Talk:Alexey Stakhanov

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Russia Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit]  ???

Okay i am talking about the story Animal Farm and i would like to know is Boxer the horse is that the person who played as Aleksei

[edit] Unsubstantiated claim

I removed the following text:

His achievements were, however, greatly exaggerated for propaganda purposes: years later, it was revealed that the numbers had been reached by adding the production of his co-workers to his own total.

I suspect that this is one of the many systematic attempts to smear the Soviet order that were so common in the 1980-1990s. I'd like to see some references if this claim is to be put back. If there are no references, then this is just slander and slander should have no place in a free encyclopedia. Paranoid 20:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the "Propaganda questions" section that Fastfission added. The text is below:

Stakhanov's story has often been reported in the United States as an example of Soviet propaganda. For example, in 1985, the New York Times reported that:
The history of Stakhanov's feat, however, tells a somewhat different story. The push for a record on the night of Aug. 30 was, in fact, carefully planned and prepared by the Communist Party organization of the Tsentralnaya-Irmino mine in the Donest basin.
The mines, short of skilled workers and machinery, were failing to produce their quotas of coal. The party tapped Stakhanov, a little-educated, hard-working peasant-turned-miner, to set a record that would become an inspiration and example.
Konstantin G. Petrov, the chief of the mine's party organization, recalled that Stakhanov's wife strenuously resisted his attempt to make her husband a hero until she was silenced with the gift of a cow.
To increase Stakhanov's chances, the pattern of work was changed to free him from his usual tassk of shoring up the tunnel as he dug into the seam. Instead, two timberers followed after him, and Mr. Petrov himself held a light to the coal-face.
What Stakhanov did, to be sure, was still impressive, especially with the unreliable jackhammers of those days. Contemporaries described the big miner wrestling his hammer for hours, coal dust choking his throat and nose and grinding between his teeth.
"I suppose Stakhanov need not have been the first," said Mr. Petrov in an interview several years ago. "It could have been anybody else. In the final analysis it was not the individual face-worker who determined whether the attempt to break the record would succeed, but the new system of coal extraction.
"But Aleksei was the first. Why then? Well, because before a record can be set a man has to beleive in its feasibility and in his own powers. We had been looking for just such a stalwart fellow."1
Other sources have questioned whether the event occurred at all. In the context of the Cold War, however, these skeptical stories may themselves be forms of propaganda.
Note 1: Serge Schmemann, "In Soviet, Eager Beaver's Legend Works Overtime," New York Times (31 Aug 1985), p. 2.

My justification for the deletion:

  1. First, the quoting was excessive.
  2. Second, the size of the section was excessive as well. Devoting 50% of the article to one attack on Stakhanov was too much.
  3. The NYT is just reprinting a lie. There are no real references (i.e. to historical documents, letters by contemporaries, etc.).
  4. Fourth, I seriously doubt that we need to daub every Soviet-related article with reports of the slander. In 1980s every single aspect of Soviet history and Soviet life was smeared by the anti-communist soviet-haters. Take any Soviet hero - [[Pavlik Morozov[[, Pavka Korchagin, Aleksandr Matrosov, Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya, Aleskey Stakhanov - every one was attacked by anti-Soviet propaganda. There are no facts supporting the accusations, just hysterical irrational attacks. It would make sense to write one or several articles about this dishonest smear campaign, but we should not give too much credit to these attacks by including them in every article about the Soviet Union. We have anti-semitism article on Wikipedia, but we do not add an anti-semitic view to each Jews-related article under the guise of POV. Even though one can easily quote pages of vile hateful speech from anti-semitic newspapers (which can be leading German newspaper from 1930-1940s) about every famous Jew. Paranoid 09:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My responses:

  1. If you find the quoting excessive, please feel free to paraphrase parts of it. It is a relatively small part of an old article, I do not think anybody will care much, and it is well demarcated from the rest of the text.
  2. Almost all US sources since the 1980s cast as much doubt on Stakhanov as they do talk about his "deeds". If you want to add more on his deeds, or cut the other section down, please go ahead and do it. Removing in completely does not look like good faith.
  3. I have no idea about whether the NYT is "reprinting a lie". What is important here is that the story is not common just to the NYT, that it has been cited to the NYT (that is, we are not saying that it is true, but that the NYT is saying it). Please review what Neutral Point of View is about -- citing the NYT as having said something does not endorse the validity of it.
  4. I think appealing to an analogy with anti-Semitism is going a little bit too far here. The NYT is not a pathologically anti-Soviet newspaper, it is not a fringe source of news in the US, it is mainstream.

