Talk:Bloody Sunday (1905)

The photo of the workers meeting the soldiers

In this article the photo is shown as a still from a movie, but on the article for Vera Karelina the same, or at least suspiciously similar photo is shown as a real one. Which is true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.40.106.174 (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Gapon as paid agent of Okhrana

Was Gapon a paid agent of the Okhrana in january 1905? Whilst his organisation was Zubatovite in origin, (ie formed under the influence of the police) he was, I thought, not acting udner police instructions when he called the 9 Janu He certainly (re?)established connections with the Okhrana later, and was killed for it by the SRs Combat Organisation (at the insistence of its head Azef, who was definitely an Okhrana agent). But isn't there a strong case for saying that in January 1905, Gapon was a naive idealist, influenced at least as much by the workers who had joined his assembly and were calling for justice than by the Zubatovite origins of his Assembly organisation?---RB

Absolutely. It's misleading to say that the leader of demonstration was a paid agent of the Okhrana. At the time he was genuinely an idealist who believed the Tzar would "help the people". See Orlando Figes. I'll remove the passage. --84.154.105.52 10:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

he was an agent of okhrana; it is a fact, even if he was an idealist. Idealists are best provocateurs. mikka (t) 16:28, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What's your source, so far you've given us no evidence that what you're saying is true --Geb Mills (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing in the article to support the suggestion that the protest was instigated by the Okhrana through Gapon (as their agent) and therefore the phrase in the lead "Bloody Sunday was a serious blunder on the part of the Okhrana" seems to be a matter of opinion. As such I've deleted it. If reputable sources can be produced to support the suggestion then by all means reinstate it with reference to the sources. Likewise, I've removed the unsupported statement that Gapon was paid by Okhrana (which can clearly be interpretted in the context of the article as meaning that he was in their pay at the time of Bloody Sunday) and replaced it with his association with Sergei Vasilyevich Zubatov of the Okhrana in setting up workers' organisations - that much at least is supported by the referenced material. -- Timberframe (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Bolshevik printers?

The dedication of Eats, Shoots and Leaves reads "To the memory of the striking Bolshevik printers of St Petersburg who, in 1905, demanded to be paid the same rate for punctuation marks as for letters, and thereby directly precipitated the first Russion Revolution."

Is that so? —RadRafe

I have several references I could make to show Czar was not there during the protest, although because they may or may not be academic, I wont put it on there for now.

1000 dead?

Seriously? Most books I have read have placed it at around 200. Anyone have any evidence to back up the 1000 dead claim?

From Years of Change - European History 1890-1945 by Robert Wolfson: "Officially, ninety-six protesters died and 333 were wounded. Probably a thousand died and a thousand more were wounded." But I've got other references that just say "over a hundred died"... --AsaRoast 21:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Most sources agree that the official report was inaccurate, due to bias and the fact that the crowd member were carrying off the bodies. Most sources i have found place it at around 300 dead and 800 wounded.

The Tsars officails placed the death toll at 96 and 333 injured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.3.249 (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Caption accurate?

Is it just me or does it seem to others that the image captioned "The Tsar's soldiers shooting at demonstrators at the Winter Palace" has no soldiers actually firing? The crowd appears to be reacting to something, but it's unclear what. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC) The origin of this photo is not clear. It may be not the photo of actual events at all, but still from 1925 Soviet movie about the events.DonaldDuck 07:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC

True is does appear as so the civilians are running from something, more than likely the firing of soldiers or the advancement of cossacks, but the soldiers seen may not have been firing due to the realisation that their job was complete and no further blood was to be spilled. No one will ever know for sure, you can only assume.

