|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
- 1 Disputed
- 2 Collectivisation impact
- 3 External Link
- 4 New text
- 5 Tags
- 6 name origin
- 7 Shorne's POV-pushing
- 8 Use of term kulak
- 9 NPOV
- 10 Killed livestock
- 11 Completely unsourced
- 12 Utmost shameful red terror wishwashing article!
- 13 So generic description
- 14 Kulak (discredited class of peasants)
- 15 Opening paragraph use of "rich"
- 16 "Soviet phraseology"
- 17 Page moves
"Stalin was furious that as he saw it, the peasants were putting their own welfare before that of the Soviet Union. Thousands of kulaks were summarily executed, kulak property was confiscated to form collective farms, and an estimated five million kulaks were deported to Siberia and Russian Central Asia. One quarter of these perished by the time they reached their destination. However, it is believed that many of the people accused of being kulaks were ordinary peasants who were branded as kulaks because they opposed collectivization.
The collectivization campaign turned Russia from major agricutlural exporter into a country unable to feed itself."
Unless you write what exactly is disputed here, the note will be removed tomorrow. Mikkalai 00:09, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- The collectivization campaign turned Russia from major agricutlural exporter into a country unable to feed itself.
I don't think this isn't true per se, but I do think it could be worded in a much more NPOV 18.104.22.168
- Thank you for poining out at this phrase. In fact, it is false. Collectivization per se didn't destroy the productivity of Russian agriculture. (By the way, even in 1913 Russian agriculture was retarded with respect to the rest of the world.) The long chain of disasters: WWI, Russian Revolution, Russian Civil War, aggravated by two droughts (of 1920s and 1930s), did that. If someone wants to discuss the issue further, let's do it at the Talk:Collectivisation in the USSR page. I am copying this dialog there. Mikkalai 01:20, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The link posted by User:Shorne is to an except of a book written by Ludo Martens, who is affiliated with the Belgian Worker's Party which, according to their website  is a Stalinist organization. The site linked to is the Progressive Labor Party, another Stalinist organization. The tract cited takes what I would call a favorable view of Stalin's actions regarding the Kulaks. Given that, I think it perfectly fair to label the link Stalinist, and I see no problem with doing so. Mackensen 06:15, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- What label shall we use for Conquest's book? Thatcherite? Or does it pass as mainstream, therefore correct?
- Unless someone can give a better argument for labelling the opinion, I shall remove the label. I also see no need to mention that it was the Progressive Labor Party that republished the book. Shorne 06:55, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If you remove the label i'll put it back. Also, saying that its Stalinist link doesnt make it wrong or discredit it Mir 01:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What is wrong with my text as it stands? I've provided documentation for every point. You can't just throw that away and write something that is factually incorrect. Shorne 09:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I won't make any further changes at this time, but I will say that I don't accept ideological propaganda of the sort offered by www.plp.org as historical source material. I would prefer correspondences, interviews, or witness accounts. Gazpacho 09:27, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- How would correspondence, interviews, and witness accounts establish how many people did and did not die during a certain period? The problem with all of those sources is that they are likely to be limited (only the perspective and information observed by the individual) and biased.
- I also dispute your grounds for rejecting that source as "ideological propaganda". Have you looked at the source? It cites all of its sources, many of them anticommunist. And should books like those of Conquest be dismissed as "ideological propaganda" as well? Shorne 09:50, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I note that my change did not involve any discussion of bodycounts. Stalin's level of involvement is something that could, in theory, be determined from correspondences etc. Gazpacho
- True on both counts. If you have correspondence, I'll be glad to review it. In the meantime, I seem to have provided the only sources, so I think they'll have to stand.