I am reinstating the text. Feel free to edit it down, or edit the rest of the article up, as you feel fit. Deleting it and all references to the fact that doubt has been cast by mainstream sources is inappropriate and smacks of your own intellectual dishonestly. I could care less about this one productive miner, but I absolutely detest your blatant biases and your inability to be intellectually honest. You count things from mainstream sources as "lies" and don't cite a single source of your own, and make no attempt to accord with NPOV. This is inappropriate. If these were fringe accusations, made only by completely non-reputable sources, you would be justified in minimizing them. Such is not the case. Text reinstated. --Fastfission 12:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You do not understand. As I said, practically every single Soviet symbol was under attack by the anti-Soviet forces (usually through lies, deceit and manipulative omissions). My point is that it would be intellectually dishonest to insert these attacks in individual articles, because these attacks were not based on facts, but were irrational in nature. Did NYT run an investigation? Did they uncover some original documents? The quoted parts do not mention that.
This article is not substantially different from stories reprinted in yellow press in late Soviet Union and Russia. The claim that it was just Soviet propaganda is unsubstantiated. If you consider it intellectually dishonest to include such passages as "Why were two thirds of his children brain dead? Why did he publish "his" papers under his wife's name? Why did his wife do his math for him, and who did his math after he dumped her for a prettier woman?" [1] in an article about Albert Einstein, then we shouldn't include vile proofless attacks on people such as Stakhanov. Paranoid 12:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No, you don't understand. This is not the SS press, this is the NYT. You cannot just delete mainstream opinions you don't enjoy. If you really want to dispute it, post your own sources. Please read Wikipedia:NPOV as you don't seem to understand it at all. The NYT is a mainstream source, they supposedly quote someone who worked on the project, it is not fringe, it is not being depicted in this article as "the truth" but "one mainstream take on it, make of it what you will." That is entirely in the spirit of NPOV. The Einstein stuff is conspiracy theory things that are only republished by fringe people and fringe governments, it is not comparable with this. --Fastfission 12:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
About sources: check out Wikipedia talk:Cite sources/Appropriate sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources to get a better idea of what I am talking about. We can't trust NYT in covering a historical controversy. It is simply not a reliable or reputable enough source. In writing an article on Airbus A380 we may use information from NYT, in writing an article on current events we can get facts from NYT, but for writing about Stakhanov it is simply not acceptable. Similarly, it wouldn't be acceptable to quote NYT in an article on Adolf Hitler, Galileo Galilei or Julius Caesar. There is academic press and articles in peer-reviewed journals for that. It is simply unacceptable to include any such claims in Wikipedia based on what is written in the mass-media. Paranoid 13:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Now hold on a minute. I agree with you that mainstream history in the West is filled with lies and misinformation about the USSR. But let's come at this from the perspective of notability. I think the skeptic view of Stakhanov is quite notable, so it should be presented, in neutral terms. The same goes for the sympathetic view. Something doesn't have to be true to be included, because we ourselves cannot sit here and determine the whole truth of the matter, and then report our findings through the article like we're a commission. All we can do is report the notable information available to us in cited, NPOV terms. Everyking 13:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Einstein stuff is a point of view too. Yes, it's a fringe one, but so what? But we both realise that writing "Some people believe that Einstein was a retard and a con artist and all his publications are fake" would be wrong, even though including this would technically mean NPOVing the article.
As I said, every single thing about Soviet Union was attacked. The famous "human rights advocate" Kovalev repeatedly stated his believe that there was absolutely nothing good whatsoever that communist regime did. On one occasion the secretary of the Russian Consitutional Court asked for a clarification in disbelief and Kovalev reiterated that. Nothing good at all. Everything that Soviet Union or Communist Parth did was evil, wrong and must be condemned, such is the position of many anti-Soviet figures.
If you follow the NPOV principle literally, you must include their unsubstantiated claims in every article about Soviet Union. And that would be a travesty just as bad as including anti-semitic claims in every article about a Jew. Sorry for possibly overusing the scarecrow of anti-semitism, but the attitude of anti-semites towards Einstein (or other famous Jews) is notable too. Anti-Sovietism is not different and should not be treated differently. Note that reasonable criticism of Israel or USSR and factual claims do not constitute anti-semitism or anti-Sovietism.
There are simply no facts that could be added. The view that Stakhanov was a labour hero is a mainstream view, supported by historical documents, personal accounts and commonly accepted by reputable historians. The view that it was a fabrication is an irrational piece of anti-Soviet propaganda that was reprinted in many sources, but a lie repeated a million times is still a lie. Paranoid 13:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If both views are represented by mainstream sources then they should both be presented. Hence NPOV. You cannot just delete the viewpoints you think are lies in this context. The reason for distinguishing between mainstream and fringe sources is that anybody can throw together a Geocities website with any POV they want and claim it to require representation. Hwoever if a POV is represented in a mainstream source then it has presumably enough cultural caché to require representation. It is noted, by the way, in Einstein's article that there were movements against him in Germany (in fact an entire article is devoted to the Deutsche Physik movement). Just because an opinion is mentioned does not mean it is defined as factual, and I have gone to great lengths to make sure that this particular opinion has been attributed as belonging to a specific type of source, and have even noted that the sort of skepticism and "debunking" itself needs to be seen within context as well. --Fastfission 16:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Better sources

