Talk:Russian Revolution

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)

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)

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)

xpansion 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 (UTC)

who the hell are you to say that? —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)

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.

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)

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)

.

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 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.

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)