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Zemstvo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Czarking0 (talk · contribs) 04:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 12:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments Completing the article must have been an exceptionally difficult task, and I highly appreciate your hard work. I hope my comments will help you to improve the article. I must admit that I was near to quick fail the article because, for instance, the prose is not always clear and concise, and it does not comply with the manual of style guideline for lead sections. After some mediation, I concluded that I had been wrong for the article could be improved through some restructuring.

• First of all, I think the article should provide us with a background: previous forms of self-government in Russian history, the principal features of Russian government on the eve of the administrative reform, the reasons of introducing the reform.
• I would start the article with the history of the institution.
• Vucinich & Emmons is a collection of studies, and each cited study (chapter) should be listed in the biography section.
• Could you expand the biography section with one or two further specialised works on zemstvo and cite them? Borsoka (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Borsoka: I think on your first point we are far apart. I think that users coming to this page will be more interested in what the Zemstvo was and the movement for creating the zemstvo can be its own page which most visitors to this page will not see as their primary interest. However, this is just my opinion and I see yours as perfectly legitimate. Before moving to fail this GAN, I invite you to consider if the Government reforms of Alexander II of Russia page which I link at the beginning of the history section is better suited to covering the background material you desire.

This kind of follows into your second point for which I want to make a purely philosophical critic of the typical Wikipedia historiography. Wikipedia has a tendency to present historical institutions as having a life like a play with either 3 acts (beginning, middle, end) or 5 acts (beginning, thesis, antithesis, synthesis, ending). This can be a useful historiography however it is not the only legitimate one. This article takes a much more institutional approach describing the institution as it was rather than as it came to be. I depart from this historiography in the History section. I do not believe that there is a WP guideline saying that the history section should come before the other sections nor do I think that is a good editorial choice for this article.

Vucinich & Emmons: yes, yes good point. Will fix after we address some of the big picture stuff.

expand the biography: Do you mean further reading or the references? In writing this article I read two textbooks (Fidges and Vucinich) and I can comfortably say I am not willing to read a third on this topic. I think it is perfectly fair to fail the article on the grounds that the sources are not diverse enough. However, I do think these sources are first rate academic sources and if I split of Vucinich into the actual sources rather than citing the collection it would show that the perspective is more diverse that how it appears at first glance. Thoughts? Czarking0 (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Fair points and valid arguments. Give me one or two days to reconsider my approach. Borsoka (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)