Talk:Color revolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Minor issue

I notice someone changed all the instances of "colour" to "color", but the title remains "Colour revolution". I think we should at least be consistent within this article. The article on the property of light is currently at color, but it does tend to change every so often. From a google search, the American spelling may be somewhat more common, but it's not a big deal either way. Either the article should be moved, or the spelling just changed back.--Pharos 03:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I moved it for consistency's sake. Perhaps the title should be in the plural, but for now I've kept it singular. Aris Katsaris 04:30, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Within Communist Societies

What about the, mostly peaceful, revolutions which toppled communist regimes? I think they qualify as 'color revolutions' I think especially of Czechoslovakia's velvet revolution. --81.48.235.73 11:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They weren't called color revolutions, AFAIK, so how can they have "qualified" for it? The name "color revolutions" has only been used for *this* series of revolution, I believe, not preceding ones. But if you have evidence that the term has been used for those past revolutions, please offer your cite. Aris Katsaris 14:22, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Related movements

Why EDSAII can be considered as a "related movement" but Spanish march 13th SMS demonstrations not? Estructurally, polliticaly and in their consecuences, both movements are exactly the same

[edit] "Color revolution" is a specific term

"Color revolution" refers specifically to the related movements that have developed with each other in post-Communist Eastern Europe and Central Asia. It does not refer to any non-violent revolution in the past few years. The Cedar Revolution movement in Lebanon is under 'Possibly related' because many of the demostrators have said they were inspired by the recent Orange Revolution in Ukraine. EDSA II is as far as I see not related, organizationally or inspirationally, but I have put it under 'other recent non-violent revolutions' for context, even if it's not really integral. The election in Spain was just that, it would be too much of a stretch to call it a revolution any more than any democracy can be said to experience a 'revolution' every time a new government is voted into power. The so-called "Purple Revolution" I put under 'Other uses' because it is only relevant in that the naming as such by George W. Bush is deliberately intended to associate it with the "color revolutions". Perhaps this is also displayed too prominently.--Pharos 12:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The massive "illegal" movilizations change the electoral result after the attacks. The speech of the demonstrators was just the oppossite to that of the media and the government. We lived it, and it's considered as a revolution, or for the old government a "coup d'etat". And from SMS to selforganization, from "ethical" vindication in front of Aznar presidency to its results, it was exactly an european version of EDSA II. We use to call it the "revolt of the cellulars" and at the moment its deep nature is the greatest national debate... as was in Phillipines...--Otpor
People fail to understand the purpose of this article, it seems. Its purpose is not to discuss peaceful revolutions as a whole, its purpose is to discuss the series of "color revolutions" -- a terms that's been applied to a specific series of revolutions, and not to peaceful revolutions in general. Mention to the term "purple revolution" should be here, because the term was invented specifically to link Iraq to that series of revolutions. The Cedar revolution should be mentioned, because it's again been linked to the series of color revolutions by many, and has been referred to as a "color revolution" before. If you want Spain's "peaceful revolution" anything to be mentioned, give us cites by press or officials that link it to the series of revolution. Else, I recommend to you to create a separate article on the issue. EDSA II should likewise not be discussed here IMO: It's never been linked to color revolutions AFAIK. Aris Katsaris 10:44, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
OK: it appeared related in the two main documentaries about it. The public channel TVE documentary and the History Channel/ Telecinco (main Spanish private TV)/ ARTE (european cultural channel). Other sources: the most read book about the 11M attacks and its consecuences... and even me... I have to write an article about it for the second most read magazine in Spain explaining EDSAII, the color revolutions and Spanish 13M as a whole and one phenomenom.
