Talk:Zemstvo

Anon addition

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)

These are Russian ones: Bessarabia was part of Russian Empire and there was nothing special in its organization. Of course, there were peculiarities, such as personalities, political wrangles, establishment/disestablishment, etc., but I think it is undue to cover these local detail in this general article. --Altenmann >talk 03:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand, there is enough material for a separate article, Zemstvos in Bessarabia, especially keeping in mind there was some post-Russian Empire history:

• The political parties and significant personalities of the Bessarabian Zemstvo (1869-1917)
• Impactul politicilor imperiale asupra periferiilor: rolul şi locul instituţiilor de zemstvă în societatea basarabeană
• ZEMSTVA ÎN SISTEMUL ADMINISTRATIV AL BASARABIEI (1918-1925)
• etc. --Altenmann >talk 03:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

P.S. the article did miss mentioning Bessarabia; added. --Altenmann >talk 03:09, 27 November 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:

First General 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)

Hey no rush but I also want to ensure this does not get too lost in the shuffle Czarking0 (talk) 05:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. I will return to the review tommorrow. Borsoka (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Specific Feedback

• The system of elected bodies of local self-government in the Russian Empire was represented at the lowest level by the mir and the volost and was continued, so far as the 34 Guberniyas (governorates) of old Russia were concerned, in the elective district and provincial assemblies (zemstvo). I would split this sentence into two or three, and began the main text with a short definition of the institution zemstvo. Without references to the time frame, the text could hardly be understood. A short introduction to mir, volost and old Russia (maximum three words) is needed. I would italicise all non-English terms (mir, volost, zemstvo, Guberniyas, etc...)

• I addressed this maybe in an unexpected way. I moved some of this info into the history section and changed how this section starts. I did not italicize the blue text words. Ok? I sort of don't want to italicize zemstvo because it appears so many times in the text. However, if you insist I will do it at the end. Czarking0 (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• The goal of the zemstvo reform... What? Why, when and by whom was the administrative reform introduced?

• I think now that this info is in the history section there is better context. Thoughts? You can Ctrl+F "goal" to find it. Czarking0 (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Assemblies could appoint deputies... What assemblies?

•  Done Czarking0 (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Alexander II instituted these bodies, one for each district and another for each province or government, in 1864. I understand you want to write this was a two-level system. What district, province and government mean in the context.

•  Done Czarking0 (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• I understand the zemstvo was responsible for the tasks listed in the article at local level. This should be clarified.

• I don't fully understand this comment. Are you saying there is ambiguity around the responsibilities of district vs provincial zemstvos? Czarking0 (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Self management of zemstvo property and revenue and Self maintenance of zemstvo property Why self-management and self-maintenance? What is the difference between the two tasks?

• Technically the difference is that self-management powers allow the zemstvo to say order the construction of a new canal vs maintenance powers would only allow funds spent on existing canals. However, I am unsure how much value there is for the reader in belaboring these mostly legal points. I wanted to include the entirety of the "14 points" as they were historically notable.

• Mutual property insurance For whom?

• This is a very complicated question to answer. Unfortunately there is also not really one answer as the nature of the insurance changes over time and meant different things at the provincial vs district level. This actually becomes a point of contention in later years as the provincial zemstvos wanted to create what one might call a "zemstvo union of re-insurance" where the district zemstvos would offer insurance to their districts which would be re-insured by the provincial zemstvo. The provincial zemstvos would then make something like what we now call a credit union where if one provincial zemstvo had to pay out the reinsurance to its districts the other zemstvos would contribute funds to cover it. This idea was technically illegal under the zemstvo charter as provincial zemstvo members from one province were legally obligated to not coordinate with members from another province (the czar feared national politics). However, the scheme was a very popular (and economically sound) idea so more limited forms of this did occur. At the district level this really just meant fire insurance such that people would pay in and the zemstvo would help you rebuild if there was a fire. This is probably an area I could get into more sources. However, it was never really that successful so I did not highlight it as I thought the achievements in education and medcine (to a lesser extent) were more notable. I guess I could add a section on this?

• Economic participation of public education, public health, and prison systems I do not understand. Do you mean funding?

• It is more than just funding. I am using the translated wording of the law so that is why the phrasing is weird. In addition to taxation and budgeting to support these systems, it means choosing how many schools, how big to make them, how much to pay the teachers, where to put them, and so forth for the health and prison issues as well.

• ...bovine disease... One or more? A link?

• I could look for more sources here but this is just what the law said. My sources do not discuss this point much. My current understanding is that it mostly boiled down to semi-mystical practices that told people when to kill their cows.

• ...state tax funds assigned to the zemstvo... By whom?

• This changes over time and does not have one answer. Probably the most notable one is the Russian State Ministry of Education funding the zemstvos so they could build more schools. I can add that detail to the Education section?Czarking0 (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Hold elections What does it mean?

• I feel like the Elections section following this answers that question ? Czarking0 (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Special charters What does it mean? Borsoka (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• This basically just means the czar can give the zemstvo special orders whenever Czarking0 (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I feel like there is a summary here of this bulleted list is just a summary of the law it is not meant to be comprehensive information about the practice. Czarking0 (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I think without significant changes the article cannot meet GA criteria. First of all, I suggest that you should seek assistance at the Guild of Copy Editors. I also suggest that you should put yourself into our readers' shoes: they have no information about the institution and late-19th-century Russia. Without a deeper introduction, they will not understand the article. Borsoka (talk) 02:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)