Much better than the New York Times are newspapers such as "Technical newspaper" [2] or "Dnestrovsky courier" [3] (both links in Russian). They present the facts without vile personal attacks. Yes, Stakhanov was not a perfect Prometeus-like superhuman. But it doesn't make Wikipedia justice to attempt to belittle him using the anti-Soviet lies.

Going back to the original passage that I removed about "adding the production of his co-workers to his own total". This was clearly written by a twisted mind, a snake, a man with a worm-tongue. This text creates the impression that a team of miners went to the mine and their whole production was false attributed to Stakhanov so that the evil communists could use this for their evil propaganda purposes. Needless to say, that this is indeed a lie.

In reality Stakhanov's feat happened a short time after pneumatic drills were introduced in the mines (te first pneumatic drill was invented only in 1912). They were expensive and valuable. That's why the norms were set per drill. There were plenty of timber-men able to propping the ceiling of the mine (sorry for bad technical English), it was the productivity of coal-miners that was important. Stakhanov demonstrated how it can be drastically improved with division of labour. With the help of only two assistants he exceeded the norm 14 times. Everyone knew that he had these two assistants, it wasn't a secret, nobody pretended that Stakhanov did it alone, but economically and technologically it wasn't relevant - the important thing was to increase the production per pneumatic drill per day.

When people such as that Serge Schmemann twist the facts in such way, they are commiting a crime against the Soviet civilization, a crime against people and a crime against truth. I don't want to see Wikipedia as an acomplice in these crimes... Paranoid 13:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, while I personally favor your viewpoint, I would also like to see the other side represented in some form or another. No need for it to be the NYT, though. Everyking 14:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you want to engage this with reputable, verifiable sources, by all means, please do. Feel free to cite and quote and attribute, as I have myself done. Make an effort to be factual and NPOV. If you want to post a rebuttal to the NYT approach, please feel free, but properly attribute it, do not just present it as the self-evident fact that "everybody knew". I believe attribution of facts and opinions should be undertaken as much as possible -- facts and opinions do not just exist "in the air", they are called into action by human beings. If their constructedness is acknowledged, it saves us from the unfortunate position of trying to express "truth" about something neither you nor I have any personal experience with. It is how the historian works. What I am against is attributing the Soviet party line as being the only possible truth -- clearly nobody in this situation was without political motivation. A symmetrical methodology would imply that you recognized that the USSR had at least as much to gain in trumping up achievements as the US did in denigrating them. The Soviets were not exactly known for their impartial objectivity, whatever you think of the US stance. It would be ideal if you could find reputable sources to cite, so that it could be easily checked by others on this Wikipedia portal, but if that's not possible I'm sure it will be possible to find a few other Russian readers to do so (I can't evaluate the veracity of Russian sources at all at the moment). --Fastfission 16:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I already said, there aren't two valid views. The facts are well known, they are not disputed at all. There are countless interviews, letters, articles in Pravda, the memoirs of Stakhanov and what not. Among all this evidence there is nothing that contradicts the official version.
The problem is with presenting the facts. What NYT has done is not find some new previously hidden facts, they simply took the Pravda articles, the interviews with Petrov, and then they selectively omitted everything positive. The result is a giant calculated lie. Just one example is the situation with Stakhanov's assistants. I already explained the situation with pneumatic drills, but NYT chose to take the fact that there were other people working with Stakhanov and put it in such a way as to create the impression that a team of coal-miners worked together and their joint output was attributed to Stakhanov alone. This is a lie, this is distortion and this is not a valid point of view. Half-truths should not be included in this or any other Wikipedia article. Paranoid 18:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New version

Thanks for trying, Fastfission, but it is still deceitful. Is it OK if I post in my blog that your might have been raping little kids and eating puppies alive and then someone else will post this on Wikipedia as a legitimate point of view?

Our goal here is not to present opposing points of view - it's a job for Wikinfo or some such project. We must be neutral and stick to the facts. The selective quotes from Times distort the truth, they even distort what Petrov said.

