Talk:Revolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Revolution was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Revolution is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Revolution, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Did You Know An entry from Revolution appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on November 26, 2006.
Wikipedia

A request has been made for this article to be copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. The progress of its reviewers is recorded below. The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping.
Add comments

Contents

[edit] Definition of Political and socioeconomic revolutions

Shouldn't there be a clearer definition of a political or socioeconomic revolution ? For example, such a revolution always brings a class with higher production capabilities in power, and after the immediate years of the revolutionary war, gradually uplifts the people's standard of living. Srijon (talk) 04:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In the history of the world

While the American Revolution was important, this statement seemed a bit odd for Wikipedia:

As such, the American Revolution has been the most important revolution in the history of the world and one of the most influential political events of all time.

I concur, not NPOV. It is certainly one of the most important/significant revolutions, but it's not our call to make. (Furthermore, it's a political revolution--cultural revolutions, or religious revolutions, surely shaped things more. Zenosparadox 19:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The American (or United States) Revolution was not really a revolution. It should correctly be called a War of Independence. Compare, for example, the Mexican War of Independence and Mexican Revolution. Calling it, and thinking of it as, a revolution is part of the patriotic mythology which is so popular in the United States. Wikipedia should not be used to promote the nationalist beliefs of any nation. The photograph of Washington and references to the American Revolution should be removed from this article. Kjb 21:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing the American revolution would distort the presentation of revolution, particularly when you rad key documents such as the Declaration of Independence. American's today celebrate the American Revolution and this must not be written out of history.

Similarly the English had a very significant revolution and restoration in Cromwell's England.

[edit] Political vs. physical definition

Should this content perhaps be moved to, e.g., Revolution (politics) to distinguish it from orbital revolution and other sorts of revolving motions? Then this page can be made into a disambiguating page. -- April

It's not just a political thing though, really. And when I hear the word "revolution", I think of this meaning. I don't know, though. Hm. -- Tzartzam
This is still an issue: if it were to be a disambiguation, what would the article on political and social revolutions be called? -- Sam

[edit] Industrial, French, Coup

I modified the opening definition in order to accomodate the difference between the industrial revolution and the French revolution, although maybe my change isn't so eloquent. It is going to be hard to come up with a good definition that allows for both kinds of revolutions, and if you add in the Glorious Revolution it gets really tricky.

I also deleted this:

or overthrow of a government in a relatively short period of time.

which I think more properly characterizes a coup d'etat. Whatever the opening definition is, a revolution is more than a coup. Slrubenstein

Doesn't a coup have to replace the government with another government, or take it over? A revolution does not necessarily do this. From Coup d'état:
A coup d'état ... is the sudden overthrow of a government, usually done by a small group that just replaces the top power figures. It is different from a revolution, which is staged by a larger group and radically changes the political system. The term is French for "a sudden stroke, or blow, of state policy".. (emphasis mine) -- Sam

See also Talk:Coup d'état. --FvdP

Like a coup, a revolution installs a new government. Unlike a coup, the new government is meant to direct, or a result of, much more sweeping changes. The passage I deleted was too narrow. Slrubenstein

I'm trying to rewrite. This will look a lot like a verbose disambiguation page, but I think that's ok. Not all revolutions install governments -- an anarchist revolution would destory it. -- Sam
Go ahead -- but beware of tense confusion. You write that "not all revolutions (present tense) install governments" Name me one revolution, current or past, that has not installed a government. You write "an anarchist revolution would destroy it" Fair enough -- but here you use the conditional or subjunctive. Has there ever been an anarchist revolution that did not end with some government? The article should not speculate about what might happen in the future, it should stick to what has happened in the past. Of course, if you want to state that anarchists propose revolutions that would not result in a new government, that is fine; just distinguish between what has happened versus what might happen.
However, I think you are missing the distinction between state and government. The Revolutions do not just change governments, they change the state -- and revolutions can get rid of the state and replace it with a new state, or with no state (anarchism).
In any event, my new definition in the article itself does not claim that all revolutions produce governments. My only point was that the sentence I deleted described a coup d'etat, not a revolution. The former definition did not describe getting rid of the state, merely the government. Slrubenstein
I take your points (and I took the liberty of indenting your paragraphs so as not to confuse :). I am rewriting and adding much clarification (hopefully!). I'm going to start with dictionary.com's definition (cited) simply because I couldn't state it better. Hopefully someone will replace that quote with better words. -- Sam
Sounds good. But I think the long term solution is to divide the article into three parts: discussion of actual revolutions; discussion of theories of revolution (e.g. theories by such people as Marx about why revolutions "should" occur); and theories about revolutions and revolutionary thinkers. I doubt that there is one good definition; I suspect different definitions themselves reflect different theoretical or historical points of view. A good article will not try to come up with one reductive definition of revolution, but discuss different people's definitions of revolution, at least at some point , eventually.... Slrubenstein
Oh, yes, eventually it will :) Let's keep developing it and see where we get. -- Sam

