Talk:1905 Russian Revolution

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lots of boilerplate[edit]

Much of this article is written like a revolutionary pamphlet, with a great deal of hyperbolic accusation but precious little factual description. Actions are too often characterized rather than described. Instead of being told there was "oppression," I would like to hear what police actually did. Also, the word "persecution" was applied to revolutionaries, despite the fact that revolutionary activity is always illegal in every country, and prosecuting revolutionaries is neither technically nor connotatively equivalent to persecution. I really hope to see some of this revolutionary boilerplate replaced with some encyclopedia-like relating of facts or sourced material. Preston McConkie 13:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A suggestion...[edit]

This page has no sources, and the only external link is broken.

I would like to point out that the last sentence of the third paragraph of "background", ending in "as the country lacked an industrial proletariat at the time," is inconsistant with all of the references to "the workers" and the unions. The correction, which I have added, should read "as, in his opinion, the country lacked a significant body of industrial proletariats at the time." /Hal

200 killed 800 wounded Religion Jewish

>> Vladimir Ilionovich (Lenin)

Really?.. What's with the "Ilionovich" bit? --Bicycle repairman 02:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Russia Orthodox vs Roman Catholics207.119.120.188 (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey um, on this page the "See also 'Russian History 18...' etc. is in italics, but on the Russian Revolution of 1917 it isn't. I'd fix it myself but I don't know which way is the right way.. nitpicky but thought I'd throw it out there. :) -Hawk

Hey guys i have to do a paper on the russian revolution and that time period and i cant find much on the people at the time i mean it talks about the workers conditions but i cant find anything on the peoples clothes or homes or way of life there is stuff on that time period but its all based in america and england by the way my grand uncle fought in russia during 1917 near the end of ww1 he was an american soldier it would help if i had ever met him darn oh well

{19:56 7feb06} i just wanted to say that 

-your frustrated friend-

In the first sentence of Background is says "which in 1905 was headed by Nicholas II, of the House of Romanov. " but the link goes to Czar Alexander's page also the Alexander II was a major reformer and he introduced reforms in local goverment and the judicial system.

French Article[edit]

I was wondering there is a French copy of this article however it isn't linked from the links on the left. Is there any way this could be rectified, I dont know how Change is necessary

using a little ingenuity i did it. change is necessary

First Sentences[edit]

The "Empire-wide spasm" sentence needs work. It sounds really unacademic.

yes, especially since Russia WASN'T an empire - although their nation was large, they had no oversea colonies... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Russia was an empire on the type of the Austro-Hungarian. There is not one nation, but a lot of them.--Юе Артеміс (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Bloody Sunday photograph[edit]

Is there any proof that the photograph was, in fact, taken that day? I recall reading somewhere that the image, well known though it may be, is actually a still from a later historical melodrama (possibly one by Eisenstein). 22:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Intro paragraph and pre-revolution assumptions[edit]

The intro of this article is too long and is more less half the article. In addition I take some issue with assertions such as unrest had been a regular part of the Russian Empire, serious disturbances had been rare in the decades prior to 1905 as there were multiple and very important armed and unarmed uprisings in Russia prior to 1905 that played a direct role in the '05 Revolution. Active revolutionaries were drawn almost exclusively from the intelligentsia makes it sound as the foundation for the revolution was based soley in the ranks of the academics which, of course, is also not true. Under Alexander III the Russian police political service (the Okhrana) acted very effectively to suppress both revolutionaries and proto-democratic movements across the country. discounts the virtual training ground that Siberian exile towns became and the large amount of revolutionary pusblishments and thought flowing into the country from the exile community.

There is also a notable lack of comment on the late arrival of the Bolshevik and Menshevik core in the events of the uprising and the exception that Trotsky played to this rule. This is an important point as the 1905 revolution was one of the earliest events that lead to Trotsky becoming arguably the people's most popular revolutionary leaders in Russia. Any thoughts on the best way to breakdown the intro section and address these other issues? NeoFreak 21:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know what the introduction looked like in 2006, but when I looked at it, it was around two lines long! The intro is in many ways the most important part of an article, so I have been trying to expand it a bit to provide a very brief summary of the revolutions cause, course and effects. Any help greatly appreciated -- it should be short, but it should provide a useful summary. Larry Dunn 17:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Intro Paragraph[edit]

The introduction paragraph states that 95% of Russia's population was made up of the industrial working class (proletariat), when in fact, only a small portion of Russia's population was made up of actual industrial workers. I do not recall the actual number of urban workers in Russia at the time, but I know that the vast majority of Russia's population in 1905 was made up of peasants, not industrial workers.

