Talk:Russian Revolution/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Old talk

Well Bloody Sunday is marked as the 9th of October in the Julian calencer, when the change to the Gregorian occurs, Bloody Sunday is infact on the 22nd of October. Its confusing and quite abstract but I wouldnt let it worry you, the important facts remain in what happens unless it is in relation to a series of events that requires a chronological review i.e: "on the ..... XYZ happended.... followed by the ..... on the dd/mm/yy..." I really believe it is frivolous to worry about certain dates, I would be more worried about what information, and from whom? There are certain key timelines to look at but to examine the revolution in such a confined manner as chronology it takes the punch out of your point! - Rory

Which calendar is used here ? Gregorian or Julian ?

I sugest double dates plus a note about calendar problems. --Taw

---

Good idea -- both should be used, and a link to an explanation of the difference should be put in also. People can wonder why the October Revolution took place in November. -- Blain

---

The invention of the assmebly line is the most important event in the 20th century. Of course, rather than argue about this we could simply try stick to NPOV ;)

---

A serious question (well, I am serious about the Assembly Line) -- why Bolshevik and not Russian revolution? I know that the revolution affected a lot of non-Russians, but it also involved many non-Bolsheviks. What is at stake here? SR

---

The February revolution, in (of course) March. It was non-Bolshevik (although they took part): perhaps there should be links to "February Revolution" and "Bolshevik Revolution" or "October Revolution".

Tens of millions of non-Russians were of course affected by the Revolution(s), Civil War and subsequent Sovietisation, but until March 1917 the whole country was called the Russian Empire (excluding Finland and, I think, Poland), hence "Russian Revolution".

Inclkuding. Mikkalai 17:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PS. I prefer new-style dates only, with a note to deduct 13 days in the 20th century (12 in the 19th) for OS (1917 Nov. 7 - 13 = Oct. 25).

---

The the role of the provisional government and the duma also deserve some attention. After all, there was at least a chance for a russian democracy to develop. Anybody care to write some mor about this?

---

Comment on October Revolution: I see the outline is done. Where's the article? Ortolan88 19:32 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

---

I removed the following item:

• 1866-74 - The White Terror

Does anybody know what's this about in relation to Russia? Mikkalai 20:38, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is back, and links to a stub article about the French Revolution. I do not know what it refers to here. Molinari 00:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I cut the phrase: seized power from the Provisional Government that had been put in place by the liberals

Imprecise/undefined cliche "liberal" removed: e.g., Kerensky himself was eser (i.e., revolutionary), not liberal. The statement had its merits: in a sense it tried to say that the ProGov were neither monarchists nor radicals like bolsheviks, but it better be elaborated in the Russian Provisional Government, 1917 itself first. Mikkalai 00:45, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

---

"Many leftists claim that Stalin's model of socialism (also known as Stalinism) was closer to state capitalism than actual Marxist socialism."

A bit biased, are we?

Abdication

This sentence was inserted by an anon editor at the end of the article, after the bibliography: Nikolai signed a letter stating less than abdication. Can anyone confirmed that and, if yes, explain it in more detail? Andris 15:27, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

---

I think that had the Provisional Government been able to maintain stability and hold power, it may have put Russia on the faster track toward Western-style democracy.

However, even if the October Revolution would have reversed and the Provisional Government returned to power, there would still be a lot of variables. Democracy, after all, entails "what do the people want?" and if the Bolsheviks would have managed to get more people riled up with propaganda and perhaps some intimidation, then the elections to a Constituent Assembly might well have turned out in favor of the Bolsheviks rather than the less radical parties, and this Assembly would have probably made the revolution within the government and transformed it into what the Soviet Union became.

On the other hand, if the Russian elections to the Assembly would still have been in favor of the moderate-left parties, then it would have potentially put Bolsheviks out of a position to gain power altogether.

1912 strike

Removed as incorrect.

The foundation of the revolution was the 1912 Siberian goldfield strike, which led to over 500 women and children either killed or injured. Nicholas did not care whatsoever. Strikers wanted an 8-hour work day, more pay, and education for their children. No demands were met.

While this strike, put down by a massacre, deserves a separate article and an entry in the article about Russian revolutionary movement (is this the one?), it can hardly be the "foundation" of 1917 revolution. Mikkalai 17:16, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

St.Petersburg

"This second revolution was especially widesweeping, affected both urban areas and the countryside. While many notable historical events occurred in Moscow and St. Petersburg, there was also a broadbased movement in the rural areas as peasants seized and redistributed land." shouldn't it be Petrograd Dudtz 7/30/05 5:28 PM EST

User:Rickyrab's deletion of "non-English nonsense"

I noticed that the following non-English nonsense was deleted: "el == de las observaciones finales del == la revoluci�n rusa fue pensado para separarse a trav�s del mundo. [ [ Lenin ] ] y [ [ Trotsky ] ] dijo que la meta de [ [ socialismo ] ] en Rusia no ser�a observada sin el �xito del proletariado del mundo en otros pa�ses, e.g. fuera [ [ revoluci�n alemana ] ]. Sin embargo, hasta este d�a, esta edici�n est� conforme a opini�nes que est�n en conflicto sobre la historia comunista al lado de los varios grupos y partidos marxistas. Un cierto estado que era [ [ Stalin ] ] qui�n era el primer para rechazar m�s adelante esta idea, indicando eso [ [ socialismo en un pa�s|el socialismo era posible en un pa�s ] ]. Otros indican que esto era simplemente una excusa para que Stalin y sus seguidores empujen detr�s los aumentos democr�ticos ganados durante la revoluci�n y consoliden su dictadu"

The language appears to be Spanish, or some strain of that languauge. I think it means, to the best of my knowledge: "The == of the final observations of == the Russian revolution was pensado for (to?) seperate and traverse (?) the world. Lenin and Trotsky said that the meta of socialism in Russia was not observed without the exito of the global proletariat in other countries, e.g. as was the German revolution (the one in 1848, perhaps?). Without embargo, meeting that day, that edition conforms to opinions that are in conflict with all the Communist history with the lado of the various Marxist groups and parties. One cierto state that was Stalin when he was the first for rechazar most adelante this idea, indicating this socialism was possible in a country. Others indicate that simply an excuse for which Stalin and his secessors (?) employed(?) detros the winning democratic aumentos during the revolution and consolidated his dictatorship." 209.92.89.26 22:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC) How on target am I?

Seems like the passage I restored sounds a lot like that "non-English nonsense". Here it goes: "The Russian revolution was intended to spread across the world. Lenin and Trotsky said that the goal of socialism in Russia would not be realized without the success of the world proletariat in other countries, e.g. without German Revolution. However, till this day, this issue is subject to conflicting views on the communist history by various marxist groups and parties.

Some state that it was Stalin who was the first to later reject this idea, stating that socialism was possible in one country.

Others state that this was simply an excuse for Stalin and his followers to push back democratic gains won during the revolution and consolidate his bureaucratic dictatorship."

The confusion regarding Stalin's position on the issue stems from the fact that he, after Lenin's death in 1924, successfully used this argument of Lenin's to defeat his competitors within the party by accussing them of betraying Lenin and, therefore, the ideals of the October Revolution. He also had many of them executed during the great purge." Hmmmm.209.92.89.26 22:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Few comments

First off, I see both 'Tsar' and 'Czar' in this article, and I think we should try to decide on just one title. I know the proper transliteration of the Russian title is Tsar, but it's generally known in North Amercia (at least in my experience) as Czar.

Also, the beginning of the article seems a little anti-Tsarist to me. I'm not sure if the repeated use of the word dictatorship in relation to the Empire is necessary, but maybe that's just me =p

EDIT I forgot to sign this then, so Tev 07:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Go ahead. Be bold and try to fix it.  :) Wikibofh 14:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, if noone has any problem with it, I'll endeavour to change them all to Tsar, and see if I can make it a little more neutral =p Tev 03:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

---

The titles that are different are fine to me. Some of us need to learn the different ways. Keep them different to the benefit of these people. Thanks.--Mac Simms 17:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Causes

I can't really say this article is riddled with factual errors, but it is missing a LOT of important details. It doesn't appear to have any sourcing at all, so it's almost like someone's just assumed all the details in.

For instance, the first mention of the Duma says "State Duma (lower class of Russian parliament comprised of landowners, townspeople, industrial workers, and peasants)". 1) The Duma was not a lower house of parliament in anything but political theory, it was Russia's first experiment with a parliament. 2) Peasants and industrial workers were not even eligible to be elected to the Duma. It was comprised almost exlclusively of landowners and industrialists.

The second mention is even worse: "A new Provisional Government was formed, also called the Duma". The Provisional Government was not called the Duma. It was called, literally, "The Provisional Government", and it wasn't formed - it was several Duma members, led by Prince Lvov, who refused the move to dissolve. They were subsequently ratified as a provisional power when the Tsar abdicated.

This is some detailed criticism I started, but now I realise I'm just going to have to go to the effort of finding sources myself and rewriting things:

Under Economic, "Over fifteen million men joined the army, which left an insufficient number of workers in the factories and on the farms. The result was widespread shortages of food and materials."

1) Russia had always had more than enough peasants available for agriculture, (est. around 90-95 million in 1914) the problem was outdated, essentially medieval, agricultural methods. 2) Russia's conscription (why does the article imply soldiers 'joined' the army? there wasn't enough patriotism in the average peasant to care about distant wars) was very arbitrary, resulting in the conscription of skilled workers - like railroad and factory workers - which then deprived itself of the ability to transport food to cities.

The famine originates in bureacratic and economic failure, not military causes.

Under Social, "As a result, the government drafted new terms that gave the peasants set amounts of land to cultivate. However, the amount of land they were given was insufficient, thus mass riots broke out."

This is patently incorrect: the peasant riots ('unrest' or 'disturbances' are frequent descriptors) were over the issue of land ownership; that they still had to pay dues to what were usually noble landowners. The peasants weren't bothered about overcrowding - only economists who realised that overcrowding stunted agricultural output would have cared about that.

Under Social, "In addition, because more factory workers were needed, peasants moved out of the country and into the cities, which soon became overpopulated, and living conditions rapidly grew worse."

Populations in St Petersburg and Moscow actually dropped over the war. (Result of workers abandoning their jobs, plus conscription.) Overpopulation was a socal issue prior to the war; lack of food in the cities was the problem during the war.

Under Social, "By 1917, famine threatened many of the larger cities."

Famine didn't 'threaten', it was in full swing. The bread ration in St Petersburg at the end of 1917 was around 50 grams a day.

The Political section fails to mention entirely the revolutionary parties and the problems with the State Duma, and the disillusionment this would have caused about democracy. It also only skims over Bloody Sunday, which directly influenced the October Manifesto, which created the above expectations that democracy would be achieved.

TheShadowDawn 01:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Thanks for adding those details in. I needed them for a report. Keep up the good work!--Mac Simms 17:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Bloody Sunday?

I have changed Bloody Sunday to Bloody Friday on the article. According to my text book, the killings of the peasents occured on a Friday, not Sunday. Thanks for noticing.--Mac Simms 18:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

This is because they were not on the Julian Calendar. By the Gregorian Calendar: it was a Sunday. In disputes like these, historians go with the Calendar used by the country at the time the event occurred. Included with the date is usually some sort of mark that indicates what system of time the event occurred. I think in this case the mark would be "O.S." for "old style".

Someone feel free to correct me if I am wrong on this.

