Talk:Dacha

Article with a large proportion of propaganda against the Soviet Union and Russia. The author can inadvertently writes, but the impact it obviously europropagand

This article has elements of anti-Russian Propaganda. Surely this is due to a good brainwashing European citizen. In reality, the Russian Dacha - is primarily a country estate of urban residents to relax in the lap of nature, not the source of vegetables, even during the Soviet era. Both now and in the days of the Soviet Union grew vegetables in the dacha only as a hobby. Yes, grow vegetables, and who does not like to grow something with your own hands and then eat this eco-friendly product? )) In Europe is becoming fashionable environmentally-friendly food, and in Russia for 60 years, many urban residents in the summer as a hobby grow their eco-friendly products. Good submit bad - it is a tool of anti-Russian propaganda. Do not have a bath? But there is a summer shower in all dacha. Everything is there. Somewhere there is a banya - a Russian tradition.

swimming, walking, picnicking, teens learn about each other. Sunsets, sunrises. Romance.

Every weekend in the spring, summer, early fall. Some spend the dacha and winter days. (vegetables grown?))) Never had a dacha alternative resort. The Soviet people each year could well go to the sea, the mountains or the sanatorium, but dacha - is another. It's a way of life.It's part of everyday russian life

The article illustrates well the idea of ​​the European inhabitant of Russia as a country of poor people and the hard life. But in reality, if objectively, Russia - a country where 80% residents of apartment buildings have a country estate, where they were having a great time in the summer days, and someone and winter days. Which country is "rich Europe" 80% of the residents of apartment buildings have a rustic land with a house? ))) Russians is actually quite wealthy people, but he does not realize it,it is not surprising that the European people under the influence of an anti-Russian propaganda consciously or unconsciously trying to discredit the Russian life.

Some correctives should be made

1. Between "dacha" as a land given by tsar an dacha as a source of potato there was a period (approx. second half of 19 cent. and the beginning of 20 cent.) when dacha was summer vacation house (often leased, not posessed) for middle and upper-middle class. (For example, in Chekhov's Cherry garden, garden was chopped to build such dachas.)

2. Dachas in Soviet time as houses for officials, science and cultural figures appears in 1930s (or even 1920s) (in a well-known dachas place such as Nikolina Gora, Peredelkino, etc.). And that was NOT a potato field.

3. Don't be so focused on potato. I think that using of word "vegetables" are more correct (of course, most of them are potato, but also carrot, cabbage, sometimes onion or beet).

4. In 1960s-1970s dachniks are not only planting vegetables, but also fruit trees and bushes (apples, currants, cherries (in souther regions)) and some frame cultures (cucumbers, tomatoes sometimes paprika). Also norms and restrictions for buildings in dacha (e. g. size of the house limitations, second stage prohibitions) were slighly soften, so buildings on dachas were slightly growing, too.

5. Term May Day should be replaced with May holidays i. e. May Day (1st-2nd of May) and V-E day (9th of May).

6. Terms to go for potatoes and to go to fields can be used in sense named here only ironically. Really they were used to denote another activity: obligatory work of intellectuals (scientists, high school teachers (and students), clerks, also militia (police) and soldiers) on collective farms to crop vegetables. (M. Zadornov, the satirist, wrote that "kartoshka" is the time when farmers help scientists to crop potato.)

7. Another widespread term denoting dacha is "fazenda" (Russian: фазенда). It was adopted from soap opera Escrava Isaura (which was the first soap opera shown in the USSR). In Portuguese it means large farm, and russians used it for ironical nomination of their 600-square meters dachas.

8. I've never heard about such cellars (in Moscow). Really useful method for store sack of potato is on the balcony until outside temperature became negative, then near the balcony door (where the temperature is lower than in other places of flat. Of course, garages can be also used, but almost every of that time garages has no heating so they can't be used when temperature is really negative.

9. I have never heard phrase садоводческое общество. Really it is called садоводческое товарищество (Gardener's association).

10. When we wrote about post-Soviet dachas it's wrong to separate them into only two groups: oligarchs dachas (it is really their houses, not only summer houses) and dachas like the classic Soviet dachas are wrong. Because dachas are absolutely unprofitable for peoples who can go to dacha only on weekends and vacation (due to transport losses) i. e. for all full-time workers, 600m²-dachas (dachas of middle class especially) were used not for vegetables and fruits growing, but for pleasure. So, rows of vegetables are changed to lawn (very small and funny lawn with area like 35m²), flowers and other decorative plants; house is often enlarged or rebuilt with bricks or thick wood, so it can be used in May and September; and time for activities like planting, weeding and watering is diminished, but time for rest, sport, barbecue, or even celebration something with guests invited is increased.