[edit] Communist Revolutions

We could do with more on the communist view of revolution. Do Chinese communists speak of "The Revolution" as something happening now? Did the Russians? -- Sam

I think the revolutions of 1917 and 1848 II think?) were communist revolutions, in that they were led by the Communist Party with the entention of instituting a communist society. Marxian theory claims that such a revolution must go through various stages; that 1917 was but the first stage does not make it any less a communist revolution. The stages that follow (e.g. the dictatorship of the proletariat, the whithering away of the state) are not, according to this view, new revolutions but rather parts of the same revolution. Trotsky also called this the permanent revolution in that it Marxians believe it will be the last revolution. Slrubenstein
yep, that's what we need more of :) And Trotsky spoke of the "World Communist Revolution", as opposed to Stalin's "socialism in one country".
It is difficult in what we call them, though; 1917 was not just the work of the communists, and it was later taken over by the Bolsheviks (not representative of the "communists", amongst whom anarchists like Kropotkin would've counted themselves at the time). -- Sam
By communists, I thought I had specified "Communist Party." I do not think that anyone believes that only members of the Republican Party believe America should be a republic, or only members of the Democrat Party believe that AMerica should be a democracy. I didn't think, similarly, that anyone thought that the Communist Party was the only "communist" group around. Slrubenstein
Of course, but the terms bring up difficulties when we label these revolutions. We should be careful about how we do so -- to call the Russian Revolution a communist revolution could be misleading, even if qualified, since non-communists were involved, but the 'communists' we've specified won the power struggle, and so they take the credit afterwards. -- Sam
But isn't this true of all revolutions? Slrubenstein

[edit] Cuban utopia

...those [Cubans] who think that they are on their way to a communist utopia...

I wrote that, but I'm not happy about how patronising it sounds. Please edit! -- Sam

[edit] Cultural Revolution

Aside from Mao's rheotic, in what way was the Cultural Revolution a "cultural" revolution? The French Revolution and the Industrial revolution certain changed the cultures of France, England, and other places. And the Cultural Revolution was largely a tactic in a power struggle between Mao and what he considered more conservative elements within the Communist Party... Slrubenstein --- The bolshevic took power in a coup and then a civil war. The revolution was not communist.

The Cultural Revolution was was the first of many planned cultural revolutions completely sever China from its history. Mao wanted to destroy the vestiges of a 5000 year old culture so that communist impulses would not be tainted with the oppression of Imperial China.The notion nearly wrecked China and transformed the lives and culture of roughly 850 million.It was largely the working out of Maoist ideaology not largely a tactic to consolidated power.Two16 17:04 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)

Well, maybve this is one way to see it. I do not think that what anybody wants, let along a major political figure like Mao, is so simple or transparent. Another way to look at it was that after the Great Leap Forward (certainly an attempt to change China's culture), Mao was afraid of Deng's power and sought to undermine it. I don't see how, empirically, one can say that it is merely a working out of ideology and not also a political tactic.
In any event, let's say that the above account were true -- why not call eht French Revolution a "cultural revolution" too? By the above account, the two belong in the same category. Ditto the Mexican Revolution. Slrubenstein
I think we're stumbling into the difference between a coup and a revolution. The French and Russian revolutions were political in aim, but their influence was obviously much more extensive. Likewise the English Civil War. Political and social revolutions are about concious change in the structure of society, including government and social and economic institutions. -- Sam

Major difference is that the Cultural Revolution was created by the political power structures after political power had been obtained--thats why they are called cultural. This revolution needs to be distinguished from other revolutions. Please do not put words into my mouth. A closer reading of my post:

It was largely the working out of Maoist ideaology not largely a tactic to    
consolidated power.

shows that you did not read my post closely. Yes Mao was afraid of his political enemies. If you are not afraid of the secret police in your country, order Mao's little red book online today.Then you could see that madness as an implementation of ideology. Mao wanted 8 or 9 cultural revolutions because he was interested in total transformation of China not simply holding political power. The Great Leap Forward was an indusrial strategy, which had it not been such an abysmal failure, would have changed China's culture as a side effect. But it is not a cultural revolution. Jan Wong, born in China now Canadain, senior reporter for business daily The Globe and Mail has written about her experiences in the youth brigades.