Also, the phrase "generally lorded it over the peasants" doesn't sound particularly academic.

The Bloody Sunday section also needs work. It seems to be slanted toward an anti-Tsarist standpoint, and does not tell all of the events that occurred on Bloody Sunday. I believe that more should be added to this section, telling of the other circumstances surrounding the Bloody Sunday massacre, perhaps some of the uncertainty regarding the origin of the military action, or that Tsar Nicolas was not actually at the Winter Palace at the time, and that he expressed sypmpathy about the massacre.

Patoenojado 02:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Knowledge Gap[edit]

While this article remains good as an outline of the events of the Russian Revolution of 1905, I feel that it lacks in one key area. The Article seems to jump from the events of the Bulygin Manifesto/rescript, to the general strike, without recognition of why the workers actions were growing stronger. I feel a mention of the organisation of the soviet workers groups would do well here to recognise the increase in the power, and organisation of the workers to opose the Tsar. Regards Brin

Repressive Action[edit]

I removed the last line of the "Background" section: "In 1903 one-third of the Russian army in western Russia had engaged in 'repressive action' upon the enemy." There is no indication who the enemy was, while the context hints that one third of soldiers may have been involved in repressing uprisings or unrest. With clarity, I'm sure this statement should be put back in. Preston McConkie 13:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lacking significient information[edit]

This is article is lacking significant information regarding the strongest area of revolt and longest period of resistance that happened during this events in Polish provinces of Russian Empire. --Molobo 10:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I invite you to start an article on that. Please find the title for these events in the academic literature to use it for the article's title and create a stub. Articles about Russia are not articles about Poland no matter how much unimportant the non-PL related issues of Russian history may seem to you and vice versa. --Irpen 10:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not about Poland, as it didn't exist back then, but about Russian Empire's Polish provinces. Similar to information about Finland which is already here--Molobo 10:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If, as you say, "Poland didn't exist", how come the "History of Poland" series includes the article about this period? Looks like Poland existed. It's just that its independence did not exist back then, true enough. Lots of things happened in lots of provinces of the Russian empire. There are separate articles for that, for example details on the events that took place in the Governorates of Bessarabiya, Volhynia, Yekaterinoslav, Kiev, Podolsk, Poltava, taurida, Kharkov, Khreson and Chernigov belong to the Ukrainian history articles as well as the narrow articles about these territories. Respectively, what happened in Kovna and Vilna governorates belong to respective Polish and Lithuanian articles.

As I said, start a sourced article titled according to an existing terminology. Once there is something there, we can discuss how much from it belongs here. I know you would rather add 2-3 paragraphs about Poland directly to this RU-related article. But please no more Russian Enlightenment/Ded Moroz-tricks. --Irpen 12:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History of Poland involves all territories that were once of it and are connected to its existance and activity. As events in 1905 in Polish areas had their own specific they deserve a seperate section just like events in Finland, I see no reason not to do this-your personal opinion that certain events in Russian Empire's history are to be ignored is not within any Wikipedia policy, and like said before-Finland is already covered. History of Polish provinces of Russian Empire is history of Russian Empire, no matter how much disliked by some people. Also please assume good faith rathre then throw baseless and insulting accusations regarding other contributors work by saying they are using some "tricks" (what for? is there some cabal or agenda ? please let us be serious). --Molobo 14:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Molobo raises a very important point. I am writing an article on Łódź insurrection (1905), and a modern Polish encyclopedia ([1]) in an article on Revolution in Polish Kingdom (1905-1907) states: Królestwo Polskie było głównym ogniskiem walk rewolucyjnych 1905-1907 w całym imperium rosyjskim. which is translated as Kingdom of Poland was the center of revolutionary fights of 1905-1907 in the entire Russian Empire.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Replaced reference to Decembrists with reference to Octobrists. ParlorSoldier (talk) 10:26, 21 April 2008 so there for you are a dummy head!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1(UTC)