You do know what you are talking about. Why not just add all this information to the article yourself? If someone disagrees with anything you add, they will surely let you know.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 01:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

A lot of this information is correct. I will be adding it. --GoOdCoNtEnT 22:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

""Because dachas are absolutely unprofitable for peoples who can go to dacha only on weekends and vacation (due to transport losses) i. e. for all full-time workers, 600m²-dachas (dachas of middle class especially) were used not for vegetables and fruits growing, but for pleasure.""

- Yes It is right for Moscow ad other big sities such as S.-Petersburg, Omsk amd others there the people ownes "Datcha" quite far from their sity flat (in 50 - 70 km outside the sity) but complettly wrong if we speak about small townes and countryside. In the last areas the "datscha" is located not far than in 10 km from the place there the family is normally living - so the transportation costs are very small even they are coming down till the "zero" if the people are using bicycles or even the "datcha" is located in such a small distance from the town flat to be reached on foot. Other reason that the people in provinces are stilling to use the "datcha" for agricultural production (potato, vegetables) that the wages level in the most of Russia exept Moscow and some big Cities is very low so if the people could produce some food (in fact that 600 - 1000 sq. m "Datscha" area could provide such patato and vegetables quantity which is enough to provide with food the family of 3 - 5 persones) for their own they could save a lot of money in order to buy clothes or industrial goods or for childre's education. So the using of "Datscha" for agricultural production is stilling actual in Russia today. Even more some people of small towns are renting some land araes (from farmers and kolective farms) of 400 - 1000 sq. m (4 - 10 "sotka", "sotka" means 100 sq. m) for agricultural seasons in order to produce potato for own consumption (not for sale as the price for potato in the season is extrimely low in countryside ad small towns). There a lot of farmers in Russia regions which are specialized in the business based on a such rent-operations.

// With greetings Alexey Silakow, 23 October 2006, 14.08 Moscow time.

"The annual process of potato harvesting (and sometimes planting) is a significant..." Don't you think that the phrase in parenthesises is unneeded since harvesting cannot be done without planting, also it's been discussed a paragraph before when it was about cultivating the soil. I suggest to remove it. Efenstor

Some more additions need

As said above, another synonym of dacha is the fazenda. But I'd like to add one more thing: приусадебное хозяйство, pri'usadebnoye khozyajstvo, better translation is near-manor farm - as contrasting for collective farms. There was the soviet magazine with such name.

And... I think, it's need to say about confrontation (or may be... local war) between 'dachniks' and villagers. In most cases villagers are hate them (first of all because of... envy)

pri'usadebnoye khozyajstvo is not a dacha. It's small private farm (some rows of vegetables, chickens, several goats, sheep, maybe cow) ownen by villagers. This term is sometimes associated with dachas only because the mentioned magazine (with articles about e. g. beekeeping) is an only (and very popular by this cause) source of information on agriculture for dacniks.--213.247.213.207 16:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

This page has to be corrected to become more neutral. At this point, this article uses false, and/or uncited information to overestimate the poverty in Russia.

Here are some examples that I found:

• Most dachas are ill-equipped, having no bathroom facilities and indoor plumbing systems.
  • That's right though. Saunas are not that widespread yet. 2.60.194.99 (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• Due to poverty and the lack of good equipment, even relatively large plots of ground are often cultivated manually using a spade or a hayfork.
  • I agree, this statement is wrong. The question is not about neutrality, but about little knowledge of the subject by the one who wrote that — the cause-effect relation is wrong. People use nothing but spades, rakes and pitchforks because even the largest dacha plots are too small for machinery and because having machinery is an overkill and too much of a hassle and expense for a gardening as some sort of rest. I'd shorten the statement to its second part: "even relatively large plots of ground are cultivated manually using a spade and a rake" 2.60.194.99 (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• Russians still prefer to grow vegetables themselves because of the excessive use of agrochemicals and low quality of the vegetables sold through markets and stores.
  • I've just corrected it. Irrespectively to actual use of chemicals in B2C vegetables, it's the hearsay of it, stirred up by sensationalist "yellow" press and especially shared by the old ladies, which is to blame. 2.60.194.99 (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Please change or at least cite this information. --GoOdCoNtEnT 21:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The naivery of the user is so funny that even sad. `'mikka (t) 07:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The neutrality warning was removed due to corrections. --GoOdCoNtEnT 16:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

False and confusing

This article has many false and confusing statements. Here are some:

• The word sotka (Russian: сотка) is commonly used to express the size of a lot on which dacha is built.
• The dacha plots (usually not more than 600 m²) are too small to grow the needed amount of vegetables.
• During summer, and especially the planting and the harvest seasons, elektrichkas are often so filled with dachniks that it becomes hard to breathe inside the cars and even the cars' sliding doors can hardly be closed.

