Talk:Bolsheviks
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bolsheviks article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to the Balkans or Eastern Europe.The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
| This It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Demographics
editIn "Demographics" the following display appears incorrect to me: "By 1905, 62% of the members were industrial workers (...) Twenty-two percent of Bolsheviks were gentry (...) and 38% were uprooted peasants" - which adds up to 122%. A little too much, I think. Unless these are not disctinct groups, but multiple affiliations possible. Who can help/correct? Spin1970 (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- It could be that there is considerable overlap among those classed as "industrial workers" and "uprooted peasants", whose uprootedness may have led to their becoming industrial workers. Dhtwiki (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Bolshevik Page
editUm, the part about Lenin being narrow-minded...that is not true. Even his political opponents recognized that he fully believed in his cause and that Communism really would make Russia a better place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.59.168.201 (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
This post was made by me before I registered for the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leninist4283 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Difference between meaning of the whole information here in different languages.
editYou can use your own translator and you’ll understand the problem. 46.200.234.51 (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Scope of this article
editThis article is currently somewhat of a mess. It doesn't know whether it's about the original Bolshevik faction of the RSDLP, the history of the pre-Revolution Bolsheviks up until 1918, or the entire history of the use of the Bolshevik name until the party was renamed the CPSU in 1952.
If I were to redo this article, I would make it so it only covers the history of the original Bolshevik faction. Otherwise, there's an argument to be made that it should cover the entire history of the CPSU until it's dissolution in 1991. The only time there was a clear organisational split was in 1912. You can't end the article in 1918 because the party didn't cease to exist upon forming government. You can't end the article in 1952 because a simple name change doesn't mean the party underwent some sort of complete transformation. You could end the article in 1991, but then it would look almost identical to the CPSU article.
It only makes sense for this article to cover the history of the Bolshevik faction, up until it formed it's own party. That's when there was a clear transformation in the group's organisational structure; enough of a transformation to warrant separate articles. Loytra (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree. There is already a Bolshevism article. And it was the same entity before and after becoming officially a separate party.--GwydionM (talk) 08:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- So then where should the scope of this article end? If the Bolsheviks were the same entity before and after becoming a separate party, then they were also the same entity up until the dissolution of their party in 1991. A line has to be drawn somewhere. Loytra (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'd have ended it with the adoption of the name Communist. But where it does end is entirely logical. --GwydionM (talk) 07:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- In what way is it logical? An organisation doesn't cease to exist because of a name change. I'm really not sure how you can argue that "it was the same entity before and after becoming officially a separate party", but that it became a separate entity after a name change. It doesn't feel like you're engaging with the actual substance of my argument, to be completely honest. I addressed all of these points in my original paragraph and you aren't providing any further explanation. Loytra (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'd have ended it with the adoption of the name Communist. But where it does end is entirely logical. --GwydionM (talk) 07:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Typo in references
editReference 10 cites "p. 364-355". I do not have access to the literature so I am unable to fix it CJ.Mosley.Fan (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Done. Typo fixed. Good catch. Thanks. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
typo in History of the Split
editGeorgi Plekhanov is spelled as Georgy in section "Second Party Congress". can't edit page so leaving this here ~2026-81041-3 (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