Paul Kuritz source for 14,000[edit] not reliable. It is a vanity self-publication, non-scholarly. Removed.radek (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Similar article[edit]

The article Moscow Uprising of 1905 clearly relates to this article and I think merging the contents of the two would help increase the depth of knowledge there is on this topic. I have avoided placing a merger template because while the other article has some useful information, it is poorly written and needs citations. I am discussing this article here in case there are other editors with more expertise on this topic who might be able to resolve these issues.--Kpstewart (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Russo-Japanese War...[edit]

... should probably be given more prominence. It's mentioned only in passing, and not as a factor in creating the political and psychological conditions for a mass uprising. The humiliating defeat of the Tsar's entire navy by an upstart (and non-white!) nation contributed to a sense that the regime was weak and useless, undeserving of any respect, its absolute power all empty pretense. It was probably the most significant "Emperor's new clothes" moment in human history. There had been no end of underground grouplets dedicated to smashing the state for decades, but 1905 was the first time it seemed like a reasonable, and possible, goal to vast numbers of Russians. I'm not sure of the exact chronology, and I'm too ignorant to write substantively about it as a causative factor, but surely someone out there can take it on.Chelydra (talk) 08:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This article seems to be bias towards and anti-tsarist viewpoint, also it does not cite many reasons for the 1905 revolution as a whole, such as the Russo-Japanese War and more long term reasons, also the background section cites no sources. this article can be much improved, I hope to help improve this article. Legalways (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is the uprising on the battleship Potemkin not important? I think it was later on but in the same time frame with certainly same ideas and spirit of the whole ordeal that had gone and what was going on in Russia at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Further to recent comments by Legalways and Chelydra above noting the lack of proper discussion in the article regarding the causes of the 1905 Russian Revolution such as the Russo-Japanese War, I looked at the article's history and noticed an IP vandal in 2006 removed two paragraphs of content relevant to the causes. Unfortunately, nobody reverted the vandalism, so I am doing that now. I am restoring the missing content as well as one preceding paragraph that was also later removed without explanation. It needs better referencing, so please help find references and add them to the article.

The workers' act of resistance was the strike. There were massive strikes in Saint Petersburg immediately after Bloody Sunday (1905); over 400,000 workers were involved by the end of January. The action quickly spread to other industrial centres in Russia's Polish provinces, in Finland, and the Baltic coast. In Riga, 80 protestors were killed on 26 January [O.S. 13 January] 1905, and in Warsaw a few days later over 100 strikers were shot on the streets. By February, there were strikes in the Caucasus, and by April, in the Urals and beyond. In March, all higher academic institutions were forcibly closed for the remainder of the year, adding radical students to the striking workers. A strike by railway workers on 21 October [O.S. 8 October] 1905 quickly developed into a general strike in Saint Petersburg and Moscow. This prompted the setting up of the short-lived Saint Petersburg Soviet of Workers' Deputies, a largely Menshevik group, which organised strike action in over 200 factories.[1] By 26 October [O.S. 13 October] 1905, over 2 million workers were on strike and there were almost no active railways in all of Russia.

With the unsuccessful and bloody Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905) there was unrest in army reserve units. In February 1905, the Russian army was defeated at Mukden, losing almost 80,000 men in the process; in May 1905, Port Arthur was lost, and the Russian Baltic Fleet mauled at Tsushima. Witte was quickly dispatched to make peace, negotiating the Treaty of Portsmouth (signed 18 September [O.S. 5 September] 1905). In 1905, there were naval mutinies at Sevastopol (see Sevastopol Uprising), Vladivostok, and Kronstadt, peaking in June with the mutiny aboard the Battleship Potemkin — some sources claim over 2,000 sailors died in the restoration of order.[2] The mutinies were disorganised and quickly crushed. The armed forces were largely apolitical and remained mostly loyal, if dissatisfied — and were widely used by the government to control the 1905 unrest.

