Talk:Collectivization in the Soviet Union

Stakhanovite Movement

The article doesn't say anything about the Stakhanovite movement even though it was one of the contributory factors to the major improvement of labor productivity. Just from one man increasing productivity in a coal mine had led to Stalin using that to motivate his people to over achieve. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by RS92194 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@RS92194 I will suggest adding the mention about the movement very briefly and do an internal link to the page of the Stakhanovite movement Supelrand (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

"Human costs"

The article states: The deaths from starvation or disease directly caused by collectivization have been estimated as between 4 and 10 million. According to official Soviet figures, some 24 million peasants disappeared from rural areas but only 12.6 million moved to state jobs[citation needed]. The implication is that the total death toll (both direct and indirect) for Stalin's collectivization program was on the order of 12 million people.[40]

The summary mentions "tremendous human costs", but this is a euphemism. The deaths of 4 to 12 million people is significant enough that the summary ought to call it out explicitly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.81.160.124 (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Was Collectivisation a success for Stalin?

Unfortunately, this article doesn't answer that question except in the negative, with not a single mention of the ways in which it was successful. This aroused my suspicions so I googled and BBC has a quite different view: "How successful was collectivisation? Stalin achieved most of his aims: Grain production rose to nearly 100 million tonnes in 1937, although the numbers of animals never recovered. Russia sold large quantities of grain to other countries. Some 17 million people left the countryside to go to work in the towns. The kulaks were eliminated. The peasants were closely under the government's control. However, the human cost was immense: Perhaps 3 million kulaks were killed. There were famines in 1930 and 1932-3 when 5 million people starved to death." (How successful was collectivisation?) 80.111.140.140 (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Collectivization in the Soviet Union. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041020112709/http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node67.html to http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node67.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Last paragraphs uncited and anti-socialistic propaganda:

Cite or delete, please. :) Nradabhatse die Katze (talk) 09:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Collectivization in the Soviet Union. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041224204110/http://www.berdsk.ru/history5.shtml to http://www.berdsk.ru/history5.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120224230413/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/USSR1.htm to http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/USSR1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070314063045/http://www.usm.maine.edu/eco/joe/works/Soviet.html to http://www.usm.maine.edu/eco/joe/works/Soviet.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041216105036/http://www.sabre.org/ukrlib/books/ninth.circle/ninth.circle.toc.html to http://www.sabre.org/ukrlib/books/ninth.circle/ninth.circle.toc.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041215132846/http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/1983/128312.shtml to http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/1983/128312.shtml

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 10:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC) Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I felt that the article was neutral and didn't feel like it was condemning or condoning the practices carried out by the Stalin and the Communist Party.Adrainveidt (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Crisis of 1928

"Stalin claimed the grain had been produced but was being hoarded by "kulaks." When in reality the farmers were holding on to their grain because the prices were below market price."

These two statements do not appear to be contradictory even though they are worded as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TerryToogood (talk • contribs) 19:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The Black Book of Communism

...is being used as a source in multiple instances. The book has received criticism by even its own contributors for artificially inflating death toll estimates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TerryToogood (talk • contribs) 19:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable sources 11 October 2020

In a recent edit, I removed the following entries (excluding the <blockquote> tags):

According to Party sources, there were also some cases of destruction of property, and attacks on officials and members of the collectives. Isaac Mazepa, prime minister of the Ukrainian People's Republic (UPR) in 1919–1920, claimed "[t]he catastrophe of 1932" was the result of "passive resistance … which aimed at the systematic frustration of the Bolsheviks' plans for the sowing and gathering of the harvest". In his words, "[w]hole tracts were left unsown,... [and as much as] 50 per cent [of the crop] was left in the fields, and was either not collected at all or was ruined in the threshing".

In the process of cleaning up the {{Cite book}} template, I looked into the source material... and another source... and another... at least 3 difference sources appear to be merged into one, possibly as result of somebody citing a citation in another book. To sum up, the data in the {{Cite book}} parameters are a conglomerate from multiple books and journals (using Google Books to check which parameter data belonged with which book). In trying to decide which source to mark, or to properly cite multiple sources, I read additional sources for cross-referencing. The information I discovered was that while the statement made in the article discussed the peasants fears over the collectivization, the sources from which the statement was taken, was sourced from material written as pro-Soviet political propaganda.

I am not an expert on the article's subject matter, so I won't investigate the rest of the citations for the same issues, but they do need a thorough examination by an expert. I'm not suggesting that the article itself is bad, but the sources being used as references need checking.
Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 04:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Poor to no citations

Entire passage throughout the article go unsourced, even those making very specific claims (eg “x % of farms were communes in x year). Some of the citations that are mentioned are also poor or outdated. In particular, Robert Conquests works are given undue importance considering their age and his notoriously partisan reputation. Perhaps could be replaced by more recent works like that of Davies and Wheatcroft? Many sources cited are also just really old (1960s or 70s) and should be used more sparingly considering the massive impact the opening of the Soviet archives has had on Soviet historiography. 92.40.216.24 (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Grammatical error

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union&diff=prev&oldid=1252848752

"this Stalin's article" is gramatically incorrect. Please undo your reversion; while I don't want to start an edit war, I will remain firm on this one. Amyipdev (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Amyipdev: This phrase is grammatically correct. Your change changed the meaning of the sentence. If you are firm on this one, (1) please explain which gramatical rule was violated and (2) please rephrase the sentence without loss of its meaning. (3) Please discuss article content in article talk pages, not in user talk pages. --Altenmann >talk 22:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

FYI "is gramatically incorrect" is grammatically incorrect. --Altenmann >talk 22:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

That was a spelling error, not a grammar error; thank you for the catch, though. Amyipdev (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Please explain what you believe the meaning of the sentence to currently be in different terms, then. Amyipdev (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

"If you do not see the difference between "this <thing>" and "<thing>" then you probably should not be editing English grammar. You did not answer my question why it is ungrammatical. --Altenmann >talk 01:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

"this x's" is not valid grammar because it creates two separate references. "This" is one reference, and the possessive "'s" is another. Amyipdev (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with two references. I can chain however many references is needed. --Altenmann >talk 01:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that they are not chained in this case but rather discrete. A possessive chain makes sense (Stalin's mother's mother's father's ...) but these are two discrete references trying to reference the same object (the preceding article). Amyipdev (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

They are not referencing the same syntactic object. In any case, I've seen this kind of construction ("this X's Y") in books. --Altenmann >talk 02:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

In that case, a comma should be present. Amyipdev (talk) 02:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Show me the rule. Again, I've seen this in books. Let me rephrase. I don't see the difference between "this thick book" and "this Stalin's book". There are two Stalin's books and one Lenin's book on the table and I want "this Stalin's book, not that one". The comma could make sense if I had one Stalin's and one Lenin's. Then if I write with comma: "I want this, Stalin's book" the sentence will mean a clarification: "I want this book, because it is Stalin's."--Altenmann >talk 03:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)