Some of these statements also disturb the neutrality of this article.

Please correct those statements. --GoOdCoNtEnT 21:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The naivety of the user is so funny that even sad. `'mikka (t) 07:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I am talking about how funny itis you find everyday Russian life of most Russian population unbelievable. Believe me, the article is all truth (although not whole truth). But I agree it is bad that the article is unreferenced. `'mikka (t) 18:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I am Russian and I know a lot about the Russian life. However, some things are very exaggarated. The dacha plots aren't that small, many dachas do have bathroom facilities (although some rural ones do not), Russians prefer to grow vegetables as a hobby or because its cheaper rather because of the vegetables in the stores are of bad quality. Also, many Russians own tractors to plow a large portion of land. And wait, first the author said that "Russian dachas are very small" then he says that "Russians have to manually plow a huge piece of land." --GoOdCoNtEnT 00:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you to try and manually plow 600sq.m. You may start from 50 sq.m. `'mikka (t) 22:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong? It's hard, but doable. I've personally performed this excercise several times (50..200 sq.m.) and still alive. --jno 07:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you imagine a real tractor operating on 600m²? While 400..600m² is a normal size of soviet-times dacha lot (and, hence, nowaday too!). Well, motorized tools are becoming more common last years. But if you look outside the Moscow region, you may see even simpler dachas (of "saray" type) on manually handled land. Plus, "elektrichka" is often better than any car - just because of traffic jams in weekends. And I really cannot realize how these statements can disturb the neutrality... --jno 12:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

In some places of rural Russia, land is very cheap so people have very big areas for dachas. I am not arguing that elektrickas are not used; they are good method of transporation. However, I disagree that they are that crowded up. Sometimes, you have to stand instead of sit, but they tend to clear up fast. Then, the word sotka is used incorrectly in the context of this article. --GoOdCoNtEnT 02:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there were places with cheap land (relative to the income of those population), and some people could got a big pices of land (and even more could take some land just illegaly - quite common practice). I have personal experience of using elektrichka for 8 years (living in suburbs). I was lucky enough to live near depot and being able to get to an empty train. But I'd insist on the level of filling of that trains (they are not all electrically driven, btw) in peak time! Sometimes people was unable even to get out of the train at the stop they need... Of course, the "fill level" depends on the season (summer is the worst time), day of week (weekend is "peak time"), time of day (morning and evening are obviously "peak time" too). The word "sotka" is used to measure dacha size (I cannot estimate its relevancy). --jno 11:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I am removing the Neutrality warning from the page; but I will still edit the page a little to make it more balanced. --GoOdCoNtEnT 00:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Dacha Image

To GoOdCoNtEnT: I believe the image of "a typical Russian rural wooden dacha" that you posted in this article is not dacha but rather a typical peasant's house that can be seen in villages throughout European Russia. There are instances when people intentionally purchase houses in villages and use them as dachas. These however are isolated cases. I suggest this image be replaced with something more appropriate for its caption. 75.3.27.253 15:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I have added that fact to the page. I have also changed the caption for the image. --GoOdCoNtEnT 16:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, one may see my former dacha here :-)

Along with the whole set of another REAL dachas.

Well, these are my own photos, but building were not the objects of shot :-) --jno 14:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Conflicts?

Conflicts sometimes exist between villagers and dachnikis

Yes, they do. Just like conflicts between habitants of two neibour villages. Or between villagers and towners. Or whatever else... I aint sure we need this statement here. --jno 14:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they do. But they are still more frequent between temporary and permanent residents. The villagers believe that the dachnikis are "rich urban folk" and frequently dislike them for it. --GoOdCoNtEnT 15:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right. But I still not sure to list this condition in the article. This does not directly relate to "dacha" itself. Moreover, in case of "pure dacha village" (which is the rule!), there are just no villagers to conflict :-) --jno 16:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Such conflicts are hardly surprising. Just look at the controversy over "second home" ownership in some English villages ! 213.40.111.40 (talk) 12:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Some villages have been fully transformed into dacha settlements.

Never heard of that ever hapenning...unless a village consists of a couple of houses. Totally unsupported claim. 75.3.27.110 16:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it happens. Smaller villages have their residents either die and emigrate, and dachnikis buy the no-longer occupated houses from their relatives. The village from where my ancestors were from is now 90%+ seasonal residents. --GoOdCoNtEnT 17:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, there are reversal processes too: some old, well established dasha settelments are now occupied all over the year. Partly, at least. --jno 07:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You win this debate. Do the corrections as you wish. --GoOdCoNtEnT 15:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Done :-) --jno 08:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

What does "Sotka" means

My friends. The meaning of "sotka" is very simple. The word of "sotka" (Rus: "Сотка")is derivative of other Russian word of "Sotnya" (Rus: "Сотня") which means a hundred. So "sotka" is a hundred sq. m of area (1 sotka = 100 sq. m). A standard Datcha area is 6 "Sotka"s (Rus: "Шесть соток")which means 600 sq. m. So the Europian equivalent of "sotka" is Are. 1 "Sotka" = 1 Are = 100 sq. m.