--150.135.181.12 19:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right; and it will always be known as Bloody Sunday, as is is indeed in this article in spite of the above, White Guard 01:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Independent Review

Source. The review is not that friendly towards this article. I'll copy the relevant part below and hopefully we can address the problems.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

"The entry on the Russian Revolution reads like the work of a second-rate undergraduate student. It raises an issue because Wikipedia is used by a lot of people as a basic source of information, but this is bland, simplistic and misleading. To say the Russian Revolution was "a political movement" is an odd statement; it was a series of movements and chaotic social disturbances. Wikipedia states "Widespread inflation and famine" contributed to the famine, which is misleading. Russia was a fast-growing but new industrial power. There was no widespread famine between 1914 and 1917 in Russia; the food supply problems were not because of food production. Russia was exporting vast amounts of food. To say "peasants still resented paying redemption payments to noble landowners" is inaccurate, they made the payments to the state. Their goal was not to secure "ownership of the land" but the desire for communal tender of the land. Peasants had freedom of movement, whereas this piece suggests that Russia was stagnant and feudal. It is a simplistic account." - Orlando Figes, professor of history at Birkbeck College, University of London

I've corrected the more concrete factual points that he disputes. Babajobu 04:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Corrected more of the flaws in the economic section of the artilce. 146.115.71.14 07:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism.

I realised that there were people who labelled the Russian Revolution as a "revolution for gays", and WWI as a "war of gays". I have since reverted the article, but is there any way to find out who is the culprit?

Amy 10:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If you click on the "history" tab, you can compare different versions and see who added what. This can be useful to make sure that you have removed all the vandalism a user has put in. For more on vandal fighting, see the Recent changes patrol. Mak (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The term Russian Revolution is incorrect

The Bolshievik Revolution is correct. As many of you know it is refered to as the Russian Revolution, but the term is not really non-academic in origins. 69.196.164.190

R.E The term Russian Revolution is incorrect

I beileve the official term for the 2 revolutions IS the Russian Revolution. The first revolution has always been known as the "February Revolution", and the second has always been known as the "October Revolution". The term Bolshevik revolution is probably a later term used for the events. Leon Trotsky and Lenin after the revolution referred to the "February" and "October" revolutions. The 2nd revolution indeed was carried out by the Bolsheviks but the historical term for it is the "October Revolution".

R.Taylor - August 6th 2006 11:20pm

One interesting thing about the names of wars is taking into consideration the people on either side. For example, the American Civil War is known to some in the South as the "War of Northern Aggression." Needless to say, the South lost the war. Don't get me wrong, I agree with but just wanted to point out that they can be called different things depending on the person's POV.

Wikiman2009 March 21, 2007 7:36 pm

question

May I know, who led the February Revolution?

It was spontanous... there was no one leading it. That's why it makes it so fascinating.

-G

Merge to/from Timeline of The Russian Revolution

It has been suggested that Timeline of The Russian Revolution be merged into this article. It seems to me that the idea of having one historical topic entry, and another separate timeline of the same topic, is a good clear division. Therefore I propose merging the other way around — merging anything useful from the small timeline in this article into Timeline of The Russian Revolution. If there aren't any objections, I shall get to work.

Jameshfisher 19:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Historical and Political Bias

I am deeply concerned by some of the assertions and interpretations in this article, which I consider to be politically biased. The suggestion that Nicholas was responsible for Bloody Sunday is ludicrous: he wasn't even in St. Petersburg at the time, and those who believe the Bolshevik coup to be 'near bloodless' might care to look beyond the capital to events elsewhere; to Moscow, in particular. Let us be absolutely clear about one thing: there were two major political events in Russia in 1917-the Revolution in February and the Bolshevik coup in October. Bolshevism was a conspiracy against democracy by a minority of determined activists. The true extent of Russian feeling was made known in the elections for the Constituent Assembly, dismissed almost as soon as it had gathered. Bolshevism was dictatorship from the outset; and to try to blame Stalin for the perversion of 'Soviet democracy' is ludicrous; he was simply building on Lenin's legacy. White Guard 00:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You sir are biased, with your opinionated claims on the building of "Lenin's legacy". That cannot be objectively proven, nor can the the claim that it was a conspiracy againt democracy. The bolsheviks offshooted off the social democrats. Now, certainly the word democrat has to be in there for something? What distinguished the bolsheviks the most was their methods, which called for more forceful and active measures, rather than the slow approach of others who wished a political change through many years. The latter, of course, was seen as not very dependable and indeed the chance existed that it could not occur at all. That is why the bolsheviks adopted their methods; because they thought the burgeoisie would never give up the reins of power voluntarily. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.17.210.145 (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

-Both of these statements are examples of bias. What is impressive about the article itself (at least at this moment, for it changes all the time) is the relative lack of bias. The article is neither anti-communist nor apologist, but attempts to describe events factually as possible and to reflect the most balanced interpretations by historians. It can still be improved, but the effort to continue to avoid political bias is essential.--Peshkov 02:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Lenin, Stalin, and 'the distortion'

I would suggest that if people wish to interject POV in the article such as "Lenin's distortion of Marx" into the article, they do so with citations and not independent research and or popular opinion.

In response to the obviously billgergant post above, I would like to add that throwing around ideological termenology does not constitute good arguements. What exactly constitutes a "perversion" in your subjective little world Mr.White Guard, and I ask the same question of the article? Is it based on what you -feel- Marxism should be, or what infact you have read?

Clearly a Marxist understanding of 1917 will be a lot different than a liberal revisionist distortion. With that in mind, I have made edits in an attempt to keep in non-POV. 66.227.111.238 19:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Fun_ender

Just to elaborate my comments, the following is the passage from the article: The October Revolution was led by Vladimir Lenin and was based upon Lenin's writing on the ideas of Karl Marx, a politcal ideology often known as Marxism-Leninism. This sentence seems fine. It is factual that Marxism-Leninism in identified with the writing of Lenin. It marked the beginning of the spread of communism in the twentieth century. Correct, but -what- did? The writing? Lenin? The ComIntern? It was far less sporadic than the revolution of February and came about as the result of deliberate planning and coordinated activity to that end. I think that the notion that that the February Revolution was a 'sporadic' (i.e. liberal key-word for 'free' and 'democractic') is a bit off. The Social Revolutions and Menshiviks played a strong agitational role. Though Lenin was the leader of the Bolshevik Party, it has been argued that, seeing as Lenin wasn't present during the actual take over of the Winter Palace, it was really Trotsky's organisation and direction that led the revolution, spurred by the motivation Lenin instigated within his party. Not sure what this is saying. A) Trotsky was the Chair of the Central Committee of the Petrograd Soviets, and was also a outspoken member of the Bolshevik Party (after he joined in Sept, i think it is, after he left the Mensheviks). B) What was Lenin's -post-, it wasn't "leader". The financial and logistical assistance of German intelligence via their key agent, Alexander Parvus was a key component as well. Of what? Citation? Who was Alexander Parvus? I think including here that the Bosheviks called for all power to the soviets, in opposistion to the provisional govenments move to liquidate them is important. Also, that the Bolsheviks, once a minority in the soviets, were a immense majority by Nov.

On November 7, 1917, Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin led his leftist revolutionaries in a revolt against the ineffective Provisional Government (Russia was still using the Julian Calendar at the time, so period references show an October 25 date). Ok, first 'leftist' is way too subjective to include in the article without a point of refence. Also, calling the provisional government 'ineffective' is really ambiguous - why were they ineffective? ineffective against -what-? The October Revolution ended the phase of the revolution instigated in February, replacing Russia's short-lived provisional government with a Soviet one. Although many Bolsheviks supported a soviet democracy, the 'reform from above' model gained definitive power when Lenin died and Stalin gained control of the USSR. Trotsky and his supporters, as well as a number of other democratically-minded communists, were persecuted and eventually imprisoned or killed. I think this last part mostly works, though it could be largely expanded. Trotsky was exhiled and then assasinated, not imprisioned and killed. 'reform from above' is not really a term that is widely used, I would suggest replacing it with: But a bureacracy quickly rose as matieral scarcity gripped the Soviet State following the 2.5 million deaths in WW1, the Civil War lead by the White Tsarist Armies, the failure of Socialist Revolution in Germany, and a 19 country blockade. To the justify the bureacracy, it's representative, Stalin, eventually turned against the international prespective of the Bolshevik party of Lenin and Trotsky, and argued for 'socialism in one country'.

After October 1917, many SR's (members of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party) and Russian Anarchists opposed the Bolsheviks through the soviets. When this failed, they revolted in a series of events calling for "a third revolution." The most notable instances were the Tambov rebellion, 1919 - 1921, and the Kronstadt rebellion in March 1921. These movements, which made a wide range of demands and lacked effective coordination, were eventually crushed during the Civil War. I think it would be better to stress in this section that the SRs and Anarchists were unable to oppose the Bolsheviks in the -soviet democracy- and thus turned to sabtoage, terrorism, and counter-revolutionary alliances with the exhiled White Army. 66.227.111.238 19:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Fun_ender

Response to the above

My remarks in the section headed Historical and Political Bias were meant to highlight just that, not to throw around 'ideological termenology' (sic). Good argument is based on a proper understanding of the historical facts, which should always be viewed with objectivity and detachment; your own 'arguement'(sic) is clearly of the Marxist variety, and I cannot think of any school of thought more guaranteed to distort the truth than that. I will tell you what in my view what constitutes a 'perversion'-the concept of 'Soviet democracy', little more than a contradiction in terms. I would not willingly commend any Marxist, but I have to say that by far the best analysis of the real trends behind Leninism was written by Trotsky not long after the break of 1903. In his view it was a process of ever decreasing circles-the party substituted for the people; the central committee substituted for the party; a small inner politbureau subsitituted for the central committee; and the rule of one man substituted for the politbureau. All power to the Soviets in pratice meant all power to the Bolshevik Party, which meant all power to the Council of Peoples Commissars, which meant all power to Lenin and, in the end, all power to Stalin.

I am sorry if you do not like my 'billgergant' (sic) and 'subjective' view, but I am afraid that you will just have to tolerate it. That is the price of true democracy. White Guard 23:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Response to the above

While I will agree your remarks were meant to highlight the bias in the article, yours comments were made in an attempt to -further- rewrite historical fact.

First you claim that history should be "viewed with objectivity and detachment", yet you advance an interpretation of history which clearly has a political agenda: to make a feeble attempt to paint revolutionary politics - i.e. communism - as some 'evil' corrupting distortion of some anachronistic 'mild-mannered Marx', and at the same time to make an apologia for the ruthless capitalist class and their political parties of racism and war.

Next you state that 'Soviet democracy' is a 'perversion' of Marxism? How so? The Soviets, being the political organs of the working-class, -elected- Bolsheviks! How do you explain in your concept of a 'coup' that the Bolshevik party in the democratically organized Soviets, which were organically formed out of the wake of 1905 and Feb. 1917, constituted a -majority-? How do you explain in your 'coup' that the military did not entirely split until -after- Kornilov was defeated by armed workers and peasants? What is so unbearable, as is the case for most liberals and their arguments about 'democracy', is the fact that the Soviet Union was the dictatorship of the proletariat. If you are not familiar with the term, I suggest you read up on what Marx and Engels said about it: 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Civil War in France, Socialism Utopian and Scientific -- all are good reads.

Actually, all power to the soviets meant all power to the working class and their political party: the Bolsheviks.

You keep using the term democracy like there is some pure platonic 'form' of it. The origins of 'democracy' are as bloody and oppressive as any other political form of capitalism. Oh, and here is a great place to get a price check (read: reality check) on your 'true' democracy.

66.227.111.238 16:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Fun_ender

---

Re: All the above stuff

I believe there to be some excellent points here in this discourse, and that perhaps some serious edits are in order for this article. Fun_ender has brought up some points which I do believe to be symptomatic of a lot of the articles on “revolutionary politics”. Namely that they slander the concepts and history and portray it as “viewed with objectivity and detachment”, when its simply is not true.

I believe that there may be some use for a “criticisms” section on some of these articles where the biased language could be moved if it saves us the headache of an edit war. Also, citations uber alles.

I say Fun_ender go cautious ahead with his purposed edits. Especially the language describing the outcome and demise of Trotsky, as that is just blatantly misleading and incorrect; and the section concerning the rise of Stalin and “reform from above”, as his explanation obviously coveys more pertinent information on the circumstances of the time/event and is historically accurate to my knowledge. Or if White Guard has specific objections id be curious to hear them.

