Talk:Virgin Lands campaign

Hurricanes?
"In 1963, Kazakhstan was lashed by hurricanes and millions of hectares of soil were rendered unusable."

I'd very much like to know exactly how Kazakhstan, a landlocked nation, could possibly be hit by hurricanes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.107.66 (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree... When was the last time Kazakhstan was even threatened by a hurricane? I hope someone can shed some light and edit this passage appropriately.  Please mind the embellishment of encyclopedia articles.  As stated in Dragnet:  "Just the facts, Ma'am" (though you may substitute "Sir" as the final word).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeftHand (talk • contribs) 08:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Continuation of Tsarist-era idea?
Am I correct in thinking that the idea that Kazakhstan could be made into farmland was one fancied by the pre-soviet government, and wasn't the tsarist times construction of railroads and irrigation there a first step in that project? If so, do we have sn article on tsarist russia's attempts to "civilise" central asia, to which we could link from here? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:19, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Good article
With cited sources it would be even better. See also Footnotes. - FrancisTyers 05:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with this article at all. The Virgin Lands Campaign was a failure, lead to Khrushchev's demise! The soil was infertile!! What are you talking about??

Bias
There's a very strong tone of "failure" in the article, which I have not necessarily seen mirrored in other things I've read on the subject. Particularly, it's important that failure, if any, be very clearly identified as individual events, and not given strong political overtones. For example, one might say that the rapid and poorly-planned campaign caused soil depletion and environmental damage, but turning this into Krushchev's political undoing is inaccurate. As his article states, there were various influences leading to his political failures (probably largest of which was his personality), and the Virgin Lands Campaign is not mentioned at all. -banzaimonkey 17:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of this political-guessing bias removed. `'юзырь:mikka 08:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing Information
The article is missing information on two subjects that I've seen discussed in other sources. The first is the migrations that the Virgin Lands Campaign brought about. This is mentioned in the overview, but it would be good to have a more detailed section which discusses the consequences of the campaign and the migrations it caused. Also, there is no mention of environmental damage from chemical use, which I've seen in several other sources. -banzaimonkey 17:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wheat?
Umm....yeah, it wasn't wheat that they tried, it was corn. This page really needs cleaning up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.131.88.208 (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

More anti-Soviet rhetoric
Agreed with previous contributor - this page needs sorting out. The "failure" tone is obvious and overpowering, like how did the USSR dare actually achieve anything? Yes they never recouped the early success of the Virgin Lands scheme, but it was a brave and daring project by Khrushchev who was a peasant man at heart. Another sad example here of trying to rewrite history, which is sadly often levelled at Wikipedia. Koshmar UK (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I read a book on the history of Russia and in that book too this experiment was listed as largely a failure. If you have sources listing the accomplishments and success of this campaign then please add them to this article. AadaamS (talk) 12:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)