//Alexey Silakov, 23 October 2006, 16:56 Moscow Time.

Sotjna

I thought Sotnja comes from old Russian military unit sotnjak, an unit of hundred men or from Cossack Cavalry Unit Sotnaja. What have old Russian measurement arshin (0.71 metre) have in Kolonnij Dacha place size and also in limiting the size of building in square arsinas (0.71 x 0.71 metre) in all Imperial Russian Statistics to equivalent size of 28 - 35 sq.metre.

This means 0.71 metres multipled by ten arshin is 71 metre lenght x 71 metre bread (or thinner in Arshins) with summer cottage of 35 sq.metre inside that area.

Strange Placement

That bit about the Dacha Band, does it really belong where it occurs? it really breaks the flow of the history section to have what appears to be a promo blurb for a not-so-well-known band appear. It doesn't fit in the place it appears, and, to be honest, seems to be given an exceptional prominence for what appears to me to be a relatively trivial detail. (Sorry if the Dacha Band is very well known to everyone but me and I am missing the historical import of this statement.) 128.164.107.161 17:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

To provide context for my post above:

The first dachas in Russia began to appear during the reign of Peter the Great. Initially they were small estates in the country, which were given to loyal vassals by the Tsar. In archaic Russian, the word dacha means something given.

Pioneering musicians from England have recently reclaimed the 'dacha' title. The Dacha Band are prolific musicians who create music as if it were a diary or a novel from their very own dacha in Leicestershire.

During the Age of Enlightenment, Russian aristocracy used their dachas for social and cultural gatherings, which were usually accompanied by masquerade balls and fireworks displays. The Industrial Revolution saw a rapid growth of the urban population and increasing desire of the urban residents to escape, at least temporarily, heavily polluted cities. By the end of the 19th century, the dacha became a favorite summer retreat for the upper and middle classes of the Russian society.

Does the Dacha Band really belong between Peter the Great and the Age of Enlightenment? And does it merit a paragraph of its own?

I would have figured it was simply a self-serving promo placed in the article by a band member, but it has survived several edits, so, apparently, others have not found a problem with it. But, even assuming they merit an entire paragraph, do they need to be mentioned in such a counterintuitive location?

128.164.107.161 17:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Decided to be conservative. I moved the Dacha Band to the end of the history section, where at least it makes sense. I leave it to others to decide if the Dacha Band is of historical import enough to be retained. (My knowledge of current music is insufficient to judge their merit.) At least the new location makes more sense and the Dacha Band paragraph does not break up the flow of the article as much as it did previously. (Still sounds a bit grandiose for a band of which I have never heard, but, as I said, others can judge that.) 128.164.107.161 18:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that the Dacha Band paragraph and link is clearly an example of (self-)promotion/advertising — a violation of the WP:NOT#SOAPBOX policy. Based on article history it looks like it was first introduced 9 April 2007 by User:Ambanbury whose sole contributions seem to revolve around the very same subject. I'm afraid, based on these findings I find myself compelled to remove the fragment in question. --jibun_{≈παντα ρει≈} (keskustele!) 04:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Go for potatoes is partly wrong

The expression "to go for potatoes" appeared in Soviet times when city office workers by order had to help collective farmers with harvesting . This was unpleasant but memorable. With the end of this practice "dachniki" started to use the phrase ironically, but now it's getting obsolete, because only actually 45+ people remember about it.

I agree. I've never heard the term myself, and I'm very involved in my family's dacha.

This article could use a lot of help

I think a non-Russian would get a really bad image of a dacha from this article. Transportation isn't as terrible as it appears, and neither is the dacha always so far away. It also seems like potatos are the main, if not only, thing that is grown. The dacha that I so happily call my second home grows many things, from lilies to pears to cats. And I strongly recommend that a gallery be put in this article, it would help tremendously.