- I also dispute the claim (in this article or another? sometimes I forget) that the kulaks had refused to sell "all" of their produce. They weren't asked to sell it all. Lots of them refused to sell any and even went around setting fire to fields. It was horrible, and you'll find the proof in many sources, not just the alleged "ideological propaganda" that I cited. (I still wish to know how you made that determination.) Shorne 10:14, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It was their grain, they can do whatever they want with it Mir 01:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- What do U suggest instead of "all of their production"? Boraczek 11:22, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Guys, there are lots of actual scholarly books in the library that can be cited, no need to rely on partisan websites that haven't had professional peer review. No intelligent reader will be fooled by the use of a political party's website as a source of data. WP's credibility depends on the quality of its references, so let's get some better ones in there. And since Conquest is mentioned, yes, as he is a known partisan, I would not be very trusting of any article that used him as its sole authority. An article like this should have at least three actual books as references. Stan 15:13, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you for admitting that Conquest is partisan. That puts you one step above most of the people in this discussion. Shorne 20:15, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I offered a compromise, which was more or less in the middle between the competing versions, as a base for further development. I made it as favorable for stalinism as I could without falling into blatant lies. Shorne, once again, please discuss changes you want to introduce instead of trying to impose them on other Wikipedians. Boraczek 19:56, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- You didn't offer shit. You "offered" to add a bunch of propaganda with no factual basis whatsoever. No dice. Shorne 20:14, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This article does read rather like the Stalinist view of history at the moment. It gives no mention of the shock brigades and the campaign of extreme violence used in the early 30s to "persuade" peasants to join the collective farms. It also gives the impression that the poorer peasants were all falling over themselves with enthusiasm about the new farms, and that opposition only came from the richer peasants, which is to say the least somewhat historically dubious G-Man 20:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I'm waiting for you to make your case. Shorne 20:14, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The reverting has gone back and forth so much I have no idea where things stand, but Shorne, the policy for the dispute tags is that you can't remove them just because you feel like it, or even if you think the arguments being made are unsound. The rule is that they can only be removed with the consent of all the disputing parties, or if the parties have stopped disputing, usually after several weeks. This is the only way to be fair to people who have a job and can't necessarily camp out on an article morning noon and night. It's annoying to be sure - John Paul Jones has a disputed tag that I think has no justification, but I can't remove it until I lay hands on a scholarly bio that I can quote from. So please respect the rules on this. Given the continuous editwarring here, it's pretty clear that this article needs to be tagged, if not protected as well. Stan 21:03, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- This means that anyone can simply insert a dispute tag for no reason. Boraczek has not disputed anything; he is only trying to get the article labelled so as to discredit it. I will allow the tag to stand for now, but I demand that Boraczek make a dispute here. I'll remove the tag tomorrow if Boraczek hasn't said anything. Shorne 21:05, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I'm disputing it right now. Anything published by a Stalinist on Stalin's policies and actions cannot be considered any more NPOV than a Whig historian writing about the Glorious Revolution.
- Dispute the statements, not the messenger. Shorne 22:58, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- It's a point of view, nothing more. I'm heading out to the local library tonight to grab Pavel Polian's latest book, Against their will : the history and geography of forced migrations in the USSR. English translation just came out this year, published by the Central European University Press. Mackensen 21:17, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, and that's your idea of an unbiased source? Thank you for revealing your hypocrisy. Shorne 22:58, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- So, uh, did I miss your list of recommended books? I haven't seen you suggest any yourself. Stan 23:25, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- At this moment there's no tag on the article, so there's nothing for Shorne to "demand". My comment was meant as a note for the future; everybody has the right to put up a disputed tag if the talk page discussion is unsatisfactory to them, and it can only be taken down by mutual agreement, or withdrawal of the disputant. In fact Shorne, I would encourage you to use these tags on many of the pages you're unhappy with, it puts more of the onus on other people to prove their claims, plus alerts the reader to unresolved bias problems. Stan 21:31, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I shall indeed use these tags more often in the future. Thank you. Shorne 22:58, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
(Reminder to myself): Rel. to expr. "krepky hozyain" and the corresponding gesture for the adj. "krepky". Mikkalai 21:07, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Shorne goes on reverting and pushing his POV in this article. I'd like to comment on his changes:
In the 1920s, many peasants hoarded grain in order to speculate on higher prices.
