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)