Dacha / Datsha

A summer cottage = huvila of wealthy Petarers (St.Petersburgers / Pietarilaiset). Name was formed combining words Huvi (fun) and Villa (Casa) = Huvila. Most famous of datsha societies were formed in Finland north of Petar / Pietari after 1871 when SVR / FSJ railway from St.Petersburg - Riihimäki (- Helsinki) line was completed. When departured out of Finland Station in Viipurin puoli (Viborska Pole, Viborska Vorota, Vyborskij / Wiburg (Forstadt) of St.Petersburg the datsha societies started after Parkkala (Pargalovo), all the stations to Valkeasaari were huvilayhdyskunta, summer cottage societies. But the best ones were of course those located "abroad" ie. inside the territory of The Grand Duchy of Finland. Why "abroad"? Just because internal passport were needed to cross the "border" at Valkeasaari / Beloostrov station. Here the Petarers had to turn their watches to Chudohoi Time (Finskij Vrjemja) which run in Gelsingfors (Gelsingphors) / Helsingfors / Helsinki time, offically 21 minutes, but in practice 20 minutes, behind Petar time. When the train crossed the Siestarjoki (Rajajoki) bridge the Russians were "abroad" where people spoked totally different language and were not Russians. Even rouble was changed to local markka. (One gold mark was quarter of of one gold rouble, Tshervonetsi, equal to ten paper roubles). Of course roubles were accepted by local Karelian traders, but they added 10 per cent fee on it to cover their expensies. Most famous were Terijoki (Teri river, originated from Kuola Lapplandishe / Kola Lapporskij name Teri for Ranta / Beach) and its smaller copies Kellomäki (Bellhill) and Kuokkala (Mattockla) before church village Terijoki. Here the St.Petersburg nobelity celebrated their summers with parties and even dancings (banketti) at local yacht club (jahti klubi) or their own large datshas. They had their own segelbåt / purjevene / sail boat anchored in the yacht club small harbour. Later in 1891 - 1914 these datsha societies spread along the railway line toward Viipuri. Typical examples being Lounatjoki (South-Western River) and Kanneljärvi (Zitralake). Even Alexander III enjoyed mostly staying in Finland. He preferred his "Fisherman Cottage" at Langinkoski on the left bank of Kymijoki. The Tsar of all Russians returned suddenly to friendly neighbourgh of the locals fishing lax with them from the river. He felt to be in secure hands and conditions without any threats by anarkists bombs etc for his family. Many villas were named as Villa Rosa, Villa Angel, Villa Fun, Villa Doma, Villa Monrepos etc. One of the famoust ones was Räpinin Huvila at Kuokkala called simply Räpinilä by the locals who worked during summer times as servants, housekeepers, and women in citchen of noble huvilas. The nobles did not spoke Russian at all in normal conditions. They spoke French with their children and when meeting others of equal class. A detail, simply not known by young Russian historians. This type of summer life combining fun and summer living was the Datsha live and has not repeated in Russia since summer 1914. After October Revolution came small datshas where people gardened vegetables to increase their rationed foodstuff. But in Finnish side the original idea of original summer huvila is still living strong with nearly million of those, from small own summer cottage to near summer palatsi (Dvor / Hof) depending how much people have money to spend in their summer living in their second home outside cities and towns. One good example of real palatsi is Pietarhovi / Peterhof (Petergof / Petrodvorest) at Kaarosta in Ingermanland (Inkerinmaa) side on south side of Gulf of Finland (Suomenlahti), in Russian, Finskij Zaliv. Usually in the days before automobiles fathers went in the morning by their kiesis (rattailla), driven by local ajuri (horsedriver) to nearest railway station and by train to Petar. As an interesting detail of those days it may be worth of mentioning here that Crown Servants worked in their working places during winter time from 10 am to 2 pm, during summer time the opening hours in Crown Departments was limited to 10 am. - 1.00 pm from May 15 to September 31. Those who worked for the Crown took took, for example at Kuokkala, the Petar bound 7.44 am local train which arrived to Finlandija Voksal at 9.04 am. When completed their daily work in state officies or kontores and returned back to datsha in 3.40 pm local train to arrive to Kuokkala at 4.57 pm. They arrived back to their Dachas just in time to change clothes for dinner. The next to arrive to Kuokkala at 8.17. pm local on 7.06 pm out from Petar, theese loyal Crown Servants just arrived on evening hours to ready catered dinner table, served to the family by local (part time) servants who earned money of their summer jobs. After the good dinner they entered to "veranta" (Russian version of katettu parvi or uloke) meaning of covered balcony fitted with large glass windows, usually performing the view to West to the Gulf of Finland. The word veranta comes from Karelian dialect veen ranta (water shore) meaning view to the Terijoki famous sand beach. There the patron of the house lighted a good imported Cuban Havanna Cigar (sikaari) with class of French Gognac (konjakki) or Gruzy or Armenian Armanjak (armanjakki) from Caucasus and enjoyed to see the sun go down in Suomenlahti. One have to remember that out of 1.500.000 inhabitants in Petar 150.000 in 1914 were Finns, Ingermanlanders, and Estonians forming the largest non Russian minority in the City. And the adminstrave borders were quite different than they are today. There lived also Tatars (with Russificated names), Germans (published two daily newspapers in German language), French, Italians, Swedes, Englishmen (mostly living in Vassili Island). All had their own small kolonnij, but they owned datshas as well as the wealthy Russian Petares.