Nationalist groups had been angered by the Russification undertaken since Alexander II. The Poles, Finns, and the Baltic provinces all sought autonomy, and also freedom to use their national languages and promote their own culture. Muslim groups were also active — the First Congress of the Muslim Union took place in August 1905. Certain groups took the opportunity to settle differences with each other rather than the government. Some nationalists undertook anti-Jewish pogroms, possibly with government aid.

  1. ^ Voline (2004). Unknown Revolution, Chapter 2: The Birth of the "Soviets"
  2. ^ Bascomb, N (2007). Red Mutiny: Eleven Fateful Days on the Battleship Potemkin. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was page moved to Revolution of 1905. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1905 Russian RevolutionRussian Revolution (1905) — For consistency with Russian Revolution (1917). Srnec (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Comment I believe normal usage in English to be 1905 Revolution (or Revolution of 1905) and Russian Revolution for the two topics here, and that the forms WP actually uses are disambiguation. Likewise, we do use French Revolution, July Revolution, French Revolution of 1848 for the three victorious revolutions in Paris; unqualified, "French Revolution" means 1789ff., as "Russian Revolution" means 1917. While I dislike parenthetical disambiguation, if we need to act for consistency, I would prefer Revolution of 1905 (Russia), Russian Revolution, Revolution of 1848 (France) to the proposal - although the first disambiguator may be unnecessary; the secession of Norway was not a revolution. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I would definitely support moving Russian Revolution (1917) to Russian Revolution. If that is done, then I don't care so much what this one is called (the current title, the proposed title, 1905 Revolution, Revolution of 1905, or Russian Revolution of 1905 are all acceptable to me, although my preference would go, I think, to "Revolution of 1905"). As for the French article, the current title is acceptable to me because (a) it is used by some and (b) we have articles consistenly titled either "Xian Revolution of 1848" when the revolution is one in one place or "Revolutions of 1848 in X" when the revolutions are several in a collection of states later unified. If you proposed to move it to Revolution of 1848 (France), I would want to know that no other articles remain at suboptimal titles out of neglect or ignorance: is there a special name for this particular (French revolution)/(revolution of 1848)? Srnec (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 1848 revolution in France is often the February Revolution, as opposed to the March Revolution in Germany and Hungary; but both of those are used only in context, becuse of the ambiguity with the fall of the Romanoffs. I wouldn't recommend either as titles on this subject (following the link, I find a Venezuelan civil war too). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Amend: Move to Revolution of 1905, and, as soon as that is closed, open a move request to remove (1917) from Russian Revolution (1917).Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Suggestions; I Think[edit]

The article is written more from the perspective of the people who were effected with little detail as to how they were effected, it gives it a very anti-tsarist view which is unfortunate because it leaves out a lot of factors that contributed to the revolution that occurred in the royal family. And while it does have some of the necessary information, more information on such events as the Russo-Japanese War should be included because the impact of such events was much greater than the article gives light to. The Russo-Japanese War is glazed over slightly when more information and citation should be added. Speaking of citation, one of the outside links is dead and more information from external links should be added, there seems to be a lack of external links that are non-biased in support of the revolutionaries. The words used in some spots were a tad confusing to read and try to piece together with the information given and perhaps the language that is used should be toned down so as people have an easier time reading it. Otherwise the article is useful in gathering some details about the Revolution of 1905. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JessicaAshG (talkcontribs) 08:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion of some general complaints[edit]