Aris & Pharos, I believe I see your point, but I think you're missing the larger picture. Most people would fail to see any major distinction between color revolution and any other chiefly non-violent overthrow of a government; most people would, in fact, see them as connected and mutually inspired. You're the Dutch boy holding back the sea on this point. There is no international organization coordinating these color revolutions, there is no specific philosophical movement to which they're tied (indeed, as you yourself note, often they are quite different). For example, there have been several regime changes in South America caused by people power. To my mind this very clearly part of a worldwide trend toward populist democracy. --Dhartung | Talk 18:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
When a described set has no definitive membership, then it's reasonable to go by consensus as perceived by the world. The regime changes in South America may have been seen in your mind as belonging in the same series of revolutions as that of Ukraine and Georgia, but they weren't perceived as such by the participants in them themselves, nor by reporters in general, nor by the political leadership of any nation as far as I can see. A number of leaders in the post-Soviet area (e.g. Akayev and Lukashenko) have talked about "colored revolutions": and they always seemed to include Ukraine and Georgia, but they never included South American regime changes. Aris Katsaris 19:24, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
You'll have to be much more clear than you have been. What distinguishes the color revolutions from the people power revolutions? Is it geography (Europe vs. Asia/S. America)? Is it the targeted regime (communist vs. fascist/capitalist/non-specific authoritarian)? Is it simply a chain of "inspiration"? What are the specifically distinguishing characteristics? How are you able to gloss over the non-trivial differences between the revolutions you feel should be included while others are not? These are honest questions. --Dhartung | Talk 19:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No, I do *not* have to be more clear, because I'm not creating original research here. I did not invent the term "color revolution" myself, and therefore I do not need to define it myself. If the people using the term "color revolutions" are using it vaguely, then I'm just helping report its vague usage. The revolutions that I "feel" should be included in the article of colour revolutions are the ones that have been actually considered part of the series of colour revolutions, and widely considered linked to them. Aris Katsaris 21:51, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
I almost always find that a "problem" article is not simply badly written, it's poorly factored. In this case, there was no article for the broader history of non-violent revolution; I hope by refactoring the topic and creating that article we can avoid any future rancor, while giving these important events their own historical due. I would also hope you understand my disappointment when I ask for clarification of an encyclopedic nature, and get instead a circular definition. Accepting that the distinctions you're being a stickler for are somewhat arbitrary, especially to the lay observer, would be a helpful approach. Compare the complexity of this chart with the single label that the average American would use (you can see it toward the bottom, off to one side), and you'll see my point. --Dhartung | Talk 02:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
There may well be some broad worldwide trend toward populist democracy, but if so, the "color revolutions" in Eastern Europe and Central Asia still form quite a distinctive group, with common elements of history and geography, liberal and to some extent nationalist ideals, and protest methods organized according to Gene Sharp's theories by student groups directly tied to each other by organizational links.
There is, of course, room on Wikipedia for Nonviolent revolution and History of Democracy articles.--Pharos 19:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Pharos, I agree with you. The real problem is that there is no article for Non-violent revolution. I'll agree that color revolution and people power are both (and not the only) subtypes, although I see the color revolution family's particular distinctiveness as less obvious. I'll do some work to merge the "extraneous" material here into that article, which will free this one up (as long as they're obviously linked). --Dhartung | Talk 05:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Non-violent revolution article

I have started the Non-violent revolution article. My intent is to have a broader focus beginning with Mahatma Gandhi and Indian independence and proceed chronologically through some of the revolutions and quasi-revolutions that were rejected for this article as extraneous (while keeping a distinction with nonviolent resistance). There will, necessarily, be a summary section on color revolutions with a standard Main article: Color revolution notice. After I've gotten the rough outline in place you're invited, if so inclined, to help me with that article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Uzbekistan