Sotka (Narsku) is the Finnish name of Aythya faligula. Thus, some datshas were called Sotkala, Narskula connected with shotgun hunting of these birds. Just couple of days ago quarter million shotguns were directed to sky in Finland. The hunting season had just begun in August in huvilas (datshas).

Thn Dacha post 1917 in Soviet Union was a mixture of Siirtolapuutarha and Kesähuvila. Kolonnij Garden. This idea started by private industrialists to provide for their employers in co-operation with City Adminstration a small 500 m2 piece of land for rent also to provide for the Working Class similar possibility to enjoy they summers in the own rented piece of garden. The City Adminstration limited the size of these Garden Cottages to 28 - 35 m2, and they were not allowed to be used in all around year bases. Only during "summer" period from First of April to the Last of October. This practice spread to all industrialized Russian towns usually on the edge of 25 versts of town center. Located so that they were easily reached after days work on Saturday and returning on Sunday evening to their rent "kasarma" in the City, this especially after founding large industrial enterprises like Nevskij, Putilov, Admiralty Shipyard etc. on the southern part of Petar below the Neevaa (Neva) River. The workers came mainly from Central Russia what ever that means in 1890 - 1914.

The place where I live was originally formed from old huvila society with large huvilas up to 300 m2 just seven km out of the City Center located nearby local railway station (walking distance). This (Summer) Villa Society dates from end of 1800 and early 1900s, but before the World War One. When taking my usual evening walk on the paths around, I can see reminiscencies of that period of Imperial Russia. The paths follows the Outern Fortress Belt, built by Imperial Russian Army in 1913 - 1916. There one can see remnats of kasemattis for field guns, exploded in cliffs, ammuniation magazines, and even the digged places with stone feets of wooden Barracks where the Chinese ie. Mantshu (Manchu) workers who built with locals these fortificated positions lived. The Manchus came from Harbin area in Manchuria.

There were even small Manchu societies in Petar and Moskova before 1914. Petar did not have Chinese Quarter, but Moskova did having it, as reminiscence of Mongol period of 1200´s. It is said that these Chinese traders bought the Gardening into Russia with their summer paviljogs and summer houses in paviljongs. So told my grand father, a third generation Finnish Petarer (born there in 1893), to me.

I have thought that jealously is the main Finno Ugrian sickness taking even "fishes out of water" but now I feel that this sickness is also common in Slavonic brotherhood when reading the part of Elité, the new generation of New Rich Russian people, who can afford to them some luxury after the Soviet era. Why not mention also that most of the Newricheres dvors are located in Karjalan Kannas (Karelskij Perjeshjeek), the area which belonged to Finland up to 1940 and 1941 - 1944. It is here where they have built their real summer houses which resembes new Fortresses (Kreposts) with all the security systems in the area. They follow just the historical path of Summer Villas in the area. But, that is not enough, when occupied in the newist Russian "land big deal" the best places in the Perekop, they next turner their attention again to Finland and bought numerous large summer houses from Saimaa lake area. Everyone in Finland know why they did so. But then they turned their attention toward Riviera to be equal with international high societies and then to Caribbean. After these "Newricher Class" followed the newly born Middle Class from Petar and Moskova which bought from Finland houses where they can live all a round the year in already built places. This development is still going on with even enlargening trend. They have there their new dachas in Finnish kesähuvilayhdyskunta, surrounded by their Finnish neighbourgs, and they can be sure they do not need any massive security systems to surround their property. The richest man in property in Republic of Finland and also the citizen of Finland is not Finnish but non - Russian Russian from Russian Federation who lives in Switzerland but have his summer house at Taipalsaari where he meets his "Russian" business partners who fly in Lappenranta with their private jets. The second richest man is a Finnish Jew who lives in London but who has his "summer cottage" in Finland etc. Such are the new Dacha owners.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.201.128 (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Stalin´s Dacha at Gagra

If one wants to make eyewitnesser´s inside look and detailed information of Uncle Joe´s or Father Sunshine´s luxury summer residence, called Dacha, in Gagra in Abhasia (Abkhasia) one must read the one and only known published describtion of it and how the Communist Elité spend their time in nearby state owned Guest Dachas by Arvo Poika Tuominen; Kremlin Kellot (Helsinki 1957). But unfortunately this book is never been transliterated in Russian language. Quite a story of Elité living in Soviet Union in 1931 - 1939. Arvo Poika (Son) Tuominen visited often there due his high rank position in the Communist Elité, only equaled by Otto Ville Kuusinen in hierachy of survived notable Finnish Communists in Soviet Russia / Soviet Union. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.171.7 (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Why were they allowed ?