And please, people... although political beliefs may differ amongst us, in this medium specifically, we should attempt to remain focused on the importance of the project, and respect each other where due (cordial at the least). Please remember to conduct arguments logically and not resort to ridiculousness . ._-zro 19:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Distortion and Misinformation-continution of the above.

Thank you Zro for taking an interest in this debate. Since I raised the question of bias in the first place I think I have to make my position a little clearer, prior to making a further response to the additional points raised by Fun_ender.

The first thing I would say about this article-aside from the question of bias-is that it is horribly written; parts of it read like a bad translation from a foreign language. Setting that aside, here are the specific issues which I challenge;

1. The Russian Revolution did not establish 'Soviet power.' I am surprised that nobody has picked up on this obvious Communist bias. The Soviets may originally have represented organised labour, but they were soon dominated, and undermined, by Marxist agitators, few of whom had any working-clss credentials (think of Trotsky). After the Bolshevik coup in October the Soviets became little more than a rubber stamp for the actions of the Council of Commissars. The true future of the 'Soviet' state was made plain in January 1918, when the Bolsheviks dismissed the Constituent Assembly, simply because they were in the minority. This is the beginning of the dicatatorship of the Communist party-not the 'proletariat'-and the eventual dictatorship of a single individual, first the loathsome Lenin and then the even more loathsome Stalin. (Oops, sorry; POV-it just slipped in).

2. "The people of Russia resented the autocracy of Nicholas II". Oh, yes; and on what authority is this contention based? In fact the Tsar and his predecesors were widely popular with the ordinary people of Russia, particularly the peasantry, so much so that when the first professional revolutionaries appeared in the Russian countryside in the 1870s and 80s they were chased away; and some were even murdered. In 1914 the government of Tsar Nicholas was as popular as ever; it took the war to destroy it.

3. Look at the section on the Economic causes of the Revolution: they make no sense. How can Russian agriculture be both backward and exporting a surplus to other parts of the world? Working conditions in Russian factories were generally no worse than elsewhere in Europe, so why did they become a cause of revolution?

4. What evidence is there that recruits to the Russian army in 1914 went unwillingly? Initially the Great War was greated with the same mass enthusiasm as elsewhere in Europe. Again what evidence is there of widespread dissatisfaction with the autocracy? It is nonsense to say that this "culminated in Bloody Sunday." The people on Gapon's march to the Winter Palce came to lay their grievances before the Tsar in age-old fashion. He wasn't there and the local commanders responded to the crowds in a panicked over-reaction. There is, nevertheless, no connection between the events of 1905 and 1917. The upheavals of the latter year were caused specifically by failure in war and severe domestic shortages.

5. To say that Nicholas went to war to 'distract the people' from their personal problems is, quite frankly, rubbish. By 1914 most of the difficulties arising from 1905 had been successfully overcome.

6. The section on the October Revolution is, by far, the worst part of the whole page, biased and inaccurate. Again I return to the point I made above: the October coup established a Bolshevik dicatatorship; the dictatorship, that is, of professional political subversives, mostly middle-class in origin, like Lenin himself (who was, incidentally, present in Petrograd at the time). What is Soviet democracy? Having raised a question Stalin style, so to speak, let me answer in the same style: it was the exclusion from representative politics of all who took a contrary view to the Bolsheviks, sometimes by sending them to concentration camps, and sometimes by murder. Amongst other measures, Lenin authorised the execution of children. The SRs and the Anarchists did not fail in their opposition to the Bolsheviks in the Soviets by any legitimate democratic process; they went the same way as all other opponents of Lenin. Stalin was not an aberration of Bolshevism; he was the quintessance of Leninism as it had developed since 1903, in all its murderous intolerance.

These are the main points of fact with which I take issue; now for the political accusations made aginst me. Fun-ender is a Marxist, that much is obvious. I am not. More to the point, I despise all forms of Communism as a monsterous perversion of the human spirit; yes, evil, if you prefer. I am therefore completly baffled by the allegation that I see Communism as a "corrupting distortion" of "some anachronistic mild-mannered Marx." Leninism is bastard Marxism, just as Marxism is bastard Hegelianism. All are forms of historicism, and all equally malevolent. I say nothing about capitalism in my critique of this article; so again, I have no idea where this is coming from.

I do not say that 'Soviet democracy' is a perversion of Marxism; I do say that it is a perversion of democracy. Whatever democracy there was in the Soviets-and these by no means represented the Russian people as a whole-was undermined by the Bolsheviks, who used the ideological nonsense of the 'dicatatorship of the proletariat' to establish their own bloody dictatorship, proped up by the Cheka and its ghasly successors. I can assure you I am very familar with both the theory and practice of Communism in all its murderous forms. The Bolsheviks were the party of the working class? Says who? Why, the Bolsheviks, of course.

Finally, I thank God for my own 'bloody and oppressive' forms of democracy, and that I have never had to experience the Soviet kind in any of its forms, from Lenin to Pol Pot. White Guard 01:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Continued remarks on the above:

”Lenin authorized the execution of children. The SRs and the Anarchists did not fail in their opposition to the Bolsheviks in the Soviets by any legitimate democratic process; they went the same way as all other opponents of Lenin. Stalin was not an aberration of Bolshevism; he was the quintessance of Leninism as it had developed since 1903, in all its murderous intolerance.”

Where is your source that "Lenin authorized the execution of children"? This is outrageous slander.

You keep on feebly reiterating that Stalin is not an aberration of Bolshevism, yet you have demonstrated not one causal relationship. Contrary to this, I have repeatedly stated that Stalin's program of "Socialism in one country" and heavy handed bureaucratic rule were contrary to Lenin, who openly called for international revolution and made constant appeals to the working class to take power into its own hands. Trotsky further went on to criticize the Stalinist bureaucracy, but also continued to defend the gains of the October Revolution (least of all a collectivized property and a planned economy). My statements are not bias. They are reasonable generalizations from the writings of Lenin and Trotsky as well as their actions as leaders of the revolution. (see: Revolution Betrayed)

“These are the main points of fact with which I take issue; now for the political accusations made aginst me. Fun-ender is a Marxist, that much is obvious. I am not. More to the point, I despise all forms of Communism as a monsterous perversion of the human spirit; yes, evil, if you prefer. I am therefore completly baffled by the allegation that I see Communism as a "corrupting distortion" of "some anachronistic mild-mannered Marx." Leninism is bastard Marxism, just as Marxism is bastard Hegelianism. All are forms of historicism, and all equally malevolent. I say nothing about capitalism in my critique of this article; so again, I have no idea where this is coming from.”

I think we can all see clearly where White Guard argues from. Contrary to his/her position, I do not cling to childish metaphysics of 'good' and 'bad' nor do I believe that such terms have any place in history. I encourage White Guard to expound upon his views on the 'human soul' in a blog, but this comments section is to be used for discussing the historical -facts- of the Russian Revolution of 1917. These facts must necessarily come from a -concrete- understanding. Perhaps I can offer an example: What if, in the Encyclopedia Britannica one were to look up Marxism and it stated: "Noun. Evil, soul-crushing, against the human spirit (see: Christianity), the work of the devil." Clearly this is inadequate.

By White Guard’s generous conception of the development of Marxism as a serious of 'bastardization' or ‘monsterous [sic] perversion’, it would seem, following his logic, we are left in a situation where any critique, any expansion, any development of theory is merely a 'bastardization'. Explain White Guard: what is the difference between a distortion/bastardization/monstrous perversion of a theory, and one that you simply –morally- oppose?

66.227.111.238 16:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Fun_ender

I have made some additions to this article in order to create a more useful, less POV, and more scholarly article (I am a historian of Russia by trade). I have not, however, deleted very much, so there are still problems and perhaps redundancies. I may return to this later, but welcome further work by knowledgeable authors without a political axe to grind. Peshkov 17:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit Lock Needed

This article is excessively POV, controversial, and kind of badly formatted. Looking over the above debate, it looks like absolutely no one knowledgable on the issue is willing to take a neutural, non-POV point of view. White Guard, especially, is taking a amazingly reactionary, opinionated, knee-jerk approach to the whole thing. These kinds of articles are really disgraceful to wikipedia as a whole. A mod should really edit-lock this.

EDIT: Ha, the Independent hit the nail right on the head, but maybe wasn't hard enough. If I ever turned in anything so reactionary and propagandistic to a history prof, it would be a garenteed failure. This article, and some of the comments on the talk page, look like the rantings of a mentally unbalanced shut in. One thing that seriously needs to be addressed is how many of the issues discussed probably would be important to modern Europeans (ie views towards political representation and democracy) but certainly weren't considered god-given before the second half of the century. It really strikes me as a modernizing rewrite. - Kyle543 05:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I personally have added nothing to this page, nor have I taken anything away, merely flagged up my objections to the obvious and profound historical bias. My recent actions have been confined to reversing puerile vandalism, on which the record is clear. I personally welcome any debate on a point by point basis, and can assure both of the above that I have a more detailed knowledge of the course of twentieth century Russian history than can be conceived of by their rather limited intellects, despite my "reactionary, opinionated, knee-jerk approach", and my "mentally unbalanced" rantings. Wonderful! This could have been lifted straight out of Pravda circa 1937! I have always known that those incapable of serious debate are invariably reduced to meaningless insults, and are almost always unmaned by their spluttering rage. Thank you for providing due confirmation. Please be assured that I am immune to all insults and personal attacks of this nature. 'Shoot the mad dogs!' White Guard 07:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that White Guard has seemingly become increasingly reactionary, biased, POV, and arrogant about all this, and probably shouldn't be in charge of any mass reformatting/reworking of this article. (no offense, but obviously if you think something is 'evil' you probably can't be very NPOV about it.) I do not, however see how Fun-ender is a 'bias Marxist'. His information and complaints seem both reasonable, and historically factual as far as my research/understanding. If perhaps a few more people could weight in on this I think it may hasten the much over due reworking. ._-zro 20:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

White Guard, I love debate, but this is an encyclopedia article. This just isn't the place. Frankly, when I use Wikipedia, nine times out of ten, I'm just double-checking dates. The other times I'm looking for broad, general outlines of certain issues presented in a unbias way, mainly so I can get a feel for the topic.

Now, this article reeks of bad. I assume you contributed to that because you've dominated the talk page with lengthy and enraged essays. I suppose I should have checked the editing history; my mistake. Nevertheless, the talk page should be restricted to discussions about the actual make up of the article, not lengthy debates on one's own opinions, which is nothing more than spam.

This is not Hyde Park, or your pulpit. You have the whole rest of the internet for debates, no need to crowd out the discussion page of an article seriously in need of help.

But I do find it funny that you would accuse me of being a commie. - Kyle543 15:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I would benefit from someone doing this... maybe someone else would too

I dont know much about the russian revolution... i am trying to learn about it but i am far too busy to read the whole article. would someone please try to make a small summary of this for me?

More vandalism

Some subtle vandalism in the "World War I" section seems to have gone unnoticed for some time, and should probably be reverted back to its original state. I'm not sure how to do this (without reverting the whole article),so I'm just putting that out there for anyone more ambitious/knowledgeable.

Thank you for flagging this up. I've now made the corrections. White Guard 22:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Conflicting evidence

According to, 'Modern Warfare 2 (awesome game)' World History (ISBN 0-435-30830-0) the Winter Palace was captured at 0200 hours on the 7/11/17 rather than the 25/10/17 that is stated here on Wikipedia. I will replace the current information if there are no objections as the information here is not cited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oliverwk (talk • contribs).