I add the term Farmers' Revolution, source: http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/pp031705.shtml, as opposition leader Nigora Hidoyatova referred to a theoretical Uzbek revolution as this. freestylefrappe 02:13, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that she used "farmers' revolution" as a description, not as a name. We must be careful to only report, not invent. I'm rephrasing the sentence you added, to remove the idea of it as a name, until it indeed starts being used as a name, if ever. Aris Katsaris 02:21, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
I disagree...and the fact of the matter is, almost all of the names for the color revolutions have been invented by the media. The movements usually adopt them after the media has made them widespread.
Check the article itself -- every word is capitalized in the title, but in the text itself the words "farmers' revolution" is not capitalized. And iff your argument is that we are allowed to invent a name, because "everyone does it" I can't express how much I disagree with such an attitude. Other media may manufacture the news instead of reporting them, other media may intentionally create catchy expressions to sell more ads, but I'll do all I can to prevent Wikipedia going that path. Aris Katsaris 03:13, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
By the way, do you have cites for the Mongolia unrest? Here is the article about the color revolutions, so we can justify inclusion of Mongolia here only if there's an actual connection -- and the more we can document such a connection, the better. Otherwise, if there's no connecting link or similarity, I'm gonna have to dispute its inclusion here. Besides, "please cite your sources" is one of the Wikipedia guidelines of editing. Aris Katsaris 03:24, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Never mind, I found an article, and I'm gonna cite it myself. Aris Katsaris 03:27, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

If you're really against the term Farmers' Revolution then go ahead and get rid of it, but as I have neither read nor seen any alternatives used by opposition leaders, I would leave it in until it is certifiably proven incorrect. freestylefrappe 18:02, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

That's not the way that citing works. It doesn't matter one tiny bit whether "alternatives" have been used by opposition leaders. I'm "against it" in the sense that I've seen no evidence that it's been ever used as a name for such a hypothetical revolution. Aris Katsaris 20:49, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Critical view

The article should not feel like example of bad journalism.

  • The names are invented by and for mass media, conveniently putting different and complicated events into single basket so even sub-average reader/viewer could understand and feel "informed".
  • The article (as now) contains strange mish-mash of events from the whole world - just because a power-hungry group is skilled in reading media messages and names their own fight as "brown revolution" doesn't mean its notable and comparable with other events.

Pavel Vozenilek 01:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not just the mass media, the leaders of those nations and the protesters themselves also seem to consider their movements part of a series of movement, each inspiring the next, just as shown in the cited quotes and examples. You are ofcourse free to indicate dissimilarities between these movements, even as the similarities and connections are shown. All Wikipedia articles should be in a process of constant improvement. Aris Katsaris 02:13, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
Claiming someone's else fame is often used and often sucessful political tactic and its sells in media as well. The article concentrates way too much on symbols and their reflection in Western media (very skewed view IMHO). Some deeper analysis may be useful.
About a bit I have some knowledge: the reference to so called Velvet Revolution is misleading. All regimes in Central and Eastern Europe imploded because their structure was rotten from inside out and suddenly there was no one (USSSR) to support them. The term Velvet Revolution is journalistic, was invented later and is restricted to just one country. Pavel Vozenilek 03:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Some deeper analysis may be useful" you say, however the way I understand it it's not Wikipedia's job to publish original scholarly work, it's to report what already exists. The term "color revolution" exists, we describe its meaning. People claim or advertise or utilize a connection between their own movement and the whole series of color revolution, we report that they do so. American president tried to connect color revolution with the elections in Iraq, we report that as well. If you have an analysis around on color revolutions by a third party, we can link to it in an "External links" section. Aris Katsaris 05:06, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

There are clearly real connections, particularly direct organizational links between the student groups in Serbia, Georgia and Ukraine. I think, though, that Pavel has a point about some overemphasis on specific symbols. The specific symbols are clearly less important than the highly organized (except rather unorganized in Kyrgystan) protest movements they have been used in. There is a deeper story here; I think we should focus on expanding the 'Influencing factors' section'.--Pharos 21:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest the main influencing factor being huge disappointment of the people, comparing their life with some luckier neighbour country and seeing no progress from current establishment? Then you do not need large-scale conspiracies or mystical symbols; having information is enough. This was case of socialist Czechoslovakia and its "Velvet revolution". Pavel Vozenilek 00:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Back in the real world

There was another president toppled in Ecuador. Gutierrez took part in the coup of 2000 and became president in 2003. He was recently deposed by mass protests, ending with a congressional resolution. CNN and BBC are now reporting it and are comparing it to Ukraine and Georgia.

