Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:58, 18 December 2020

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Template:Vital article

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Russian Revolution. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Russian Revolution at the Reference desk.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on November 7, 2007 and November 7, 2008.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Socialism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Soviet Union: Russia / History / Military Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Russia (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force. Military history: Russian & Soviet / World War I This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force World War I task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. European history High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Anarchism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anarchism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anarchism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnarchismWikipedia:WikiProject AnarchismTemplate:WikiProject Anarchismanarchism  Anarchism WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · history · talk · purge Recognized content · Drafts & requests · Subscribe · Member list · Resources · How can I help? Did you know 21 Jan 2025 – Alt Llobregat insurrection (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Grnrchst (t · c); see discussion 11 Jan 2025 – Los Solidarios (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Grnrchst (t · c); see discussion Articles for deletion 08 Jan 2025 – Kevin Carson (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Grnrchst (t · c) was closed as redirect by OwenX (t · c) on 15 Jan 2025; see discussion (7 participants) Good article nominees 26 Oct 2024 – Squat Milada (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Mujinga (t · c); see discussion Requested moves 15 Jan 2025 – Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria by 2A01:CB04:6B1:FB00:2C28:A95B:AE10:E785 (t · c); see discussion Articles for creation 13 Dec 2024 – Draft:José de Molina (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by MexicanSoda (t · c) Cleanup (0) · Potentially related articles · Recent edits · Recent Commons images · Stub expansion project (512)

This article was reviewed by The Independent on February 12, 2006. Comments: "reads like the work of a second-rate undergraduate student... It is a simplistic account" For more information about external reviews of Misplaced Pages articles and about this review in particular, see this page.

Template:WP1.0 This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 October 2018 and 5 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mpr3300 (article contribs).

"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 Misplaced Pages 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' was spelt with an apostrophe (when used in sentences such as 'let's look at an example' (the sentence that I found this disastrous grammar error in. Sorry for being a complete saddo, but THIS IS APPALLING. 2.101.28.242 (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Edit request on 30 March 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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

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

External link 4 is broken.

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

"Octobrist" link is an incorrect reference?

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

Spelling mistake

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

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

Sides

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

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

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

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

Draft outline

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

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

Orthodox Extermination

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

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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[REDACTED] as a source. ______ Working class women in St. Petersburg reportedly spent about forty hours a week in food lines, begging, turning to prostitution or crime, tearing down wooden fences to keep stoves heated for warmth, grumbling about the rich, and wondering when and how this would all come to an end. For the above this seems to be editorialized and not cited and should be removed. I could not find a a primary source for this and this seems to be something that would have to be verified. If anyone has a source I believe this could be left in. NewGuy2017 (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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[REDACTED] as there source. ______ Remove "Working class women in St. Petersburg reportedly spent about forty hours a week in food lines, begging, turning to prostitution or crime, tearing down wooden fences to keep stoves heated for warmth, grumbling about the rich, and wondering when and how this would all come to an end." For the above this seems to be editorialized and not cited and should be removed. I could not find a a primary source for this and this seems to be something that would have to be verified. If anyone has a source I believe this could be left in. NewGuy2017 (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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[REDACTED] as there source. ______ Change "Working class women in St. Petersburg reportedly spent about forty hours a week in food lines, begging, turning to prostitution or crime, tearing down wooden fences to keep stoves heated for warmth, grumbling about the rich, and wondering when and how this would all come to an end." to "" For the above this seems to be editorialized and not cited and should be removed. I could not find a a primary source for this and this seems to be something that would have to be verified. If anyone has a source I believe this could be left in. NewGuy2017 (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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[REDACTED] as there source. ______ Change "Working class women in St. Petersburg reportedly spent about forty hours a week in food lines, begging, turning to prostitution or crime, tearing down wooden fences to keep stoves heated for warmth, grumbling about the rich, and wondering when and how this would all come to an end." to "" For the above this seems to be editorialized and not cited and should be removed. I could not find a a primary source for this and this seems to be something that would have to be verified. If anyone has a source I believe this could be left in. NewGuy2017 (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Split this article - February Revolution and October Revolution

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

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

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

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

O.Figes & Russn Revoltn.

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

Lenin's Impact on The Russian Revolution

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Russian Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120715035433/http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/russia/mett/petro_eve.html to http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/russia/mett/petro_eve.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060911061840/http://www.yale.edu/annals/Steinberg/golosa.htm to http://www.yale.edu/annals/Steinberg/golosa.htm

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

Kornilov Affair

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

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

End date?

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

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

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

• Russian Revolution of 1917.jpg

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

Please replace disadvantages with disadvantageous. Just a typo.

Please replace disadvantages with disadvantageous. Just a typo.

Revert edit

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

Infobox "Military Conflict"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subway NYC64 has been indefinitely blocked as a

Edit request

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

Potentially misleading description Marx’s views on revolution

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

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

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

On the infobox edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Earlier chapters in:

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

Later chapters in:

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

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

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Selected anniversaries (November 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (November 2008)
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class socialism articles
• Top-importance socialism articles
• WikiProject Socialism articles
• B-Class Soviet Union articles
• Top-importance Soviet Union articles
• B-Class Russia articles
• Top-importance Russia articles
• Top-importance B-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles
• B-Class Russia (history) articles
• History of Russia task force articles
• B-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• WikiProject Soviet Union articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• C-Class World War I articles
• World War I task force articles
• B-Class European history articles
• High-importance European history articles
• All WikiProject European history pages
• B-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Unassessed anarchism articles
• WikiProject Anarchism articles
• Externally peer reviewed articles
• Externally peer reviewed articles by The Independent