This is an innuendo suggesting that kulaks were evil people which were guilty for all that happened later and deserved the punishment. Not attributed. Moreover, this note is not relevant in an article on kulaks.
- It is relevant background information. It is also cited. I'll provide a clear reference if that will pacify you, but somehow I think that you wouldn't be satisfied if I provided a thousand. Shorne 19:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- It is not relevant. The article should explain who kulaks were and what role this term played in history. Hoarding grain is not important in this context and it only serves as an innuendo. Boraczek 08:43, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Shorne's statement is close to truth, but is taken out of historical context and outright anacronism: there was no normal market to "speculate on higher prices". I cannot provide factual data and proper time references, but among the reasons of grain hoarding at different times were :*during War Communism: requisitions, political instability (unclearness who will win:Reds or Whites)
- afterwards: hyperinflation, low state purchase prices, high prices for manufactured goods -- all making barter much more reasonable, especially for profiteers.
- overtaxation of those who were declared kulaks (quiz: how a vicious cycle is generated here?)
- Mikkalai 20:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Barter is still economic activity. The existence of profiteers implies the existence of a market. I don't mind if you want to expand on that sentence about hoarding grain; I do, however, mind its being deleted. Shorne 23:40, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
By 1928, there was a food shortage in the cities and in the army.
No relevance. This only serves to justify the collectivization.
- It serves to explain why collectivisation was implemented. Shorne 19:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Collectivization was implemented for ideological reasons and not to resolve some temporary problems of shortage of food. You should know that collectivization was one of the elements of the communist programme. Communists wanted to implement collectivisation, because this was a step on the way to communism. It was not the shortage of food that made them want it. Boraczek 08:43, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The Soviet government encouraged the formation of collective farms.
Collectivization was forced rather than "encouraged".
- Nonsense. Even the most rabid anti-Stalinists admit that collectivisation was at first voluntary. Shorne 19:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- But forced since 1928.Mikkalai 20:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Exactly. Boraczek 08:43, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Wait a minute... 1928? I think forced collectivization started in 1929. Boraczek 18:46, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The collective farms were popular among the poorer and middle peasants
This is simply a statement taken from stalinist propaganda and a factual error. In fact, peasants generally resisted the collectivization and all reliable sources confirm that.
- All depended on the region. Of course "popular" is an oversimplification, but there are other not less reliable sources that somewhere kolkhozes were success. Mikkalai 20:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- This is why I said "generally", as I didn't go into details. What Shorne is trying to imply is that poorer and middle peasants were enthusiastic about the collectivization and only those evil rich kulaks opposed the collectivisation, because of their particular and egoistic interests. Boraczek 08:57, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- And the reality was quite different. As Geoffrey Hosking puts it: Nor is there much evidence of systematic conflict between different classes of rural dwellers. What Soviet sources call 'kulak outrages' usually turn out, when one can look more closely at the sources, to have involved more than just the wealthier peasants, and often the whole village. (G. Hosking, The First Socialist Society, Harvard University Press, 1993) Boraczek 18:52, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Name one of those "reliable sources", and give a proper citation. You're just making this stuff up. The poorer and middle peasants generally did support collectivisation, in large part because it benefited them. Shorne 19:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Collectivisation meant that their land and livestock (if they had any) would be taken away by collectives, so I don't think they thought it would benefit them. Citation - maybe later. Boraczek 08:57, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Many peasants were attracted to collectivization by the idea that they would be in a position to afford tractors and would enjoy increased production.
Peasants generally didn't fall for it.
- I am wondering where did Henry Ford send thousands of Fordsons. To Soviet Army? to Moscow city? The real problem was that it was a droplet of water in desert. Mikkalai 20:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Reference? Shorne 19:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- For example, this is what Stalin said to Churchill: When we gave tractors to the peasants they were all spoiled in a few months. Only Collective Farms with workshops could handle tractors. We took the greatest trouble explaining it to the peasants. It was no use arguing with them. After you have said all you can to a peasant he says he must go home and consult his wife and he must consult his herder. After he has talked it over with them he always answers that he does not want the Collective Farm and would rather do without the tractors. (W. Churchill, History of the Second World War, 1951, vol. 4, pp. 447-448) Boraczek 18:58, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
By 1932, kulaks had killed half of the draught animals and other livestock so that the collectives would not be able to seize them.
