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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RS92194 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 26 March 2018 (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.

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.

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 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 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 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)

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)