However, according to A History of Russia - 7th Edition (ISBN-13: 978-0-19-515394-1) by Nicholas V. Riasanovsky, Professor of Russian History Emeritus, University of California (Berkeley) as well as most other history books the storming of the Winter Palace did indeed occur the night of 24-25 October (Julian/Old style) / 7-8 November (Gregorian/New style) 1917. The Wikipedia 25/10/17 entry is correct. Федоров (talk) 05:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see old style. —xyzzy_n 15:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The dates in this article need to be either standardized (to either Julian or Gregorian dates) or identified clearly (as Gregorian or Julian calendar dates). EDIT: By the way, I'm talking about the ones within the body of the article, not in the timeline at the end. --V2Blast 04:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Expansion Needed

This is a major topic. I wonder why this page is so short.

Its wierd, but there is also separate articles for the february and october revolution. So what is the purpose of this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.17.210.145 (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Citing Sources

I would like to take some time to modify the way that the sources are cited in this article since they are somewhat inconsistent and scattered. I plan to keep a similar format for the article but with full and consistent citations for all sources that are used in the References section and the comments on sources used in the Notes section. This will organize the citation information much better. If anyone has any comments or objections, please let me know. TheVault 18:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Expansion

Seriously; The Soviet Union fell almost 18 years ago; surely we have more information on this.

The Russian Revolution effected, most importantly, Asian interaction with the Western world, forever changing it. We should do more for this article. Saint yondo 03:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you Saint yondo, but the aricle also needs some structural cleanup as well as more concise citations (see above) as well as expansions. Your help would be greatly appreciated in improving this aritcle. TheVault 01:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Czar/Tsar?

There seems to be some dispute over the nomenclature - should we use Czar, or Tsar? Essentially, they're the same thing. I think since on Wikipedia "Czar" and "Tzar" all redirect to Tsar, we should use that. Correct me if I'm wrong. And Yes, I DO know either way is proper.Saint yondo 12:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• One measure is that almost all professional historians of Russia in the US and scholarly presses that publish about Russia prefer tsar. This is also the official Library of Congress transliteration from Russian. Peshkov 14:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In the UK Tsar is the accepted transliteration as well86.137.150.39 (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)DH

This current has Tsar, Czar, and Tzar all in the first paragraph! 192.43.227.18 (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Missing literature

I was researching something for a project that i am doing, interpreting the metaphors of "Animal Farm". I noticed that Animal Farm was not listed under the Pertaining Lititure section. This really ought to be added in. 67.142.130.39 02:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)DAVID

Animal Farm is not necessarily pertinent literature because it is about communism as a whole and not the Russian Revolution of 1917, a specific communist revolution. --Mike 00:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, According to an foreword in my copy of Animal farm (One of the more recently published ones), it mentions that George Orwell wrote the book to satirize communist revolutions, but more specifically the Russian Revolution.

TheVaultDweller (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This book "Animal Farm" has been used and abused for many years and in many ways. It is something remarkable the strong debate around it. I think that "Animal Farm" refers mostly to the Russian Revolution, not to any "communist" or socialist revolution around the world, even when there are several points in common in many countries where totalitarianism has gained space. But "Animal Farm" refers rather to Stalinism than the Soviet October Revolution from its very beginning. The very reference to the old leader, really worried about poverty, misery and exploitation who died too early (Lenin) the other fighter from the old guard which faced the enemy in the hardest moments of the Revolution itself and later during the invasion from outsiders (Trotsky) and the seize of power in a tyrannical and totalitarian way by another one (Stalin) is quite clear. And I would like to add two more subjects for this topic: the origin of Orwell and his probable membership into the British security system (somebody may write its proper name) which I can neither assert nor deny and the fatal deviation made by the movie which is supposedly inspired in the novel written by Orwell.

Vercinguetorix (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you in your claim that the book refers mostly to the Russian revolution, since I think it was intended to be quite universal. After all, one of the central charectors is Napoleon, which is definitely reminiscent of the French revolution. If I remember correctly Orwell himself was involved in fighting for a Communist party against another Communist regime in Spain. I think that the book should be in the Pertaining Literature section since the book is effectively about communism; it goes from the initial revolution right through to the betrayal of the leaders.--86.176.196.224 (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

That would belong in the article about Stalinism or Stalin, but not on the revolution itself, if it belongs anywhere. Commissarusa (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Errors

Maybe it's just from my perspective, but I've been noticing alot of errors and misleading text in here. Various words are being subed out for other words, and it takes alot of thought just to realise when somebody has replaced a word with something that has nothing to do with the subject. If somebody would kindly go through the whole article and fix up some of the errors, that'd be awsome. I'll help out if needed. TheVaultDweller 02:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll do a this a bit at a time, there are some strange passages in the article. RomaC 02:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism.

Does anybody else think this article gets vandalized too much? Isnt there a way we can lock it for a while? I've seen it on other articles, cant we do that here? all the existing information seems fine..--Kolia. 00:29, 15 November 2007 i have to use the bathroom!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.149.42 (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Shut up man. Any individual with sense can detect the numerous times idiotic vandals have edited this page. I just deleted something about the Soviet Union fearing Krishna and the Hindu Gods! --Kolia. —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC).

User Wellybass is inserting significant amounts of vandalism in this page so as to make studying for exams a bit difficult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.85.127 (talk) 06:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Documents Russian Revolution

Hi guys,

I have found this website which contains documents (mostly English) about the Russian Revolution. The website is a forum, but there is almost no possibility for responding. Maybe a nice link to add to the External links?

http://www.hemelbestormer.nl/viewforum.php?f=93

Mjamjamja (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Revolution vs. Revolutions

I was wondering if the page should be renamed to "Russian Revolutions (1917)". We have separate articles for the individual revolutions (February and October), while this article is more of an overview. I know the events of 1917 are often lumped together as a "revolution", in the singular, however for Wikipedia I think the use of a plural (revolutions) would be more accurate. Otebig (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, assuming it's still on the table. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This makes a lot of sense, the article is about more than one revolution so it should use the plural. Many people still think there was only one revolution in 1917, and the singular name only reinforces that confusion. Does anyone have any objections to changing from Revolution to Revolutions?--88.112.152.215 (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Source/POV

I am going to make a few changes to the article's language becaue I don't feel that it meets wiki standards. Lets look at an example: "Almost everyone felt that the texture of their lives was transformed by a spreading commercial culture which remade the surfaces of material life (buildings, store fronts, advertisements, fashion, clocks and machines) and nurtured new objects of desire.[1]" How can any cyclopedic source guarantee that almost anyone felt anything? Only a personal opinion of an expert can make this sort of assumption, and the source listed doesn't qualify. You can't tell me to "see Cambridge history of Russia." I need a more definitive source.

Sadly, this is mere example of the vast flaws with this article, and I intend to spend some time in the future changing other lines. Anyone want to offer a hand to help? Mrathel (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

yes after reading this article for the first time in its entirety i believe i agree with you. there is work needed still. i changed a few lines but i may spend some time over the next few weeks going through. i am no expert but do know wiki standards for language and proper sources. get in touch with me if u have any serious ideas or work you think could use my help. i am writing a paper so i plan to spend some time here over the next few weeks (JTB01 (talk) 06:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC))

"How can any cyclopedic source guarantee that almost anyone felt anything? Only a personal opinion of an expert can make this sort of assumption, and the source listed doesn't qualify. You can't tell me to "see Cambridge history of Russia." I need a more definitive source." You only trust expert witness? 50.163.114.217 (talk) 10:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Will willard1888@gmail.com50.163.114.217 (talk) 10:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

World War 1 or First World War

im unsure which is supposed to be used. ive seen both inside single articles maybe not even this one. (JTB01 (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Missed Links

Does anybody can add a link to the Russian article: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Февральская_революция ? Филатов Алексей (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ideas for re-organisation

{{editsemiprotected}}

Just been looking through the article and I have to say its pretty badly organised. What I propose is to change the section ordering from what it is now to something more like the below:

1. Background
   1. Political Issues
   2. Timeline
   3. Expanded chronology
2. February revolution
3. Dual Power
4. October
5. Civil War
   1. Imperial Family
6. Cultural Portrayal
7. Notes
8. References
9. Further reading
10. See also
11. External links

Done I've re-organized it somewhat. I left the chronologies farther down, although I did move the timeline up into the Background section. The chronologies were too large to put up there, so I put them after all the prose. I also moved the "See also" section ahead of the other appendices to comply with WP:Layout. Cheers,--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

--86.147.29.237 (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a small and pedantic point, but one which, I think, affects the general esteem readers may have for Wikipedia: what's wrong with the following sentence?

"To comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines, the introduction of this article may need to be rewritten."

Yes, it should be "the introduction to this article" -- if someone more acquainted with how things are done could bring it to the attention of the relevant authorities, I'm sure everyone would be pleased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.241.31 (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

New Government

We should include a section about the new Bolshevik government.NRB.12345 (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Covered under >Main article: October Revolution Fifelfoo (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Animal Farm

In the "cultural portrayal" section, we could change the opening to "The russian revolution has been portrayed in many different mediums..." or something like that and include the book Animal Farm. I would do it myself, but I lack proper sources. Great article, by the way. 71.207.19.248 (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Picture

I don't really know how one would go about formating something like htis, but for such a prominent article, it is somehow much easier to read if there is a picture in the first section, with links below that perhaps linked to the October and November Revolutions as well as prominent figures (Lenin, Trotsky, etc.) Becuase it is such a big topic, this kind of thing would be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.141.108 (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Request

Would an editor here please have a look at World War I#Russian Revolution and add some cites where needed? Thank you.LeadSongDog come howl 21:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

can you add the hebrew interwiki he:המהפכה הרוסית 1917

וינברג (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced comma

Under the section "Between February and throughout October: "Dual Power" (dvoevlastie)", in the paragraph that begins "The Bolshevik failure in the July Days proved temporary":

In August, poor or misleading, communication led General Lavr Kornilov...

should read

In August, poor or misleading communication led General Lavr Kornilov...

In addition, under the section "Civil war", second paragraph:

Also during the Civil War, Nestor Makhno led a Ukrainian anarchist movement, the Black Army allied to the Bolsheviks thrice, one of the powers ending the alliance each time. However, a Bolshevik force under Mikhail Frunze destroyed the Makhnovist movement, when the Makhnovists refused to merge into the Red Army. In addition, the so-called "Green Army" (peasants defending their property against the opposing forces) played a secondary role in the war, mainly in the Ukraine.bguilrengsduihgkjvadhiuolqahiofhbaikkjhfnuxh

would be better phrased as follows, or better yet re-written entirely by someone more familiar with the important details:

Nestor Makhno's Ukrainian anarchist movement, the Black Army, allied to the Bolsheviks thrice. However, when the Makhnovists refused to merge into the Red Army, a Bolshevik force under Mikhail Frunze destroyed the Makhnovist movement. In addition, the so-called "Green Army" of peasants defending their property against the opposing forces played a secondary role in the war, mainly in the Ukraine.

68.184.216.211 (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Is this picture appropriate as it is just repeating the same short fragment of film over and over maybe a longer one would be better ar just a still picture? 99.224.86.34 (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

video at the top of the page

The video at the top of the page is very distracting and annoying. Could we make that a picture instead, or put in the option of pausing the video because it is really obnoxious seeing that clip replay 50 times while trying to read the adjacent text. Somebody please make this edit because I can't edit this page because it is protected —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.174.180 (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a video - it's a GIF file, and will cycle endlessly - just hit ESC once page has loaded.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree that the animated gif is very distracting and doesn't add anything significant. Thanks for the tip about hitting ESC, I didn't know that one, but surely it would be better to replace the flickery animation with a still image, so people don't have to come here to find out about the ESC trick? Juicy-one (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested Edit

{{editsemiprotected}} In the "Between February and Throughout October" section, Lenin did not flee from Russia to Finland, he went to Switzerland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.161.118 (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2010

Not done: Welcome and thanks. Please provide a source for a factual change such as that. Celestra (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request of the moving picture at the head of this article

{{editsemiprotected}} Please remove the short movie that is at the beginning of this article on the right side of the top page. It is very distracting. A simple photograph of Lenin would be much more effective and much less bothersome than this trite, stilted, very short moving picture. Thank you. Daniel Maurer, daniel@catholic.vladivostok.ru

212.122.28.34 (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

{{CB-support}} I agree, but let's see what others have to say. --JokerXtreme (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I support its removal, very distracting indeed. Colchicum (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Also support removal of GIF video clip. It distracts and adds nothing.Moryak (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely, a clear picture would be better than a fuzzy video. 212.69.35.197 (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 96.224.128.183, 1 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Small Correction its not the Tsar government its Czar

96.224.128.183 (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, serveral of our other articles use Tsar and Czar interchangeably, including Tsar. I am not aware of the user of one over the other, so until we have a source for this, there is not a need to change the article. Please let us know when you have a good source, and will will make the change.

