Talk:Zemstvo

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Orenburg, Astrakhan, and Stavropol were not "Provinces of the Don." 

message: "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)
replies: text: * 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)
thread_title:  1890 Reforms 

message: === 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)
replies: text: * The Figes source clarifies this is Pavel Dolgorukov Czarking0 (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

text: * 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)
thread_title:  1905 Connections 

message: 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)
replies: text: * The Figes source clarifies this is Pavel Dolgorukov Czarking0 (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dolgorukov 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reactionary Element 

message: 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)
thread_title:  1907 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Non-Russian Zemstvos 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  More Sources 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pre 1865