Factual error. This was not the main reason of killing animals. The main reason was that Soviet authorities didn't let people keep enough feeding stuff.
- If you happen to notice, 1932 was a middle of drought. Many slaughters were irrelevant to Soviets. Yes, Soviets imposed tax, but surely you don't think that Imperial Russia was tax-free, or the then landlords didn't collect theirs as vigorously as Soviets. Mikkalai 20:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I've cited several sources in Collectivisation in the USSR that say otherwise. Here's another: The Encyclopædia Britannica—hardly a mouthpiece of Stalinist propaganda; it is very critical of the USSR, to put it mildly. Read this:
- There was widespread peasant resistance to collectivization, not only among kulaks but also among "middle" (that is, self-sufficient) peasants. A significant element in the passive resistance that followed was the slaughter and consumption of livestock rather than surrendering it to the collective; in consequence, over half the national livestock resources were lost in most categories.
- Although The Encyclopædia Britannica pushes an anti-Stalinist POV, it at least has the integrity to acknowledge the wicked deeds of "the passive resistance". Shorne 19:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Brtiannica is inexact as it suggests that the resistance to collectivization was the only reason of killing animals. In fact there were other reasons too. I doubt if this remark in Britannica speaks in favor of Stalin though. If killing animals was a reaction against forced collectivization, then the disastrous drop in national livestock resources was caused by forced collectivization. If stalinists decided to force collectivization, they should have anticipated what disastrous consequences it will bring about. Governing requires some realistic planning rather than wishful thinking. Boraczek 09:34, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- IMO this "passive resistance" is exaggerrated and assumes total idiotism of peasants: if you kill your animals, you'll die yourself pretty soon. So, only really prosperous peasants killed the surplus, and these actions were surely classified as hostile. Mikkalai 20:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- The livestock, like all other property, was disproportionately controlled by the prosperous peasants. Of course the members of the collectives would never have slaughtered half of the country's livestock in a short time, just as they would not have burnt fields or left good crops to rot unharvested. I have documented these facts at Collectivisation in the USSR. Incidentally, extensive discussion of collectivisation belongs in that article, not here in Kulak.
- I agree that speaking of wilful destruction as "passive resistance" is deceptive. As you said, it was open hostility to collectivisation, and it was treated accordingly. Shorne 20:45, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- But again, the logic is crooked here: it was their livestock. The "real" kulaks, i.e., known exploiters, were done with pretty early, and they didn't have chance to slaughter their huge herds. So here we are speaking about those who most probably earned their livestock with hard labor, big family, etc. And in a normal society they had all rights to do whatever they want with their own, earned, property, and that is why the text should clearly say that they were classified as criminals from the brain-twisted point of view: peasants were not treated as citizens of equal rights in the state of "dictatorship of proletariat": peasants loved their property too much. Mikkalai 22:07, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Certainly peasants are not proletarians. Soviet leaders were always clear on that. Whether the livestock belonged to the kulaks that slaughtered them is a debatable question that could only be answered on a case-by-case basis. In any event, the important issue is that they destroyed property that either was or clearly was going to be communal property. How "a normal society" would have permitted the destruction of more than half of a huge country's livestock in the space of a couple of years is beyond me. The people who did that (and destroyed crops and other property) were prepared to let other people starve in order to advance their own selfish political programme. You may consider that "normal"; I have other adjectives to describe it, some of which should not be used in mixed company. Shorne 00:08, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Killing animals was a natural reaction. When a man has two alternatives: 1) to lost his livestock which will be taken away by collectives; 2)to alughter his livestock and have some meat - then rational profit and loss account makes him kill animals. To think that peasants will be angels who will disregard