I've searched briefly on the BBC and CNN sites, but have not seen the connection drawn. Either way, until we get definite cites of people giving it the label of "color revolution", it's not our job to give it that either. Moving it downwards to the unrelated revolutions. Aris Katsaris 06:25, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
Frankly we shouldnt be dumping any revolution that occurs from now on onto this page. I would advocate removing the entire "more recent nonviolent revolutions" paragraph due to its irrelevance. freestylefrappe 21:52, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
I think I'll second this. Aris Katsaris 06:58, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
I'd have to agree; if there is not even of a suggestion of a connection to Georgia, Ukraine etc., it doesn't really belong on this page.--Pharos 08:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Definite yes --Humble Guy 04:50, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
The new Non-violent revolutions article will be broad enough to consider any of these events, past or future. --Dhartung | Talk 02:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
OK, I guess all movements that are not directly related to the color revs could be placed in the new article. --Humble Guy 04:50, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Significance of Belarus Blue?

I remember reading somewhere that Lukashenko's comment that there would be no blue or cornflower revolution in Belarus was a reference to homosexuality, symbolized by the color blue there. I can't find a source for it though. michael 20:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://abdymok.net/tic-tic-tic. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 03:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mistakes concerning Azerbaijan

Azadlig is NOT a youth movement. Rather, it is a coalition of (grownup) political parties, such as the Popular Front - whose members are largely adults in their 40s and 50s who look back fondly on the era of President Elchibey, who governed in the early 1990s. There are several significant youth movements that are affiliated loosely with Azadlig, most conspicuously Yeni Fekr (New Idea), which shares office space in Azadlig's headquarters in Baku. YF is the best known and best organized youth movement (not "Yoh").

Other youth groups are Magam ("It's time"), which is also very significant, and Dalga (wave). Magam in particular modeled itself after the Ukrainian example, even printing 800 copies of Gene Sharp's book.

I don't know how to edit a Wiki article or what the etiquette is, but these factual errors ought to be rectified.

[edit] Kyrgyzstan: KelKel largely irrelevent

I believe that the consensus regarding Kyrgyzstan is that KelKel was largely irrelevent (see Alisher Khamidov: "Kyrgyzstan's Revolutionary Youth: Between State and Opposition") They were indeed inspired by the various other color revolutions, but were not able to mobilize many for the protests that toppled Akiev. They did get some media attention, tho.

Instead, it is generally believed (check Sean Roberts from Georgetown) that it was the ability of a disjoint and initially unconnected group of elites to mobilize their support/patronage networks to get people into the streets that lead to the overthrow of the government. Cdoten 05:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Cdoten —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cdoten (talk • contribs) 05:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Improved Azerbaijan section

I deleted misinformation that Azadlig is a youth group. It's not (as becomes clear if you read about Azerbaijani politics). It's an alliance of political parties such as the Popular Front and Musavat (now left the bloc). Then I corrected the information on Azeri youth groups, inserting info on Yeni Fekir and Magam - the two most important groups. I will try to remember to go back and insert info that they were inspired by Gene Sharp, which they were.


IsorukuIsoruku 05:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should Flower Revolution redirect here without a disambiguation page?

I came to this page looking under the term Flower Revolution for the 1974 revolution in Portugal (which I eventually found here as the Carnation Revolution). Although it was also non-violent, and although these later Color Revolutions are also called Flower Revolutions, should this more modern usage of the name fully usurp the old one? Or should there be some sort of disambiguation page asking which Flower Revolution the reader meant? Andrew.langmead 04:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/l/Talk%7EColor_revolution_6307.html"