 Not done ^Avicenna_sis @ 16:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The history is completely forged

I here give the objective information.

Revolution of 1917 in Russia: Vladimir Ulyanov and Nikolaj Lenin are different persons. The United States have grasped Russia on February, 23rd, 1917. Bolsheviks were agents of the USA. The Jewish organised criminal groups were used.

The scientific article:

Anton Kolmykov. Legal Responsibility for History Falsification. Revolution of 1917 in Russia./ Monthly scientific magazine "Discussion", № 3, Yekaterinburg, March 2010, page 8-11. ISSN 2077-7639; ISBN 978-5-91256; UDC code: 94; 34.096.

Popular article: http://www.cneat.ru/lenin.html [1]

--Antn-Samara (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes objective if you call the Protocols objective. This claim of Jewish Bolshevism has been thoroughly looked into. You may consider the Vatican had more to gain by aggression against the Orthodox at Moscow.[1][2] After all Fatima was that very year and the 2nd prediction we are told was about the fall of Russia. 207.119.196.37 (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Kriminalistichesky examination of photos of Lenin --Antn-Samara (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I wish to draw public attention in the Russian Wikipedia Antn-Samara banned. Just for the overly bold and unsubstantiated conclusions about the twins Lenin. Antn-Samara aka Anton N. Kolmykov established itself throughout the Russian segment of the Internet as a clown and a parody of the expert. Lawyers, criminologists and historians just laugh at Anton's articles about Lenin, Revolution, and others. Genmed-rus (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

Typo bourgeoise -> bourgeoisie?

"The Duma, consisting primarily of the bourgeoise"

In various dictionaries, bourgeoise is given as a female member of the bourgeoisie -- is this a typo? I realise that bourgeoise can be used to refer to just plain bourgeoisie as an alternative meaning, but the implication that the Duma was primarily female seems unnecessary and confusing (unless it is true, of course, which I don't know about). --212.69.35.197 (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Elliebell15, 30 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Nicholas II did abdicate from being tsar over all Russia, but he did not do it for the Provisional Government to be in charge, he did it naming (originally his son Alexei, then changing it) his brother Grand Duke Mikhail as the next tsar, but Mikhail refused. Elliebell15 (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and the article says so. What exactly do you want changed? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 117.199.24.131, 6 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} if you really read it, then i would like to suggest that in the beginning you should tell about the causes and some condition that led to the event ,here it is russian revolution. 117.199.24.131 (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"no other Marxist movement succeeded in keeping power in its hands."

The above line, in the first paragraph of "The Russian revolution and the world", misses the Mongolian revolution of 1921, which took place in the period discussed and was a Marxist movement that succeeded in keeping power in its hands until 1992. I recommend either altering the line or deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quakergrey (talk • contribs) 18:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Does the title need 1917?

Has there been a discussion why this page is titled Russian Revolution (1917), and not simply Russian Revolution. There have certainly been other revolutions in Russia, most notably in 1905; but this is the article I would expect to find at that title, if I typed in those two words.

If there is an existing consensus, please point to the discussion; if not, is there some reason we should not move it, as being what Wikipedia calls WP:PRIMARYUSAGE? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Russian Revolution - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 04:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved by Drmies (talk · contribs) as uncontroversial. (non-admin housekeeping closure) Jenks24 (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

---

• Russian Revolution (1917) → Russian Revolution
• Russian Revolution → Russian Revolution (disambiguation)

– What most readers mean, and will want, when they type in Russian Revolution, will be this article. There have been other revolutions in Russia, most notably the Revolution of 1905; but they are not called the Russian Revolution unless in contexts which rule the subject of this article out. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as nom. This is moving a disambiguator, and nothing else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support as uncontroversial. Srnec (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Google "Russian Revolution" -wikipedia, the first page is all 1917. Kauffner (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Clear primary topic. Jenks24 (talk) 05:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit request on 30 March 2012

The second sentence of the second paragraph under the "Background" section reads as follows:

"It was another major factor contribution to the retaliation of the Russian Communists against their Royal counterparts."

I think the author meant use the word "contributing", not "contribution."

Marshach (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Done Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Too many pictures

Ladies and Gentlemen, it seems as if there are too many pictures on this wiki page. Is there any reason for them, or should they just be removed (for the aesthetics of this article)? --Rifasj123 (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 July 2012

A large part of the World War I section is taken from "The History of Russia" by Nicholas V. Riasanovsky and should be quoted or cited (given credit). 64.9.61.155 (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. It would be helpful if you'd specify exactly what part of the section is involved. Rivertorch (talk) 05:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Citation request

Here is a citation for the request at the end of the 3rd paragraph of Economic and social changes: http://www.antiessays.com/free-essays/175179.html Horation12 (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Photograph of Bloody Sunday

Hello, could someone please explain why there is an image of the events of Bloody Sunday despite only about 3 lines of parallel text being dedicated to prior WW1? I feel that it could mislead some readers into believing that Bloody Sunday was a part of the 1917 revolutions and, as a consequence, I recommend the use of a different image. What do other editors feel about this? Dionysus (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Article refers to Social Causes and Witte's Land reforms

I'm fairly unaware how to use this, but I'm also fairly unaware of the land reforms implemented by Witte. I think they are referring to Stolypin's land reforms. Either that or Witte's wiki page needs editing too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.128.220.166 (talk) 09:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

External link 4 is broken.

This page http://libcom.org/history/russian-revolution no longer works. I would suggest linking to this -> http://libcom.org/tags/russian-revolution but this might not be what you need/want. I just noticed the link is broken and found one that might work instead. PS: The link is "broken" it just links to a 403 page, so it still links somewhere... Its just that there is nothing is there. Mr. Awesome Falcon (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

"Octobrist" link is an incorrect reference?

In the quote "a Central War Industries Committee was established under the chairmanship of a prominent Octobrist, Guchkov", I am quite sure the term "Octobrist" doesn't refer to the 1917 October Revolution (as the link further suggests), but rather to the 1905 Revolution. The proponents of more radical reforms in 1905 were named "octobrists". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.186.176.83 (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Spelling mistake

Under Russian_Revolution#Execution_of_the_imperial_family, Boplsheviks . Vladeraz (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2015

Historiography section: "Lenin's biographer Robert Service" links to Robert Service the poet—it should instead link to Robert Service (historian). 138.16.116.143 (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Done Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 06:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Sides

How put the Russian Provisional Government along the imperial Russia in the infobox? That's just plain absurd. Aozyk (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

No one? I think I will try to sort this out.Aozyk (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The infobox is nonsense right now. AdjectivesAreBad (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

It's complete nonsense. It's a military conflict infobox which is inappropriate for this subject matter. It should be an event infobox similar to what the French Revolution article has. Charles Essie (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft outline

There's a draft for a related outline currently at Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of the Russian Revolution if anyone is interested. There's also a RM request to move it to draftspace linked on the talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2016

Russia is a European superpower 23.228.140.119 (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as this article is about the Russian Revolution - not Russia - Arjayay (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Orthodox Extermination

One goal of the Marxist revolution was the suppression of religion. The Soviets were allied with the Nazis in this matter, both before the war and after: The Soviet Story. This was the plan of the Pope to fight the schism with the Orthodox, the Jewish people, and the Protestants: Second Thirty-years War. How many died? One can only guess.174.125.73.33 (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2017

Everywhere there is "the February Revolution", should be called "The March Revolution", because that is what it was called and when it took place. 173.72.115.72 (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2017

It is probably worth adding the fact that electoral rights were extended to women on July 1917 as part of the "Chronology of the 1917 revolutions" table on this page. The provision was proposed by the League for Women’s Equal Rights on March 4, 1917. (Primary source of the petition: http://via.lib.harvard.edu/via/deliver/deepLink?_collection=via&recordId=8001007242) Although these rights were granted under the provisional government, women suddenly became a more important unit for competing socialist and revolutionary factions to win over. Several historians, including Laurie Stoff (2006) have argued that the Bolsheviks successfully won large numbers of women to their cause as evidenced by the 50,000-60,0000 women who joined the Red Army in the aftermath of the October revolution even though they were not bound by subscription to join. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alternatestine (talk • contribs) 19:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. I would also ask that you provide a reliable secondary source for your proposed edit. Thanks. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2017

Remove"Students, white-collar workers and teachers joined the workers in the streets and at public meetings." Remove "Russia consisted mainly of poor farming peasants, with 1.5% of the population owning 25% of the land."

Remove "When it became clear that the Bolsheviks had little support outside of the industrialized areas of Saint Petersburg and Moscow, they simply barred non-Bolsheviks from membership in the soviets. "

Remove "Students, white-collar workers and teachers joined the workers in the streets and at public meetings." This have spent several years not cited and should be removed. I have been unable to verify them on sources that don't cite wikipedia as there source. ______ Remove "Working class women in St. Petersburg reportedly spent about forty hours a week in food lines, begging, turning to prostitution or crime, tearing down wooden fences to keep stoves heated for warmth, grumbling about the rich, and wondering when and how this would all come to an end." For the above this seems to be editorialized and not cited and should be removed. I could not find a a primary source for this and this seems to be something that would have to be verified. If anyone has a source I believe this could be left in. NewGuy2017 (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Duplicate request. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2017

Change "Students, white-collar workers and teachers joined the workers in the streets and at public meetings." to "" Change "Russia consisted mainly of poor farming peasants, with 1.5% of the population owning 25% of the land." to ""

Change "When it became clear that the Bolsheviks had little support outside of the industrialized areas of Saint Petersburg and Moscow, they simply barred non-Bolsheviks from membership in the soviets. " to ""

Change "Students, white-collar workers and teachers joined the workers in the streets and at public meetings." to "" These have spent several years not cited and should be removed. I have been unable to verify them on sources that don't cite wikipedia as there source. ______ Change "Working class women in St. Petersburg reportedly spent about forty hours a week in food lines, begging, turning to prostitution or crime, tearing down wooden fences to keep stoves heated for warmth, grumbling about the rich, and wondering when and how this would all come to an end." to "" For the above this seems to be editorialized and not cited and should be removed. I could not find a a primary source for this and this seems to be something that would have to be verified. If anyone has a source I believe this could be left in. NewGuy2017 (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Duplicate request. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2017

Change "Students, white-collar workers and teachers joined the workers in the streets and at public meetings." to ""

Change "Russia consisted mainly of poor farming peasants, with 1.5% of the population owning 25% of the land." to ""

Change "When it became clear that the Bolsheviks had little support outside of the industrialized areas of Saint Petersburg and Moscow, they simply barred non-Bolsheviks from membership in the soviets. " to ""

Change "Students, white-collar workers and teachers joined the workers in the streets and at public meetings." to "" These have spent several years not cited and should be removed. I have been unable to verify them on sources that don't cite wikipedia as there source. ______ Change "Working class women in St. Petersburg reportedly spent about forty hours a week in food lines, begging, turning to prostitution or crime, tearing down wooden fences to keep stoves heated for warmth, grumbling about the rich, and wondering when and how this would all come to an end." to "" For the above this seems to be editorialized and not cited and should be removed. I could not find a a primary source for this and this seems to be something that would have to be verified. If anyone has a source I believe this could be left in. NewGuy2017 (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Duplicate request. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2017

Students, white-collar workers and teachers joined the workers in the streets and at public meetings. Very old with no citation Russia consisted mainly of poor farming peasants, with 1.5% of the population owning 25% of the land.