their personal interests and, having analyzed the global situation of the Soviet agriculture and detected the global consequences, will make personal sacrifices in the name of the new communist society is to be as naive as few people but communists can be. Boraczek 09:34, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- This is not to say that all communists were so naive. In fact, Bukharin was an acute observer and he was aware of the dangers of forced collectivization. Unfortunately, he lost in the struggle for power. Boraczek 19:13, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- One more comment about the "crooked" logic. From a capitalist point of view, denying the "right" of peasants to slaughter "their" livestock is indeed crooked. But the Soviet Union was not pursuing capitalism. It is inappropriate to complain that collectivisation failed to live up to capitalist standards that it never pretended to uphold in the first place. Shorne 00:17, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The soviet govn't wasn't elected, it was a dictatorship, so it did not necessarily represent the general will of the people. This is especially true for other republics of USSR, like Ukraine, who were forced into the socialist system. Mir 01:33, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
My version: According to the official Soviet statistics, published in 1990, some 1.8 million kulaks were deported to Siberia and Soviet Central Asia and the total number of kulaks and their relatives who had died in the labor colonies from 1932 to 1940 was about 400,000. Nonetheless, many historians believe that the death toll of liquidation of the kulaks as a class (as Stalin called it) was much higher. For example, the estimate published by John Heidenrich in 2001 is 7 million. This estimate includes also the death toll of the famine which according to Heidenrich was caused by forced collectivization, but does not include those who died in Gulag camps.
Shorne's version: and some 1.8 million peasants were deported to Siberia and Soviet Central Asia.  Of these, perhaps 100,000 perished before reaching their destination because of poor sanitary conditions and local officials' non-compliance with Party directives.  The total number of kulaks and their relatives who had died from 1932 to 1940 was around 400,000. 
As you can see, I try to include many sources, while Shorne only includes his own source (which is stalinist propaganda BTW) and deletes information that doesn't match his POV. He also deletes the note that the data are official Soviet statistics, so as to present these data as generally accepted facts. I think it is clear that Shorne violates the NPOV policy this way. Besides, he misunderstood or pretends to have misunderstood his own source - the number of 400,000 is the number of people who died in labor camps and not the number of kulaks and their relatives who died in general. I deleted the number of 100,000, because it is a mere biased speculation and it is not attributed.
- Many sources, you say? You DELETED two of my citations, suppressing important information in the process, and stuck in one (can you count to one?) "estimate", the highest you could find, that lumps various alleged deaths together into one mass that doesn't admit much analysis. That's a net contribution of NEGATIVE ONE from Boraczek.
- Actually, I chose the newest estimate, which is not significantly different than other estimates and which is by no means the highest. Heidenrich estimates the death toll at 20 mln and Solzhenitsyn estimates the death toll at 60 mln. So if I wanted to choose the highest estimate, I could have given an estimate which is 3 times higher. And BTW, I would have the right to choose a high estimate, because that estimate was supposed to represent the opinion of historians who think that the death toll was much higher. Boraczek 10:08, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- What is your "source"? Have you read Heidenrich, let alone assessed the quality of his book? Hell, no! You went to a Web site that quotes figures from various sources, selected the highest one, and presented it here as a dissenting opinion. You don't even know what Heidenrich had to say. All that you have read is "Kulaks: 7M". This shows the level of your "research".
- This is the best estimate I have right now. If you have anything better, add it, instead of removing information that doesn't match your POV. Boraczek 10:08, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Unless you can raise a factual dispute over the validity of the official data, there is no place for your "estimate". You might as well go to the article Pi and write "Some Stalinist scientists claim that pi is a transcendental number. Nonetheless, many mathematicians believe that the circle can be squared. Carl Theodore Heisel, for example, estimates that ."