Given that many Soviet and Eastern bloc cities experienced chronic housing shortages during the much of the communist era why did the authorities tolerate the widespread "ownership" of second homes ? While there may have been some advantages (from the authorities point of view) in having citizens spending much of their free time outside the cities rather than becoming involved in "undesirable" political activities surely it was all a tad "bourgeois" 213.40.111.40 (talk) 12:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Housing shortage in cities hardly could be solved by dacha ban. Also, Soviet power hardly ever fought against people's prosperity itself - at least not such a great wealth as a common dacha is - it just banned most private business and imported goods and maybe could not supply prosperity for everyone. And I don't think that dachas interferred undesired political activity - instead of such desired political activity as subbotniks and May Day demonstrations people could talk on politics where they hardly coud be heared. KonstKaras (talk) 08:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There was no residential shortage in rural area. One could easily exchange a room in a shared flat in central Moscow on a stand-alone house in a village some 30-50 km from the city.--Dojarca (talk) 03:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced

The discussed part of the article:

Most of dacha areas exist since the Soviet era and consist of large amount (hundreds and thousands) of small typical 600 square meters (0.15 acres) land plots and were initially designated only for recreation getaways of city dwellers and for growing little gardens, and were extremely popular because soviet people didn’t have an opportunity to buy land and build a house where they want, and had a lack of other opportunities to spend their time and money at all. There were legal size restrictions for dacha houses. They had to have not more than 25 m² (269.0 square feet) of living area and only one storey tall. That's why they usually had a tall roof of special form with a roof storey in it, which was considered by authorities as just a big garret or attic, not a second storey. Dacha houses built in late 1980s and later are significantly larger than older ones because legal size restrictions were liberalized, and new dacha areas became fields of relatively big houses on tiny land plots. Tracks inside dacha areas are unimproved (somewhere improved by crushed stone) and narrow (often about 6 m (20 ft) between fences), so two cars can hardly pass each other by. Now dacha areas located in good places tend to modernize and develop, others — degrade since the end of soviet era, but can be renovated and modernized later by new generation of owners.

And how do we know it is a correct description? - Altenmann >t 17:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The article is tagged as poorly referenced since 2008,

Tag says: "Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations". So you can help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

however user Vadim Kiev resists removal of unreferenced material

See WP:CITE#Dealing_with_unsourced_material: If an article is unreferenced, you can tag it with the "unreferenced" template. If something in text seems you to be doubtful, you should use the -citation needed- template, which will add an inline tag. (WP:CITE) Vadim Kiev (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The idea of high importance of references comes from scientific sphere. In not scientific articles like this, references are much less important, and such level of worries is unreasonable. If something really seems to you to be dubious, you can tag it with the "unreferenced" template. Then any user that wants to help you can insert for you a reference that proofs the words you doubt. Vadim Kiev (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

which appears to be personal opinion, since it contains grave misstatements.

What words seem to you to be "grave misstatements""? You still didn't answer the same question on your talk page. Vadim Kiev (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

This is against the basic wikipedia policies. I will not engage in discussion of its content, because it is pointless. References, please, and we will discuss whether the wikipedia text correctly summarizes them. Doing otherwise would mean engaging in disallowed original researh.

Original research rule was created to protect some scientific articles, which without that rule would be full of researches with controversial results and became a place of endless scientific polemics. Vadim Kiev (talk) 05:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

OR rules was craed to protect from dubious theories and opinions of wikipedians on all subjects. - Altenmann >t 17:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

For xample, there is a very interesting section about pre-1917 datchas for St.Peterburg in Finland, but unfortunately as it stands, it is useless for wikipedia: no references, required to verify the correctness of the content. - Altenmann >t 15:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Correct information is not useless, it is useful. The part you tried to delete is correct and nobody of about 60 000 viewers said anything against it. Vadim Kiev (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The inrotmation is dubious and misleading. If it is correct, prove it. YOuv'e got a message at your talk page from an admin already, if you don't agree with my reading of policies. - Altenmann >t 17:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Yet if something really seems to you to be dubious, you can tag it with the "unreferenced" template or write your doubts here. Vadim Kiev (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

the article is tagged since 2008.