When it became clear that the Bolsheviks had little support outside of the industrialized areas of Saint Petersburg and Moscow, they simply barred non-Bolsheviks from membership in the soviets.

Students, white-collar workers and teachers joined the workers in the streets and at public meetings.

For all the above I believe these should be removed they appear to be claims that need to be verified and are not commonly know facts. I was unable to verify after searching quickly as most sources using these are actually using WIKIPEDIA as a source. ______ Working class women in St. Petersburg reportedly spent about forty hours a week in food lines, begging, turning to prostitution or crime, tearing down wooden fences to keep stoves heated for warmth, grumbling about the rich, and wondering when and how this would all come to an end. For the above this seems to be editorialized and not cited and should be removed. I could not find a a primary source for this and this seems to be something that would have to be verified. If anyone has a source I believe this could be left in. NewGuy2017 (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The user's request cannot be more clear, and I quote: "For all the above I believe these should be removed [as] they appear to be claims that need to be verified and are not commonly know[n] (sic) facts." HaroldBuddy (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Split this article - February Revolution and October Revolution

This was not like the French Revolution 1789-99 , a process. But two different revolutions. The February Revolution (in March Gregorian Calender) and the October Revolution (in November Gregorian Calendar). The February Revolution wasn't a communistic revolution, which the latter was indeed. Russia under Kerensky decided to keep fighting the Austo-Hungarians, Germans and the Turks. And Germany gave safe passage for Lenin and some of his closest allied, from Switzerland, through Germany to Sweden - all the way from southern Trelleborg and up to the Russian border (now Finland) at Haparanda in the north. Incognito did Lenin with his encourage reach Petersburgh, and did there start the second revolution. Lenin wanted peace, in order to be able to build up his Communist state. But even if Kerensky had wanted peace, was his and the other leaders more in favor of political reforms and kind of a welfare state. Some nationalisations would presumably have followed (like railways and hospitals) but not down to every shop owner or farmer, and the Romanov family was treated fairly well. Kerensky escaped to America, and became there the first to warn America about the Bolsjeviks. (in his works "Prelude to Bolshevism" and "The Disaster") So I suggest a separate article for the February Revolution and most of this article could be labeled October Revolution. Boeing720 (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree on a split. Rjensen (talk) 03:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, as both of those articles already exist (February Revolution and October Revolution). This article makes clear that it was two different revolutions with the first sentence: "The Russian Revolution was a pair of revolutions in Russia in 1917 which dismantled the Tsarist autocracy and led to the rise of the Soviet Union." (emphasis mine). --C.J. Griffin (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Had a bried look at February Revolution - this looks fine. I wasn't aware about those articles. A minor problem still exists, far too many links points at this article, when one of the others actually would have been a better choice. Perhaps a change of the title would be better "Russian Revolutions (1917)" or something else which indicates plural. Boeing720 (talk) 12:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

O.Figes & Russn Revoltn.

Figes reputation as an academic lies in tatters for some years=why still include him? NO reference To Trotskys History of Russn Rev?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.60.169.164 (talk) 11:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Lenin's Impact on The Russian Revolution

During the early 1900s there was chaos and rebellion in Russia. The people of Russia became upset due to their involvement in World War I, all Russia’s money was going into the war while great poverty was over taking the nation. The new motto going across Russia was “Peace and Bread” the people were hungry and tired of the war. As a result, 80,000 Russian troops deserted the army. With Russia’s weak government and the people unhappy, Russia was looking for someone to take over and turn this devastating nation around to their former glory. Soon Vladimir Lenin will raise to power and change Russia. Lenin creates a new party called the Bolsheviks and they make the much-needed changes to the government. One huge reason Lenin raised to power so quickly was die to his promises he made to the people of Russia. Lenin promised to pull Russia from WWI, give new land to peasants, and allow the workers to manage the factories. Lenin followed the ideas of Marxism which focuses on social transform. Lenin creates his own group called Iskra. One example, of Lenin following Marxism is him allowing lower class men to join the red army thus giving them social mobility. The Bolshevik’s party lead by Lenin fought against the wealthy land owners and the provisional, the provisional was what was left of the old government. Lenin lead these fights to better the people of Russia and allow for social mobility. Russia was in a dark hole early in the 1900s and needed a new leader to put them back on top. Lenin was the perfect sparked for Russia and he was able to reconnect Russia back together.

<ref>Ferri, Claudia. “Lenin and the Newspaper (I): The Iskra Period.” Left Voice, 1 Aug. 2016, www.leftvoice.org/Lenin-and-the-newspaper-I-The-Iskra-period. /ref> <ref>Resis, Albert. “Vladimir Lenin.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 30 Sept. 2016, www.britannica.com/biography/Vladimir-Lenin#ref360193./ref>

— Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamWright15 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Russian Revolution. 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://archive.is/20120715035433/http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/russia/mett/petro_eve.html to http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/russia/mett/petro_eve.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060911061840/http://www.yale.edu/annals/Steinberg/golosa.htm to http://www.yale.edu/annals/Steinberg/golosa.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2018

TTFxsfwr (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Kornilov Affair

This statement: "In August, poor or misleading communication led General Lavr Kornilov, the recently appointed Supreme Commander of Russian military forces, to believe that the Petrograd government had already been captured by radicals, or was in serious danger thereof."

is extremely misleading. It omits the fact that Kornilov had been actively communicating for months with several far-right/military organizations (such as the Union of Officers, as well as the Military League/Republican Center) on the possibility of forcibly removing Kerensky and taking military control of Petrograd. It also frames Kornilov's plans as a reaction to some imagined "radical" political development, when in reality Kornilov was reacting to the public's mass disillusionment with Kerensky as head of state (who was at that time was politically more in line with the Kadets than any "radical" socialist party). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakem1000 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a smart-alec on our hands...and it's me, but at least I openly admit it

The person who wrote the bit in the discussion about Source/POV complains about the language used in this article. Never mind the language, what about his grammar? The last time I checked, 'lets' [sic] was spelt with an apostrophe (when used in sentences such as 'let's look at an example' (the sentence that I found this disastrous grammar error in. Sorry for being a complete saddo, but THIS IS APPALLING. 2.101.28.242 (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

True 2001:569:7A3F:9400:4993:8752:92CF:404E (talk) 06:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Expand!

The page only talks about the February and October Revolutions, the Russian Revolution was so much more than that, it began with the failed Revolution of 1905 and didn't end until the Bolsheviks' consolidation of power after the Russian Civil War, this needs to be part of the narrative. Charles Essie (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree. You imply that the Bolsheviks consolidated power, but how exactly? If you want, you can argue that the NEP-era was merely a 'retreat' from war communism and that the Bolsheviks tried to establish actual authority after 1928 (merely six years after 1922, the end of the civil war). Moreover, one could wonder what 'authority' actually meant considering the massive terror that was unleashed in the 1930s. Only in the 1950s did this stop and, in my humble opinion, did 'consolidation' of any sorts only come into being after WWII, but even then was it rather ambiguous. In any case, I think you should just treat the revolutions and the civil war separately, because otherwise you construct this teleological narrative that after each revolution a consolidation follows and in the Russian case the Bolshevik one. Now it's better, I believe. 83.83.1.229 (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Point taken. It is debatable when exactly the Bolsheviks' consolidation of power was completed. So, that should probably not be what the actual end date should be based on. Also, it clearly didn’t begin with 1905 Russian Revolution (I don’t know what I was thinking). But I still think that the Russian Civil War was part of the Russian Revolution and that the article's infobox and opening sentence should be changed to reflect that.

To be more specific, I think the Russian Revolution began on 8 March 1917 (the beginning of the February Revolution) and ended on 16 June 1923 (the end of the Russian Civil War). Charles Essie (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

End date?

The end date on the infobox should say 16 June 1923 (the end of the Russian Civil War). To say the Russian Revolution ended in 1917 with the October Revolution is inaccurate. The American Revolution didn’t end with the signing of the United States Declaration of Independence and the French Revolution didn’t end with the proclamation of the abolition of the monarchy. All three revolutions continued with the Russian Civil War, the American Revolutionary War and the French Revolutionary Wars, respectively. Charles Essie (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Russian Revolution of 1917.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Please replace disadvantages with disadvantageous. Just a typo.

Please replace disadvantages with disadvantageous. Just a typo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace Upon Earth (talk • contribs) 16:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Revert edit

Edit 875521721|875521721 should be reversed -- it adds a bunch of poorly formatted, decontextualized unsourced content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.62.31.26 (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Article suffers a massive drop in quality as it transitions into the October revolution section

Tone shifts to more editorial and the English drops in quality significantly. Suggests reworking the entire section 2601:240:8100:F1:C1B9:D617:38C:B4EE (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2019

I believe the naming of the Russian Revolution was incorrect and I feel like I should have a right to change so students can learn correct things. Aminah111 (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. NiciVampireHeart 14:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Infobox "Military Conflict"

I saw that recently the infobox was changed from the "Event" to "military conflict". While the new infobox allows to put much more info in briefed way it is also very misleading because it suggests that there were only two sides in the events and that manpower of those sides were somehow fixed. In reality there were many sides there, especially if we consider February Revolution, October Revolution and the in-between period and even the Civil War. Pro-democracy forces with some help from Bolsheviks downed Nicholas, the power struggle led to dual power (both dominated by the democracy forces), the threat of military dictatorship (Kornilov) caused the Provisional Government to arm Bolshevik's supporters who downed the Government. Bolsheviks later get rid of their allies: Left SRs, anarchists, Kronstadt sailors, etc. On the other side there were struggle between different flavours of socialists, military seeking dictatorship, ethnic nationalists, etc. I think it is grossly misleading to describe whole events as a military conflict of two parties.