- Once again: Wikipedia should not present one specific POV and its discussion pages are not meant to be a place where historians discuss historical matters. The discussion pages are places where Wikipedians should determine how to present all points of view without asserting them. We don't need to prove that the official data are not valid, we need to report what historians think. Besides, logically, it's your task to prove that the official data are correct if you present them as undeniable facts. You can promote any estimate you want and have endless disputes on your own webpage, but when you edit Wikipedia, you should abide by the NPOV policy. And BTW, even if the official data are valid, you clearly failed to interpret them correctly. Boraczek 10:08, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Also, the dispute over your editing is not about this one insertion. It's about lots of other nonsense that you so conveniently omitted to mention. Shorne 19:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- This particular deletion of yours clearly demonstrates your POV-pushing. Boraczek 10:08, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As I tried to show, Shorne tries to make this article reflect the stalinist POV only. Boraczek 18:15, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Stuff and nonsense. I have been careful to give a balanced assessment based on the information available. It is you who keep distorting and suppressing the truth. Shorne 19:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- You have been careful to remove any NPOV phrases from this article. Boraczek 10:08, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Unfortunately your "balanced assesment" is poorly and simplistically phrased in many places, thus giving upper hand to your opponents. Mikkalai 20:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I wish you'd tell me exactly where it is weak; I'd be glad to improve it. Shorne 20:45, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Shorne wrote: How "a normal society" would have permitted the destruction of more than half of a huge country's livestock in the space of a couple of years is beyond me. Exactly! Soviet Union drove to this and permitted this... And again, you continue to ignore time and space. It was not like kulaks suddenly woke up and slaughtered cattle. There was a series of misfortune events during this time, besides kulaks. Mikkalai 00:50, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Um, Mikkalai, I was questioning, not accepting, your term "a normal society". In my view, there's something badly wrong with the world if the jeopardising of the food supply for private gain is "normal".
- The Soviet Union did not permit the destruction of cattle. What do you mean by saying that it did? That was a huge setback for the country, and a lot of kulaks were punished accordingly. It certainly was not carried out with the government's consent.
- Of course there were other events at the time; I've never said otherwise, unlike the various people here who try to pin everything bad in the Soviet Union on Stalin. Shorne 02:06, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Incidentally, the Britannica excerpt is a example of clever NPOV writing worth studying; partisans on both sides have to allow that it doesn't state anything untrue, and it carefully avoids making a value judgment. True NPOV is never going to be completely satisfactory to people who've taken side on an issue, because it can't declare the wrongness of one side or another. Constrast with the back-and-forth over "normal society" - capitalists think it's "normal" to be capitalists, communists think it's "normal" to be communist, which is a clear sign that "normal" is itself an unhelpful (and somewhat tautological) POV. So try having the discussion without saying anything about what is "normal". Stan 15:58, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Stan correctly points out that the purpose here is to present facts, as well as they can be ascertained (please spare me the epistemological discussion), so as to cover the subject thoroughly and without pushing the reader in any particular direction. From the first day, I have been fighting the tendency to flavour these articles with any sort of sauce. If provided with an adequate range of facts, readers will form their own opinions. Shorne 17:06, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Shorne keeps reverting my changes aiming at restoring NPOV in this article. I already explained why I think his version violates the NPOV policy and contains factual errors. He did not reply, he just goes on reverting to that version. Now I have the right to ask: what is wrong with my version?