The fuller quote is here. It's not Times quoting Petrov, it's Times quoting Pravda. And they hand pick the quotes to create an absolutely wrong impression.

I am sorry, but the point of view of NYT has no right to appear in the article. If it is to be included, we must clarify that it is a made-up controversy created by anti-Soviet forces in order to smear the Soviet order. It may sound high-flown, but it is reality. I explained above why the version currently presented in "Validity questioned" is a lie.

I mean, NYT intentionally distorted (or that Serge guy did) the truth. They cherry picked the facts, picked some out of context quotes and tried to cast doubts on Stakhanov's achievement. This is not an opposing point of view, this is a clear attempt to mislead. And yet you quote NYT as if they had a valid position that must be represented. This is nonsense. I appreciate your good faith attempt at re-editing, but I simply can't see how a demonstratively false NYT propaganda can be included in the article.

It may be possible to explain the truth behind these attempts to smear this particular Soviet hero, but I am not convinced that is terribly useful. However, I do not have any objections against that - it's just that currently you simply give too much credit to liars and their falsehoods. Paranoid 16:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The NYT is not "your blog" -- it is a major news source. I'm re-inserting it. If you want to say the Times got it wrong, then cite something that says so! If you think they mistranslated the quote, post your own translation afterwards! You'll get more bang for your buck if you say, "The Times got it wrong, like a lot of people -- here's some proof" than saying "The Times opinion shouldn't be represented at all." The view in the US news is that this guy is a picture of Soviet fraud. If there are counter-views, feel free to post them. --Fastfission 17:33, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hatred of labour

I am afraid New York Times journalists and its readers will never understand the dignity of labour. They will never understand how it ennobles the man, how building your own country can be the most honourable thing in the world. Search for "workers" at nytimes.com, you won't find anything. It is expected for a biased capitalist newspaper (with all the talks about liberal bias vs. righ-wing bias you forget that it's biased against the working people). Where are the films glorifying the labour in the US? Of course, when these people see Aleksei Stakhanov, a true labour hero that was respected by millions and who set an example for them, the immediate impulse is to smear his image with dirt, to deny that it can happen, that a "lower-class" man can be respected. This should not be the attitude of Wikipedia. Paranoid 18:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Enough with the rhetoric, please get real about this and stop seeming like so much of a Soviet shill. You'll convince more people if you can quote references than you will by appealing to the NYT as an anti-worker conspiracy. --Fastfission 17:34, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
OK, Fastfission, you have a point here. I will do as you suggest. Do you have a full text of the article or the online link to an archive copy? To say "The Times got it wrong" I need to be sure that it was they, who cherry-picked the quotes and not, say, you (not that I don't trust you) or someone who quoted NYT article (if you did not get the quote directly from Times). Then I can provide a full translation and other references and explain the situation in more details. P.S. Thanks for defending your point in a relatively respectful manner, BTW. P.P.S. Waiting for the link/text/title (at least) of the article. Paranoid 09:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
If you send me an email using the "e-mail this user" button, I'll send you the NYT article in response (I have it as a PDF file). --Fastfission 14:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Usage question

Is there any specific reason why the names of the mines are in a different script, viz. "№31" versuses "No. 31"? It looks not only odd but even pretentious, without some explanation for this usage. -- llywrch 19:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I hadn't noticed that. That's how Russians write what in English we'd just write as "No." (as an abbreviation for number) -- I've always thought it was a bit odd since there is no letter "N" in the Russian alphabet (the "N" sound is created by a "Н"). It probably means whoever put the text in was a Russian -- it can safely be rendered as text, I'm fairly sure (it means the same thing). --Fastfission 03:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Father of the Modern Sales Contest

Stakhanovism sounds the the beginning of the modern sales contest. Managers find someone to set an outrageously high target and then admonish everyone to aspire to it. As days dwindle and reality begins to rear its ugly head, those who doubted all along are silenced through terrorism or termination. As the final days arrive, salesmen reach ahead to push product into other's inventory and convert future sales into the sales contest, thereby increasing production through gimmicktry and at the expense of future productivity. At the close of the contest, mangement is not obliged to reward any increased productivity, because the target was not reached, and the organization purges itself of anyone who was smart enough to see how it would conclude, even blaming them for ruining the sales effort with their negative attitudes.

[edit] rewrite needed on last graph

the last paragraph of the main section is too repetitive of earlier material; can someone please delete redundancy and move the S. Movement reference to the first paragraph where it belongs? Coughinink 14:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Time - Stakhanov.jpg

Image:Time - Stakhanov.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)