Talk:Russian Revolution/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Old talk 

message: 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)
thread_title:  1912 strike 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[User:Rickyrab]]'s deletion of "non-English nonsense" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Few comments 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Re: Causes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge to/from Timeline of The Russian Revolution 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Historical and Political Bias 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Distortion and Misinformation-continution of the above. 

message: ”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)
thread_title:  Continued remarks on the above: 

message: 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)
thread_title:  More vandalism 

message: According to, 'Modern Warfare 2 (awesome game)' World History () 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)
replies: text: Please see old style. —xyzzyn 15:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting evidence 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Expansion Needed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citing Sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Expansion 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Missing literature 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Errors 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Documents Russian Revolution  

message: 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)
replies: text: Makes sense to me, assuming it's still on the table. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Revolution vs. Revolutions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Source/POV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  World War 1 or First World War 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Missed Links 

message: 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:
#Background
##Political Issues
##Timeline
##Expanded chronology
#February revolution
#Dual Power
#October
#Civil War
##Imperial Family
#Cultural Portrayal
#Notes
#References
#Further reading
#See also
#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)
thread_title:  Ideas for re-organisation 

message: We should include a section about the new Bolshevik government.NRB.12345 (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Covered under >Main article: October Revolution Fifelfoo (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Government 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Animal Farm 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Request 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Misplaced comma 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  video at the top of the page 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Requested Edit 

message: 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)
replies: text:  I agree, but let's see what others have to say. --JokerXtreme (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

text: I agree entirely, a clear picture would be better than a fuzzy video. 212.69.35.197 (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request of the moving picture at the head of this article 

message: 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 
--Antn-Samara (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  The history is completely forged 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pending changes 

message: :"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)
thread_title:  Typo bourgeoise -> bourgeoisie? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, and the article says so. What exactly do you want changed? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Elliebell15, 30 October 2010 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 117.199.24.131, 6 November 2010 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "no other Marxist movement succeeded in keeping power in its hands." 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Does the title need 1917? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: *Support as nom. This is moving a disambiguator, and nothing else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 30 March 2012 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Too many pictures 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Edit request on 2 July 2012 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citation request 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Photograph of Bloody Sunday 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article refers to Social Causes and Witte's Land reforms 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External link 4 is broken. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Octobrist" link is an incorrect reference? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Done Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 06:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2015 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Sides 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Draft outline 

message: Russia is a European superpower 23.228.140.119 (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: as this article is about the Russian Revolution - not Russia - Arjayay (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2016 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Orthodox Extermination 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2017 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. RivertorchFIREWATER 04:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2017 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not done: Duplicate request. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2017 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not done: Duplicate request. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2017 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not done: Duplicate request. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2017 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2017 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Split this article - February Revolution and October Revolution 

message: 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)
thread_title:  O.Figes & Russn Revoltn. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lenin's Impact on The Russian Revolution 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: TTFxsfwr (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2018 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Kornilov Affair 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  End date? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Revert edit 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article suffers a massive drop in quality as it transitions into the October revolution section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2019 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: I noticed that the first mention of Azerbaijan is erroneously spelled “Azebaijan”. Conover10 (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Thank you. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 11:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2020 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2020 

message: “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)
thread_title:  Potentially misleading description Marx’s views on revolution 

message: 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)
replies: text: You might want to ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia and/or the Russian Wikipedia embassy page WhisperToMe (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead picture genuine or not 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Russian revolution in Finland 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Caption of lead picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: Cannolis (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change "lead" to past tense "led" 

message: 47.156.2.121 (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2022