Shorne, please list your objections to my version. Boraczek 21:45, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I'VE ALREADY TOLD YOU. Take the goddam cotton out of your ears (or your skull). You are destroying documented text and replacing it with unsupported commentary that is contradicted by the evidence. Cut it out if you don't want me to file a complaint. Shorne 22:29, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I wrote my version on 13 Nov 2004 and the comment above is the only comment you made to that version. Please write exactly what phrases in my version you believe are wrong and why. Since you haven't listed any objections, I'm restoring my version. Boraczek 09:19, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- We've been over this before. I'm not going to let you replace factual, documented statements with opinions that clash with the truth. If you have restored your destructive change, I will revert it. Shorne 09:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think your version is POV-pushing and contains false information. I explained why I thought so. I think my version is correct. Are you able to put forward some arguments and hold a discussion? Boraczek 10:09, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- OK, I'll say this one last time. If you're still too stubborn or too thick to understand it, I disclaim responsibility. YOU CANNOT REPLACE DOCUMENTED, WELL-SUPPORTED TEXT WITH BALD STATEMENTS OF OPINION. You have not established that there is anything wrong with my text, which is backed with citations. Shorne 11:12, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I explained why I thought your text was wrong in this section and you failed to reply to my arguments. And you haven't explained why my text is wrong in your opinion. I can see you simply refuse to discuss the matter (maybe you just lack arguments or will to reach a consensus), so I'm restoring my text. Boraczek 11:20, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Use of term kulak
"laber bacame used to label anyone opposed to the Soviet agricultural program". I heard that this is the correct wording, from my teacher. the class later did become a scapegoat. Mir 06:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I don't know which school you were going. For those who "opposed" without being kulak there were pretty diversified terms: "kulatski posobnik" (kulak helper), "podkulachnik" (kulak's sidekick), "kulatski podpevala" (literally "kulak co-singer" or smth., one who verbally supports kulaks), etc. All terms are constructed in a derogatory way (unfortunately it is difficult to render in translation). At all times the term kulak was associated with certain level of prosperity, never with political views or actions. Mikkalai 16:57, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It seems you know more about this topic than I do. I'm from Ukraine myself but I didn't live though those times because I wasn't born yet. Mir 00:03, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In my opinion the neutrality and factual accuracy of the article is already restored. If you believe there are still some wrong statements in the article, please write what phrases are wrong and why below. If no objections are listed, I think we can remove the label. Boraczek 14:31, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree. Mir 23:10, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wait until a new vigorous editor pops up. But in any case the article changed dramatically towards a balanced view. If some statements are left contested, they may be marked for disputed accuracy locally, see Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute, rather than hanging this common sticker. Mikkalai 23:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No objections were listed, so I'm removing the label. Thank you for your opinions, Mikkalai and Mir. Boraczek 23:13, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I dont know how accurate this is "Rich peasants sometimes slaughtered livestock so that the collectives would not be able to seize it", didn't they slaughter them for food as well? Mir 04:34, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Slaughtering for food is a normal action. Of course they did. They even made some flour from grain, you know. Don't be too nitpicking. Do you want the sentence like this: "they slaughtered livestock for food, they destroyed sick animals to stop epizootics, as well as to...."? Mikkalai 06:16, 28 Nov 2004
- I mean, did they slaughter the livestock because they didn't want it to be taken away, or was it because of the famine, or did the famine happen later. Mir 07:23, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The following phrase removed as irrelevant and incorrect.
By 1932, half of the draught animals and other livestock had been killed due to forced collectivization, drought and lack of feeding stuff. This process contributed to a famine from which many people died in the early 1930s.
- (Half with respect to what?)
In fact, the following would be correct. In 1928: 60 mln cattle, 1932: 34 mln cattle. The following factors contributed:
- Malicious slaughtering
- High norms for agricultural deliveries, that ignored sustenance norms
It is impossible to calculate the kulak's share here, and hence it is not right to to keep the "halving" phrase in this article. Mikkalai 08:48, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Haha, "lack of feeding stuff." Keep that in there. Shreem Fried Rice 04:09, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This article has exactly zero references despite of all hot debates above. So, I will try to provide some sources. However, anything that contradicts reliable sources can be deleted at any moment.Biophys 03:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Utmost shameful red terror wishwashing article!
This article is disgusting as of now, it suggests Joe Stalin was right and kulaks were tsarist/clerical conspirators, who deserved death. This is history faking at its worst, actually the kulaks were the only ones who made agriculture progress, the peasantry was too stupid and alcoholic to help themselves, no matter how much land was confiscated from the kulaks.
On the other hand, the kulak concept is not a USSR one, it was widely used in the 1950s communist block, e.g. tens of thousands of kulaks were interned to prison camps in Hungary, together with wife, kids, elders and many died of harsh conditions and abuse. This is not reflected in the article!
In fact the kulak concept still lives on! Here in Hungary the ex-communist led government used massive help by the jewish-run commercial media in 2006 to incite hatred against individual farmers, who decided to march with their tractors across the capital city to protest against massive stealing of agriculture subsidies, which ended up in the governing MSZP-SZDSZ coalition pockets.