I mean template after the words that you doubt. Vadim Kiev (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You know the rules. You must follow them, rathter than increase mess. - Altenmann >t 17:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no mess in the article. Vadim Kiev (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes - and the mess is being created by User:Vadim Kiev right now. Please remember that ALL claims of fctual statements must be cited - as such, the use of {{cn}} by Altenmann was vital - otherwise, all of the uncited text would need to be removed. Be careful about owning an article like this - this article is a poor example of what an article on this topic could be (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Go find a place where your young energy could be useful. Vadim Kiev (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

According to WP:CITE#Dealing_with_unsourced_material, "If a claim is doubtful but not harmful, use the template, which will add an inline tag, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time". It is my third opinion that there is currently no adequately referenced material for the section in question. I believe that it is possible to re-write parts of the section as long as adequate references are found. I have found some references at here http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Dacha or http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_07_28/Beware-of-the-Russian-dacha/ but I won't edit the article myself to avoid stepping on your toes. My third opinion on further editing: The text regarding the legal restrictions should definitely be removed if no adequate source is found. The general description of "Most of dacha areas ... time and money at all" and "Now dacha areas ... generation of owners." could be easily rewritten by finding more references. Panpanman (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect to a valid and thoughtful 3rd opinion, let me remind you that the whole article is tagged as unreferenced since 2008 and no attmpts to improve. 97% of the text is unreferenced, of which 40% are dubious (overgeneralized, unconsequent, false) statements. OK. I addded tags everywhere. Are you happy with the article now? - Altenmann >t 16:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Altenmann, thank you for adding the tags. It does highlight the problem to readers. As per WP:CITE#Dealing_with_unsourced_material, if a claim is doubtful but not harmful, a reference should be found within a reasonable period of time, or the claim should be removed (the 40% of the article which you (Altenmann) call dubious probably falls under this category). The (supposedly) 97% of unreferenced text should be either tagged appropriatley (thank you Altenmann for your contribution to this already) or a reference be found (which likely exists). To help with referencing, I've found a few sources you might find helpful: Dacha in Belarus, Russia and the Environment, The Bovine, The Russian Dacha Movement, Russia After the Fall — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panpanman (talk • contribs) 02:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The article have been attaked by Altenmann. Protect your content.

Editors are strongly discouraged from following Vadim Kiev's suggestions here. — PublicAmpers&(main account • talk • block) 17:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yesterday Altenmann who deleted lots of useful information in Wikipedia, attacked this article by inserting enormous quantity of tags and deleting interesting information. The guy is not adequate and acts like very young person. His revision#565206666 I have reverted, but be ready to protect your content in future. Use "Undo" links in "View hisory page". Vadim Kiev (talk) 08:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC) It looks like Altenmann did exactly what he was supposed to, AND what the 3O above suggested. Undoing those edits would therefore be inappropriate (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

25 m² of living area and only one storey

“ They had to have not more than 25 m² (269.0 square feet) of living area and only one storey tall. ” — user:Vadim Kiev

In which country and when? As a resident of Russia I can certify that it is utterly false with respect to Russian Federation and late USSR. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

With reference to my earlier 3O on this article and the behaviour of the current editors, I think it is time for all unreferenced material to be removed. Panpanman (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Popularity, size, and original purpose of dachas.

I have edited the following paragraph:

Dachas are very common in Russia, and are also widespread in most parts of the former Soviet Union and in some countries of the former Eastern Bloc. Surveys in 1993-1994 suggested that about 25% of Russian families living in large cities had dachas.[5] Most dachas are in colonies of dachas and garden plots near large cities. These clusters have existed since the Soviet era, and consist of numerous small, typically 600 square metres (0.15 acres), land plots.[6][7] They were initially intended only as recreation getaways of city dwellers and for the purpose of growing small gardens for food.[8]

I provided a reference and explanatory note for the typical size of a Soviet-era dacha, and removed spurious tags asking how common dachas are (answered in the very next sentence), and who originally intended the dachas for the stated purposes (the original builders, obviously). For some unexplained reason, my edits were immediately reverted by User:JesseRafe, who (based on his own words) seems to have some sort of grudge against me, and has been engaged in an edit war to prevent my cleaning up superfluous templates on a different article. If anyone has substantive objections to this edit let them discuss them here, not blindly revert and expect their reversions to stick. -- 76.15.128.174 (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

PS: User:FlightTime wrote in the edit summary "Sorry, YOU have the WP:BURDEN of discussion." This is a gross misrepresentation of WP:BURDEN, and of WP practice. An editor wishing to make a change does not have the burden of discussing it first. On the contrary, editors are encouraged to make whatever improvements they see fit, and it's up to anyone objecting to discuss it. WP:BURDEN simply does not say what FlightTime claims. It says that editors have the burden to "demonstrate verifiability by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". That is not at issue here, so bringing it up is a red herring, an attempt to give the false impression that WP policy backs up his position. This is not how a good Wikipedian behaves. -- 76.15.128.174 (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

There being no objection in more than two days, nor any explanation for why the content I added is unacceptable, I have restored it. Any objection should be made here and discussed before reverting. -- 76.15.128.174 (talk) 03:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

And, of course, it was reverted within one minute, by the same disruptive editor, who has still not deigned to express any actual opinion on the matter. -- 76.15.128.174 (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)