    Russian Revolutions VCE Student

My history book says that over 1,000 were killed. Dunno, but I think national geographic knows what they were talking about. there is a pretty frigtening picture in it (here's the picture: http://www.smfc.k12.ca.us/stage/lalosh2/BloodySunday.jpg) the picture does look like propaganda to me. but then, nobody loved the romanovs until Stalin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.184.6 (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

situation needs a more thorough explanation

What would the secret police stand to gain from setting up a petition march? Why on earth would the secret police want to provoke an incident only to have the guard suppress it? Why would these two arms of the government be working at cross purposes, unless they deliberately wanted to destabilize the government... but if they did that, then they would also pay the price. How do we know this Gapon was actually in the pay of the secret police.... was it just his "friend" who murdered him that claims this? If a priest was working to improve the lot of the common folk, then why was religion so demonized by the communists/bolsheviks? This entry needs more light cast upon it for those not well versed in the political situation of the time. 70.71.14.86 15:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Father kevin?

Who's Father kevin? This article needs cleanup. Also,

Despite the consequences of this action, the Tsar was never fully blamed,, contrast to

Although the Tsar had not been present at the Winter Palace at this time, he received the blame for the deaths

??

dino 22:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This page needs some cleanup. The first paragraph doesn't quite square with the rest of the article. JPalonus (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Needs To Be More Specific: In the "Preludes" section, the third sentance from the end of the paragraph reads "He was warned not to act." This is too ambiguous. Who was warned not to act? The Czar? Gapon? The Protesters? I can't tell who is being refered to by reading this section. If you know who "He was warned not to act" is refering to, please replace "He" with a name (or at least something more specific.) Thank you. --Allthenamesarealreadytaken 00:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Father Gapon, a priest who was... Amoran1998 (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Dead link

The external link listed is a dead link. Please fix soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.172.61 (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Tone and Neutrality of article

Because of reason given in my edit: "The tone and style of this article is very inappropriate. It deals too much with how the article presumes people felt". The article constantly goes back to "the rioters felt", "they were expecting", "there was a sense of...", "the Czar had the intention".

Not only is this language not fitting for Wikipedia, it also leaves the door wide open for POV by emotionally charging the article, and relying on dubious 'facts' about people's feelings as a vehicle to get their point across. If such feelings are noted by an observing party, and not by an interest group (such as a future communist leadership or Czarists, using the issue for political reason).--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all, can you please give specific examples of "inappropriate tone"? You have four phrases in quotes in your post above, but none of them appears in the article. Unless you point to the actual sentences that use "feel" expression, it is difficult for anybody to fix them.

Secondly, "leaving the door wide open for POV" is not the same thing as being POV. Again, please state which sentences in the article express a point of view that is non-neutral. Otherwise, the tag will have to be removed again. Scolaire (talk) 11:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I found a total of two (consecutive) sentences with the words "hope" and "believe" in them and edited them down. I have removed both tags. That is not to say the article cannot be improved - it could do with a lot of work - but let's improve it by editing, not by tagging. Scolaire (talk) 07:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It seemed like a much bigger job when I first read the article, and I wasn't sure what to remove and what to change. Nice catch on the 'clutching icons' part; whoever wrote the article before went throw a lot of trouble trying to paint a vivid image. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 05:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

An appalling article. The troops were not the Imperial Guard but the garrison troops for St.Petersburg called out by the city's military governor in anticipation of the march/demonstration. Given the position of Jews in the Empire and their eternal jaundice towards the Imperial authorities it is wrong that you should cite a Jewish 'historian' as an authority on this page. You do not seem to realise how grossly offensive this is to White Russians. 2A00:23C4:B63A:1800:81AA:F84:890A:E14B (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bloody Sunday (1905). 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://web.archive.org/web/20131207005635/http://www.classicsonline.com/catalogue/product.aspx?pid=2182 to http://www.classicsonline.com/catalogue/product.aspx?pid=2182

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 09:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Stachka, linguistic causation?

“The Russian term for strike, stachka, was derived from an old colloquial term, stakat’sia- to conspire for a criminal act.”[4] As such, Russian laws viewed strikes as criminal acts of conspiracy and potential catalysts for rebellion.

"As such" suggests that the derivation of the term _stachka_ is the reason that law considered strikes to be criminally conspiratorial. I suspect that is not the case. More likely, the term and its etymology are evidence of law's view of the act. dgc (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Short description

A Short description should be short. WP:SDSHORT advises a length of no more than 40 characters. Sometimes a description may need to be a few characters longer, but 61 is too long — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 19:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)