Talk:Emancipation reform of 1861

message: is POV (there are probably some people who think Russia should still have serfs today).  Rewriting for NPOV.  --Daniel C. Boyer 17:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please find something more useful to do. Your edits border on trolling. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really; that is no argument.  I'm going to revert.  --Daniel C. Boyer 21:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Long overdue"

message: The external link to the Emancipation Edict in English is no longer valid.  Would it be possible for someone to create it as a wikisource text? I would do this myself if i could find a copy somewhere other than the Durham website.
Jameshfisher 11:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did it myself. I have left the link to the original Russian version.  Someone who understands Russian and cross-language Wiki stuff, maybe we could transfer that to ru.wikisource? Jameshfisher 12:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link no longer works 

message: Can someone explain to me what the following paragraph means or re-word it so it flows better?
Although well planned in the legislation, the reform did not work smoothly.
The land-owners and nobility were paid in government bonds and their debts were removed from the money before it was handed over. The bonds soon fell in value, combined with the generally poor management skills of the land-owners under the new conditions there
--Jd147703 20:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume it means that landowners were given bonds for the value of the land, minus any mortgages on the land.  So, the land might have been worth 1000 rubles, but if 300 rubles were owed on it, the landowner would only receive bonds for 700 rubles.  --Cphoffman (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implementation 

message: The following sentence is not technically accurate:  "The uneven application of the legislation did leave many peasants in Congress Poland and northern Russia both free and landless (batraks), while in other areas peasants became the majority land owners in their province(s)."  Instead, Poland and the Baltic regions had been reformed in earlier legislation (I believe in the 1820s) as a sort of test run for the later liberation of serfs in the rest of the country.  Because liberation without land had not worked out very well, the 1861 legislation included land, but at an excruciatingly high price (which, itself, led to problems).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cphoffman (talk • contribs) 01:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reform in Poland/Baltic not part of 1861 legislation 

message: The second sentence in the section "Effects on the Serfs" under "Outcomes" reads -
"The redemption tax was so high that the serfs had to sell all the grain they produced to pay the tax, which left nothing for their survival"
This is quite literally impossible.  If this was true in all cases then the serfs should all be dead.  Perhaps a better wording would be -
"The redemption tax was so high that the serfs often had to sell most of the grain they produced to pay the tax, which left nothing left except for their bare survival."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.36.176.129 (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gross exaggeration in "Effects on the Serfs"