The media vehemently alleged these farmers are actually "kulaks" merely because they own tractors and other agricultural machinery and demanded they are to be banned from the capital by changing traffic regulations, so that they cannot come en masse and stage a clerical-reactionary coup d' etat with the clandestine help of the Vatican and hungarian conservative parties. The propaganda was truly that of 1950 vintage in word abuse and hysterical mentality. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- "the peasantry was too stupid and alcoholic to help " This statement best encapsulates how dillusional your whole paragraph is. The kulaks were the primary cause of the famines, they undermined the collectivization process by destroying all the food/materials which would have gone to feed the people of Ukraine.--126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
So generic description
"During 1929-1933, the Stalin leadership's total campaign to collectivize the peasantry meant that "peasants with a couple of cows or five or six acres more than their neighbors" were being labeled 'kulaks'." Sounds like a very scientific and serious description, in line with the Western historiography about Stalin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Kulak (discredited class of peasants)
Some sources say that the concept Kulaks are not limited to the independent farmers that employed or enslaved others. They, rather, were peasants who slept on their fist (kulak in Ukrain ian), meaning that those were people who cared great deal about their business and slept out of a necessity, not out of convenience. Therefore those were the farmers who were the most successful and were the most envied by the others such who refused to work and joined the ranks of NKVD. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Opening paragraph use of "rich"
Is it correct to categorize kulaks--in the opening paragraph of the article--as "a category of rich peasants"? "Rich" seems like a rather strong adjective given the rest of the article. Perhaps "prosperous peasants" or "landowning peasants" would be more appropriate? --macrakis (talk) 03:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Bobanni added Category:Soviet phraseology to Kulak (20:21, 7 December 2008). Mikkalai reverted it without an explanation (23:30, 7 December 2008). When I restored Bobanni's edit with a proper edit comment, Mikkalai reverted again with an extremely rude edit comment aimed at me: "because you don't know russian language. This is not bolshevik word, appeared way before bolsheviks" (04:28, 8 December 2008). Ignoring Mikkala's unwarranted rudeness, we are not talking about "bolshevik words", we are talking about Category:Soviet phraseology. The article Kulak mainly deals with the Soviet use of the word, except the lead and some references in passim to its older roots. The world "Bolsheviks" itself predates the Soviet era by a long margin. And finally, by categorizing "Kulak" as Soviet phraseology we do not in any way dispute its pre-Soviet etymology. I therefore think that Bobanni's inclusion of Category:Soviet phraseology for Kulak was quite proper -- and actually very helpful. I would ask Mikkalai to stop reverting without proper discussion. --Zlerman (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Soviet redefined many common words. That the article says something only en passant speaks in disfavor of wikipedia, rather than a solid argument. Have you ever heard the term doublespeak? Are you going to put the articles democracy, freedom, equality, fraternity in "soviet fraseology" as well? They were a very popular words in Soviet Union, but with meanings different from the originally intended. I can give you more examples. The article Swastika is not placed into a subcategopy of Nazism. As for reverting, why don't you follow your own advice? `'Míkka>t 05:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Problem is that category:Soviet phraseology doesn't define its membership criteria.
- This whole type of category is problematic, because it attempts to classify articles by their titles. But most articles are about things and not the names of things, or covering broader subjects altogether. Perhaps such categories belong in Wiktionary, and not in Wikipedia. —Michael Z. 2008-12-08 06:18 z
- Well, I see there is a whole related category tree, and there are others,like category:English words and phrases of foreign origin. I'd like to see a criterion listed on the cat page, like “political phraseology originating in the Soviet Union” or “used in the Soviet Union”, etc. —Michael Z. 2008-12-08 07:16 z
Please don't move the page with long established title without discussing in the talk page with other editors. In English language the most common meaning for the word "kulak" is the subject of this article. Please read wikipedia:Disambiguation for disambiguation rules accepted in English wikipedia. - Altenmann >t 16:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)