Any ideas? Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted to the old infobox. Sorry guys, infobox military conflict gives very distorted picture of the event Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Alex I had to revert this back to the original one. Look at the articles for the Chinese Communist Revolution, Cuban Revolution and even the Iranian Revolution. The Russian Revolution was one of the most important events. I should have discussed this with you but I was too busy with my work. Also look at the Russian Revolution of 1905 format as well. Okay thanks. Subway NYC64 (talk) 01:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

What about the American Revolution and the French Revolution? The Russian Revolution is much more similar to those. Charles Essie (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

That might be true but the Russian Revolution is more similar to the Chinese Communist Revolution, Cuban Revolution and the Iranian Revolution. Remember all of them also overthrew existing conservative-moderate governments and faced massive uprisings afterwards. That is the appropriate format. Subway NYC64 (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The Cuban revolution was primarily a military campaign. The American revolution was at first a political event but then, again, a military campaign. The Russian revolution was predominantly a political thing until early 1918 (when the war followed up), although some locations saw a significant combat between rival groups, as well as looting, arson, and so on. The situation of 1917 was no (full-fledged) civil war. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay then what about the Chinese Communist Revolution and the Iranian Revolution. Both similar ones overthrew the existing established moderate-conservative governments and replaced them with revolutionary governments. So maybe in the formats of those two revolutions not the American one. Subway NYC64 (talk) 10:19, August 2019 (UTC)

The point you're ignoring that Alex made is that the new infobox grossly oversimplifies the historical event.--Carabinieri (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Then why not make it into the same format as the Chinese Communist Revolution or the Iranian Revolution. That would make it into a civil conflict. Subway NYC64 (talk) 13:28, August 2019 (UTC)

Which template is used isn't the issue. The problem is that the current infobox is entirely misleading because it elides many of the complexities of the event. I don't think this topic can be adequately summarized in an infobox beyond what was there originally.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Then let us make it into the same format as the Iranian Revolution infobox. After all this is like a civil conflict. The Russian Revolution was a civil conflict. It then became a Civil War afterwards. So it is more accurate to make it like the Iranian Revolution infobox. Subway NYC64 (talk) 19:23, August 2019 (UTC)

User:Vif12vf and User:Subway NYC64, please stop edit-warring immediately. I am restoring the article to the last stable version. Alex and I have given reasons those changes aren't a good idea. You have not given any reasons to change the infobox. Subway, you must be kidding when you wrote "discuss first. Then change the article" in your edit summary. All you've done is edit-war. Stop now.--Carabinieri (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not edit-warring! Somebody added a wrongly placed letter that i tried to remove, what happened afterwards was that somebody made an edit just seconds before i saved my edit, thus my edit accidentally deleted that edit as well, which was not my intention! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay thank you. I will stop. Subway NYC64 (talk) 13:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

If you think the infobox should be changed, give your reasons here.--Carabinieri (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I think that the infobox should be changed into a civil conflict like the Iranian Revolution. The Russian Revolution was also a civil conflict. Subway NYC64 (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Could you explain how you want to make it more like the Iranian Revolution infobox? What information should be added? How should it be presented? Why should it be changed? Looking at the Iranian Revolution article, I think the infobox is somewhat questionable since it presents all the opposition groups as being on one side of the conflict which really isn't accurate.--Carabinieri (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

But we can separate the opposition groups and we can make it into a civil conflict inbox. Just change into the same format as either the Chinese Communist Revolution or the Iranian Revolution. Just make it into something similar that I edited in this article before but make it into a civil conflict inbox. Subway NYC64 (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

You've already said that several times. But what additional information would you include? How would you present it? And why? There are just too many factions involved to list them without overly simplifying the issue.--Carabinieri (talk) 06:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I would include Vladimir Lenin the main Bolshevik leaders and the liberals and Social Revolutionaries. It will be a civil conflict infobox. Subway NYC64 (talk) 03:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to make a suggestion. But let me just reiterate: the reason I, and I believe Alex also, objected to the infobox you inserted wasn't the fact that the military infobox was used. It was the fact that it presented things as if there were only two sides when, in fact, there were many. That is why I don't believe it is helpful to do anything resembling the Iranian Revolution infobox.--Carabinieri (talk) 12:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Then make it into the format of the Chinese Communist Revolution format. If you want that is the better format. I mean we put both the Imperial Government and the Provisional Government on one side. Then we put the opposition leaders as well as the Bolsheviks on the other side. But let us edit it and make it into the format of a Civil conflict infobox. In fact a civil conflict infobox is more accurate for this one. The Russian Civil War that broke out soon after was a military conflict.Subway NYC64 (talk) 10:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't you see that it's inaccurate to put the Czar and Kerensky on the same side? Kerensky was one of the leaders of the February Revolution which deposed the Czar.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

That’s true but the Czar and Kerensky were both overthrown because of World War I. So let us change The infobox to civil conflict format. Remember after the February and October Revolution of 1917 the Russian Civil War broke out. So let us change the format to civil conflict infobox. Subway NYC64 (talk) 10:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

You keep repeating yourself, but you're not addressing anything I respond: Whatever infobox is used, it makes absolutely no sense to pretend like opposing groups were on the same side.--Carabinieri (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

But still the Bolsheviks were both against the Imperial and provisional governments. So let us change the infobox to a civil conflict format. Subway NYC64 (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they were, but the two still weren't on the same side.--Carabinieri (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay then separate the Imperial Government from the Provisional Government. But make the infobox into a civil conflict format. Subway NYC64 (talk) 05:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I don't agree with using the civil conflict format. This event involved multiple conflicts. Its is more analogous to the French Revolution than it is to the Iranian Revolution or the Chinese Communist Revolution.---- Work permit (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

You are wrong the French Revolution has no powerful one leader like Lenin, Mao, and Khomeini. This has to be changed to the civil conflict format infobox. The Russian Revolution was not like the French Revolution. It was more like the Chinese Communist Revolution and the Iranian Revolution. So this format should be a civil conflict infobox. Subway NYC64 (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Subway NYC64 has been indefinitely blocked as a [[WP:SOCK|sockpuppet. - SummerPhD^v2.0 11:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

I noticed that the first mention of Azerbaijan is erroneously spelled “Azebaijan”. Conover10 (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2020

I would like to change "Russia was backward but not that backward with a working class population of more than some 4-5% of the population." to "Russia was backward, but not that backward, with a working class population of more than some 4-5% of the population.", because I feel the grammar is jarring in the original version, and this flows better with he additional commas. Thedragonking444 (talk) 05:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 11:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2020

Games related to the Russian Revolution 1917: The Prologue - psychological horror game with elements of an escape room. All events in the game are occuring during the October Revolution in 1917 in Russia. https://store.steampowered.com/app/1352230/1917_The_Prologue/ 37.48.37.116 (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't have an article here on Wikipedia yet (WP:WTAF), not clear if it's notable enough. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Potentially misleading description Marx’s views on revolution

“The revolution ultimately led to the establishment of the future Soviet Union as an ideocracy; however, the establishment of such a state came as an ideological paradox, as Marx's ideals of how a socialist state ought to be created were based on the formation being natural and not artificially incited (i.e. by means of revolution).”

This sentence struck me as somewhat vague and misleading. “Natural” vs “artificial” social change is a nebulous distinction to begin with, and furthermore doesn’t make sense within the historicist lens through which Marx analyses social change. I am more concerned, however, with the characterization that Marx would put revolution in the latter category. At best, this is a gross misinterpretation of Marx — proletarian revolution is clearly a central part of Marx’s theory of history.

Granted, the cited source isn’t really that much clearer, but it certainly doesn’t support the claim that Marx would reject revolution as “artificial.” Even though the sentence could be edited to closer match the source, I think the sentence should probably be deleted since its a relatively crude analysis of Marx and Lenin and not terribly important to the article. HistronicHistorian (talk) 06:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

On the infobox edits

CapLiber, do not use WP:OR on Wikipedia, everything must be WP:V. David Priestland, which is far from a communist scholar, argues in "Soviet Democracy, 1917–91":

Soviet democracy, like so many elements of Soviet reality, emerged in part from Marxist and other socialist ideas of more local provenance, and in part as a response to circumstances; both combined to create a set of practices that could be used by politicians and others to further their interests. (...) The time had come, Lenin argued, for the destruction of the foundations of the bourgeois state, and its replacement with an ultra-democratic ‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat’ based on the model of democracy followed by the communards of Paris in 1871. Much of the work was theoretical, designed, by means of quotations from Marx and Engels, to win battles within the international Social Democratic movement against Lenin’s arch-enemy Kautsky. However, Lenin was not operating only in the realm of theory. He took encouragement from the rise of a whole range of institutions that seemed to embody class-based, direct democracy, and in particular the soviets and the factory committees, which demanded the right to ‘supervise’ (kontrolirovat’) (although not to take the place of) factory management (...)

--BunnyyHop (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop that's not the definition of a stable. You seem to think a stable version is your version before edit warring. It's not a stable version is the version before the entirety of the dispute. A stable also is meant to be changed, its not something were you can keep your version of the stable. Vallee01 (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

It would appear to me that the more specific term (and article to link to) would be to "soviet democracy" instead of listing a generic "dictatorship", as any nuance and discussion as to whether the new government constituted a democracy or what manner of dictatorship (of an individual, of the party, or of the proletariat) is reflected in that page. 73.223.131.178 (talk) 06:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

NPOV means that we, as editors, don't insert our own unsourced opinions, or use censorship to hide views we don't like. NPOV does not mean "neutral" or neutered content, nor does it mean that there should be a false balance between opposing POV. All opinions are not equal. As Davide King said,

This is a problem of most Communist-related articles in that they tend to state some controversial notions (death tolls, genocide questions, the attribution of famines and other tragedies to 'Communist' ideology only and not to other external factors, or a mix of both, NPOV failure to provide mainstream, "anti-anticommunist" or simply "revisionist" accounts, etc.) as facts and other legitimate historians, who reject the more "anti-Communist" scholars without being pro-Communists themselves or apologists (which is the criticism some "anti-Communist scholars" give them while some of them being themselves accused of representing "anti-communist propagandists" by some of those legitimate "revisionist" and even some "orthodox" historians) are not given enough weight or relied on to provide other mainstream interpretations. As the field has been so controversial and politicised, we should rely on both schools and views rather than rely only on one view (usually the "orthodox" view) as we do for most Communist-related articles

What I stated is the orthodox view. "Bolshevik one-party dictatorship" is not backed by a single source and therefore is not really up do debate. It's undeniable there was a rise of a Soviet Democracy, however, if it was «democratic» or not is up to debate (which is not what we do here. we simply state "soviet democracy"). It's also undeniable it was supposed to represent a dictatorship of the proletariat, which is again up to debate, but it's also not what we do here. All those things are properly sourced and d'accord to mainstream views. I have changed it to a more objective view until we can reach consensus. Also, to the colleague who said "Breaking tie", Wikipedia is not about winning. Wikipedia is not about "breaking ties", but to argument and follow the guidelines. A simple "I don't agree" holds no water whatsoever. --BunnyyHop (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I concur. The current "outcome" cell does not cite any source for the results as claimed. And as was said above by others, the discussion and nuance around whether the system that was set up was a "true" democracy is not for us to decide, and the linked-to "soviet democracy" article should have the necessary discussion, sources, and summaries to provide context and explanation. Suppa chuppa (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Great, is there consensus for "Bolshevik victory and establishment of Soviet Democracy in Russia proper, most of Ukraine, Belarus, Middle Asia and Transcaucasia"? --BunnyyHop (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

No BunnyyHop 3 editors have brought up issues with the edit, and for good reason the edit sounds like ML point of view and ML propaganda. Vallee01 (talk) 07:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• The destruction of all non Bolshevik political parties and the establishment of the one party (Bolshevik) state is extremely well documented across time and the political spectrum from Carr, E. H. to Pipes, R. Soviet "democracy" is a propaganda illusion, nothing more as is the idea that the ‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat’ was in anyway real or democratic. The word democracy as used by the Bolsheviks has nothing at all to do with how it is used outside of the Bolshevik regime. See (not exclusively):

• Brovkin, V. N. (1987). The Mensheviks after October: Socialist Opposition and the Rise of the Bolshevik Dictatorship. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Carr, E. H. (1985). A History of Soviet Russia: The Bolshevik Revolution, 1917–1923. (3 vols). New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Company.
• Jansen, M. & Sanders, J. (1984). A Show Trial Under Lenin: The trial of the Socialist Revolutionaries, Moscow 1922. The Hague: Nijhoff.
• Lazarski, C. (2008). The Lost Opportunity: Attempts at Unification of the anti-Bolsheviks, 1917-1919. Lanham, Md: University Press of America
• Leggett, G. (1981). The Cheka: Lenin's Political Police. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Malone, R. (2004). Analysing the Russian Revolution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Rosenberg, W. G. (1974). Liberals in the Russian Revolution: The Constitutional Democratic Party, 1917–1921. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Rigby, T. H. (1979). Lenin's Government: Sovnarkom 1917–1922. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
• Ryan, James. (2012). Lenin's Terror: The Ideological Origins of Early Soviet State Violence. London: Routledge.
• Schapiro, L. (1977). The Origin of the Communist Autocracy: Political Opposition in the Soviet State; First Phase 1917-1922 (2nd Edition). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Schapiro, L. (1978). The Communist Party of the Soviet Union (2nd Edition). London, UK: Methuen Publishing.
• Thomson, J. M. (1987). The Origin of the Communist Autocracy: Political Opposition in the Soviet State, First Phase 1917–1922. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Earlier chapters in:

• Figes, O. (2015). Revolutionary Russia, 1891-1991. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books.
• Hosking, G. (1987). The First Socialist Society: A History of the Soviet Union from Within (2nd Edition). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Later chapters in:

• Figes, O. (1997). A People's Tragedy: A History of the Russian Revolution. New York, NY: Viking Press.
• Fitzpatrick, S. (2017). The Russian Revolution. (4th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• McMeekin, S. (2017). The Russian Revolution: A New History. New York, NY: Basic Books.
• Pipes, R. (1990). The Russian Revolution. New York, NY: Knopf.
• Rabinowich, A. (2007). The Bolsheviks in Power: The First Year of Soviet Rule in Petrograd. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press
• Service, R. W. (1991). The Russian Revolution 1900–1927. London, UK: Macmillan.
• Volkogonov, D. (1994). Lenin: Life and Legacy. London, UK: HarperCollins.
• Ulam, A. B. (1965). The Bolsheviks: The Intellectual and Political History of the Triumph of Communism in Russia. New York, NY: Macmillan

@BunnyyHop, you're POV pushing has continued, dispite multiple warnings from multiple editors. A topic ban is rapidly approaching.   // Timothy :: talk  09:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I recognise some of these scholars by Davide King, particularly Service, an anticommunist scholar, and Ulam. This however, does not mean it's «academic consensus», and it still doesn't mean that «Soviet democracy» is «POV pushing». The Four Deuces has more knowledge in American Scholarship as I do, so I'll ping both until I have time to reply. Still, «soviet democracy» is synonymous with «council democracy», which was at the basis of Soviet Union. Would probably be more accurate to mention «Establishment of Bolshevik one party soviet democracy». The establishment of a one party state is not equal to no democracy. Would be good if you provided direct citations for each of those books, instead of just mentioning them. In a heavily politised field of Soviet and Communist Studies, this, a text by David Priestland, shows us what maybe you're saying isn't as certain as you think it is. BunnyyHop (talk) 11:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, there's a section on soviet democracy about «soviet democracy» in the Soviet Union. POV pushing is wanting to censure this article just because it has «democracy» in the name. Vallee01, so far, IP and Suppa chuppa are in favour of «soviet democracy». In the talk page there are two arguing against this, you and the colleague above. BunnyyHop (talk) 11:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I found this peer-reviewed journal about Soviet Democracy.

The purpose of this article is to reveal which elements of the ideas of Soviet democracy legitimized the direct participation of the people, how these ideas shaped the legislative process, how people participated in the law-making process of the new family law of the union, and finally how the Communist Party and draft makers, including state officials and specialists, worked with popular participation. It took about 20 years to adopt the law, and the reason why it took so long was deeply rooted in the ideas of Soviet democracy. The Soviet regime was democratic in its own sense of the word and this article gives it a more democratic face than what is usually imagined, especially among Western people. However, the regime’s unique democratic character seemed to make it rather difficult to function adequately.

The words “Soviet democracy” may sound odd to many, especially in the younger generation, while to others in the older generation they may bring back memories of the “good old” Cold War years, when they supported liberal democracy against Soviet socialist democracy, or vice versa. Many Cold War contemporaries thought that there was such a thing as Soviet democratic theory, despite not believing the Soviet government’s claim of the superiority of Soviet democracy over liberal democracy (Held 2006, ch. 4; Crick 2005, ch. 3; Macpherson 1972, 12–22; Talmon 1952). Never-theless, the idea of Soviet democracy is widely understood as false today. There is a widespread belief that the Soviet regime was simply oppressive and totalitarian, and not democratic at all. Critics have often blamed the Soviet regime for lacking liberty, which undermined the meaning of polit-ical participation (Dahl 1971, 5; Friedrich and Brzezinski 1965, 161–71).However, the Soviet government did encourage the working people to speak out. As numerous studies have shown, Soviet citizens responded by writing letters and visiting government offices to address the authori-ties, even if there were limits to the realization of their demands and the effectiveness of their entreaties (Matsudo 2008; Bittner 2008; Zubkova 2000; Fitzpatrick 1996; Friedgut 1979; Oliver 1969). These studies showed that people demanded to be heard and the authorities responded, however insufficiently, because the ideas of democracy obligated them to do so. My purpose in this article is to examine which elements of Soviet democracy legitimized political participation through the process of writ-ing letters to the authorities, and how this process shaped the political course, by concretely examining the process through which one particu-lar law was created.

This should be enough to conclude that Soviet Democracy is required be included, and that efforts censure the redirect to the article are «POV pushing». --BunnyyHop (talk) 11:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Your quote above disproves your claim "Nevertheless, the idea of Soviet democracy is widely understood as false today. There is a widespread belief that the Soviet regime was simply oppressive and totalitarian, and not democratic at all." "widely understood as false today... and not democratic at all" = there is a strong consensus that the idea of Soviet democracy is false. Individuals parroting statements from a dictatorship and "voting" with the Cheka holding guns to the heads of their families while the Red Terror raged is not democracy. Calling it democracy regardless of the prefix is propaganda and renders the word meaningless. The process of writ-ing letters to the authorities is not democracy, especially when the price was often imprisonmnet, torture, death at the hands of the secret police.

• Geifman, A. (1993). Thou Shalt Kill. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Geifman, A. (2010). Death Orders: The Vanguard of Modern Terrorism in Revolutionary Russia. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
• Gerwarth, R. (2003). Violent Russia, Deadly Marxism? Russia in the Epoch of Violence, 1905-21. Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History. 4(3), pp. 627–652.
• Mayer, A. J. (2000). The Furies: Violence and Terror in the French and Russian Revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Melancon, M. (2009). Revolutionary Culture in the Early Soviet Republic: Communist Executive Committees versus the Cheka, Fall 1918. Jahrbücher Für Geschichte Osteuropas, 57(1), pp. 1–22.
• Ryan, James. (2012). Lenin's Terror: The Ideological Origins of Early Soviet State Violence. London: Routledge.

  // Timothy :: talk  12:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

TimothyBlue, "There is a widespread belief that the Soviet regime was simply oppressive and totalitarian, and not democratic at all" is the false understanding, something which you just did. Also, AFAIK, none of those books are about Soviet Democracy. You are simply taking these books about what it seems to be the NKVD (etc.), the Russian Revolution (and consequent Civil War), and taking the conclusion that the Soviet regime was simply oppressive and totalitarian, and not democratic at all --BunnyyHop (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

You can believe whatever you wish. WP is based on consensus and weight in sources, not your opinion, which your own source states is widely understood as false.   // Timothy :: talk  16:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

You are making WP:POV and WP:NOR edits by taking conclusions out of books about the Russian Revolution and the intelligence agency.

"which your own source states is widely understood as false":

Your POV is blocking you from reading things correctly:

The purpose of this article is to reveal which elements of the ideas of Soviet democracy legitimized the direct participation of the people, how these ideas shaped the legislative process, how people participated in the law-making process of the new family law of the union, and finally how the Communist Party and draft makers, including state officials and specialists, worked with popular participation. It took about 20 years to adopt the law, and the reason why it took so long was deeply rooted in the ideas of Soviet democracy. The Soviet regime was democratic in its own sense of the word and this article gives it a more democratic face than what is usually imagined, especially among Western people. However, the regime’s unique democratic character seemed to make it rather difficult to function adequately.

This is an article published in a peer reviewed journal. Also, you can't just mention book titles, you have to cite things. --BunnyyHop (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead picture genuine or not

Is the lead picture, "A riot gets shot in Petrograd, 17 July 1917", genuine to the time period or a still from a Soviet movie in the 1920's. I have seen both attributions. Does anyone know? Seki1949 (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Seki1949: You might want to ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia and/or the Russian Wikipedia embassy page WhisperToMe (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Russian revolution in Finland

The Turkish magazine Servet-i Funun had images from the Russian Revolution in Helsinki (it used the Swedish name Helsingfors). https://archives.saltresearch.org/bitstream/123456789/129156/180/PFSIF9170412A003.jpg

I'm wondering if there were some sources that explained how the Finnish revolution dovetailed with the Russian one...

Also it would be good to check if there are higher quality versions of that image. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Caption of lead picture

The current caption of the lead picture is "A riot gets shot during the July Days in Petrograd, 17 July 1917". This has always seemed awkward to me. Is it really a "riot" or a "demonstration"? "gets" is a lame verb; better would be "A riot is shot at..."

I propose changing the caption to "Crowd scattered by gunfire during the July Days in Petrograd, 17 July 1917".

I'll wait a few days for any feedback before making the change. Seki1949 (talk) 06:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 October 2018 and 5 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mpr3300.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Change "lead" to past tense "led"

This sentence is located in the second paragraph of the overview.

Current: "Nicholas agreed and stepped down, ushering in a new government lead by the Russian Duma (parliament) which became the Russian Provisional Government."

Suggested: "Nicholas agreed and stepped down, ushering in a new government led by the Russian Duma (parliament) which became the Russian Provisional Government." Spooce (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Major Ommissions and Leninist-Bolshevik POV

There is no mention in the lede of the Socialist Revolutionaries, the Socialist Democrats, the Mensheviks, or the Anarchists. The Cheka are mentioned and the "civil war", but no link to the red terror that extermination ~1.3 million souls from 1918 to 1922. No mention of Leon Trotsky or his exile, or his program of permanent revolution, nor of the purging of the Bolshevik old-guard that took place in the 30's under Stalin according to dogmatic Leninism as an ideology. In fact, there is no link to the article on the ideology of Leninism, so readers are unable to analyze the presuppositions of the POV offered here. "Soviet democracy" is mentioned, without any acknowledgement of the brutal anti-democratic autocracy that the Leninist regime quickly became. Each of these is a major ommission from a lede that is already too long, and has the result of a distinctly Leninist-Bolshevik POV on history which is decidedly not WP:Neutral. Thank you for your consideration, Jaredscribe (talk) 05:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The scope of this article is the Russian Revolution, the political evolution from the Russian Empire into the Soviet Union. Trotskyism and the purges are at least 20 years off from where the timeframe of the article stands. Also this article isn't debating communist theory i.e. Trotskyism vs Post-Leninist Soviet Communist Party Policy. The Stalinist purges also are not in the scope of this article as that took place following the Russian Revolution. This article mainly follows the scope of the Russian Revolution from the February Revolution in 1917 to the end of the Russian Civil War 22-23. Everything after that is irrelevant. You do however have valid criticism in regards to the other non-Bolshevik factions before the October Revolution. I have included that in the new lead of the article with regards to the non-Bolshevik parties competing for power. Thank you for your feedback. I will implement any other changes, I or other editors find. Have a good day.

FictiousLibrarian (talk). 19:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

IMHO, the current editors should make these changes themselves, as I'm totally new to this article. If you are reverted, then the "managing editors" should step down in light of so that we can have an open minded and scholarly discussion. Rather than investing my own time in this, I'll post on the Russia wikiproject and ask a new group of senior editors to take over here. Dmitri Volkogonov's biography of Lenin may be instructive here, and other post-Glasnost Russian perspectives on the history. Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 05:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you FictiousLibrarian, for adding half of the proposed changes, and for incorporating my adding the rest. I'm pleasantly surprised at how this content dispute went. If the encyclopedia wins, we all "win" and there are no losers in a content dispute among editors who profess scholarly values. I wish it were like this on other articles, but then again I presented my challenge and argument in discussion, contrary to my usual habit, prior to manifesting it through WP:Bold changes. So I learned something too about wikipolitics.

I agree that everything after the "civil war" ended in 22-23 is not apropos to main narrative body of the article. But since the idea of "the revolution" had (and still has) a long afterlife, this should be discussed somewhere, and I see now that it already is in a section called #Historiography, which is the right name for it. I'll contribute there, now that you've restored my faith in the good faith and competence of the editors here. Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2022

47.156.2.121 (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 23:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)