Naturally, complaining is much less useful than doing, but this is a very large topic which requires collective action and I cannot fix these problems on my own. Firstly: the issue of over-quotation (I did insert the template). Many of these quotations could easily be paraphrased into a much more readable narrative. But there's a deeper issue, in that so many of these quotations are from a single source, i.e. the book by Sidney Harcave. 1970 would be considered outdated on almost any topic of major importance, but on Russian issues the difference between Soviet and post-Soviet historiography seems unavoidable even in a topic which predates the Bolshevik Revolution by 12 years. Secondly, the issue of "bias," which has been raised above. The question of national bias, I think, has been dealt with more or less adequately in subsections, but the prevailing tone of the article is democratic anti-tsarism, which, while important at the time, was not the only interpretation and certainly not the most important after a century of history. The views of Lenin and Trotsky are barely examined despite the fact that both of them wrote profusely on 1905 as a "prelude" and were important emigre agitators; the anarchist position is entirely absent despite their prevalence (later silenced and marginalized, following Lenin [no bias here, his hostile views on the anarchists are well-known]); etc. The most repugnant opinions (in my view, and recall that one may be opinionated on a talk page and level-headed when editing an article), namely those of Tsarist absolutists and their allies, are indeed given little to no attention. None of these positions may be palatable, but that is hardly the point. This article shows all of the flaws of being overdependent on too few sources, and I think it needs a significant rewrite that acknowledges not only contemporary sources but recent developments in historiography. Tothebarricades (talk) 07:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DOES NOT ADD UP TO 100%[edit]



JL28552855 (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There were school strikes in Poland, which re-introduced the Polish language to schools. The revolution was partially nationalistic in Poland.Xx236 (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Government Response - Mr Fyodrov?[edit]

Who is "Mr Fyodrov"? Even if this is a formatting error that's missing a period, it's still missing a first name, and a source. Smok3yblu3dog (talk) 05:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

strongly state-regulated agricultural sector vs. "laissez faire capitalist policies"[edit]

The introduction to the Labour Problem doesn't seem to add up. First, there is a general explanation They had experimented with laissez faire capitalist policies, but they hadn't worked out until the 1890s, but concretely the core problem is defined by the source as low productivity in the agricultural sector. In the section "Agrarian Problem" above is described how strongly the agrarian sector was regulated and agrarian land partially even owned by the state and that it was not possible for the small peasants to build capital and an own fortune. I don't know which sectors of the economy the mentioned "laissez faire capitalist policies" refer to and how crucial these measures were, but the agrarian sector was at that time by far the most important in the economy and it was in fact severely hurt by a LACK of capitalist policies. Who can give me an explanation on this?

Fischerpatent (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very good[edit]

Excellent introduction to the events, congrats. Zezen (talk) 10:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The Russian Revolution of 1905,[a] also known as the First Russian Revolution,[b] occurred on 22 January 1905, and was a wave of mass political and social unrest that spread through vast areas of the Russian Empire. The mass unrest was directed against the Tsar, nobility and ruling class. It included worker strikes, peasant unrest, and military mutinies. In response to the public pressure, Tsar Nicholas II enacted some constitutional reform (namely the October Manifesto). This took the form of establishing the State Duma, the multi-party system, and the Russian Constitution of 1906. Despite popular participation in the Duma, the parliament was unable to issue laws of its own and frequently came into conflict with Nicholas. Its power was limited and Nicholas continued to hold the ruling authority. Furthermore, he could dissolve the Duma, which he often did. (talk) 05:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nicholas II was an Emperor, not a Tsar[edit]

In 1721, Peter I officially changed the name of Tsardom of Russia to the Russian Empire. A byproduct of this change is that the monarch of Russia turned from being the tsar to being the emperor. Every monarch after Peter I was an emperor or an empress, including Nicholas II. In the Wikipedia article about the 1905 Russian Revolution, there are 31 times the word tsar is used instead of emperor. The point being that the article should be updated to match what the Russian monarch's actual title was. (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: History of Socialism[edit]

Sciences humaines.svg This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2022 and 23 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): StinkyGremlin.

— Assignment last updated by Stinky Gremlin (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revolutionary leaders[edit]

This article doesn't seem to realize which revolution it's talking about; Victor Chernov and Vladimir Lenin had precious little to do with the revolution of 1905 at all, much less did they 'lead' it. Better candidates might include Father Gapon or the Union of Liberation (Trotsky could stay, being the founder of the St Petersburg Soviet). 2600:8800:7000:4DE0:7032:998A:BF0D:39C9 (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's gotten even worse, since Joseph Stalin has now been added as a revolutionary leader despite having little-to-nothing to do with the course of the revolution. 2600:8800:7000:4DE0:9C41:6806:4CD3:3680 (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]