On an other point about the Russian Revolution which I don't wish to get lost: The bolshevic took power in a coup and then a civil war. The revolution itself was not communist. Its the difference between October and November.

I did not "put words in your mouth," I "disagreed" with you. And trust me, just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they did not hear you (or read what you wrote). It really is possible for someone to have read everything you wrote, and still disagree with you. Slrubenstein

[edit] Maoist ideology/tactic

Well Well Well Slru I wrote:

It was largely the working out of Maoist ideaology not largely a tactic to consolidated power.

And you wrote:

I don't see how, empirically, one can say that it is merely a working out of ideology and not also a political tactic.

I did not use the word "merely". That is "words in my mouth" because it completely misrepresents what I wrote.The use of "merely" produces a dismissable sentence. You are not following the words or you are deliberately misreprenting what I wrote. Either way it is intellectually dishonest to post. It could be so easy to slow down, read, reread to make sure you got it, think, reread, rethink, write, read, think, rewrite and only then post. And probably you need to check the definition of "disagreed". Two16 01:55 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)

yes, you are certainly correct that you did not use the word merely; that is my interpretation (not of your view per se, but of the argument itself).
But to be clear, I disagree that "It was largely the working out of Maoist ideaology not largely a tactic to consolidated power." Also, by "disagree" I mean that my views do not correspond with yours, and that Ihave a different opinion. If you operate under a different conception of "disagree" by all means let me know and I will try to be agreeable! Slrubenstein

What slipperry sophistry you have! Perhaps you should confine yourself to the words on the page and not on what you project an arguement to be.Slru, you wrote:

...you did not use the word merely; that is my interpretation (not of your view per se, but of the argument itself).

Well if that is true, why didn't you write that! The way to disagree is to meet the arguement. If you don't meet the arguement you can't be disagreeing. What you are doing is some other word. Meaningless doesn't quite fit. If you can't meet an arguement head on what are you doing here? Trolling! If you misrepresent what I wrote you are intellectually dishonest. If you continue trying to head an arguement off at the pass like a cowboy, based your shoddy reading or deliberate misrepresentation, you will keep us away from improving the article.

Have whatever opinion you like : the article must move towards accurracy and neutral point of view (npov) Perhaps you could read something and not simply hold opinions. Enough after the fact sophistry. Disagreemet is is useful. There are ways to do that and you probably have the skills to do it. So please do it. 64.229.12.145 17:37 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)Two16

You seemed more concerned with the definition of disagreement than with the process of dialectic. I guess that is twice today I have misunderstood you -- I think we are now even. In any event, here is my attempt:
In the 1959 Lushan meeting of the Central Committee P'eng Ten-huai criticized Mao's Great Leap Forward, initiated the year before, as plagued by mismanagement and "petit-gourgeois fanaticism." Unwilling to admit to any mistakes, especially from the left, Mao formed an alliance with Liu Shao-sh'i and Deng Xiaoping, in which he granted them day to day control over the country in return for framing P'eng (accusing him of being a right opportunist). Among their reforms was a partial retreat from collectivism. By 1962 Mao could not avoid dealing with the very problems with the Great Leap Forward P'eng pointed out, and in 1963 he initiated the Social Education Movement. Mao admited to some mistakes, while generally defending the Great Leap forward. One great irony of the Social Education Movement is that it called for grassroots action, yet was directed from the very top (Mao).
There was a conflict at this point between Mao and Liu over how to manage or salvage the Great Leap Forward and perhaps the revolution itself (expressed in Liu's ten points and Mao's twenty-four points). As with many other revolutions, the question was, could the Party or the government provide a space for debate and difference, or would it descend into Jacobinism? P'eng's fate foreshadowed what was to come. Mao wanted to break Liu's position in the Party. Since the Social Education Movement failed to do this, Mao initiated the Cultural Revolution. It began with an article by a Shanghai journalist that criticized a local play. According to the article, the play was a veiled criticism of Mao for having engineered P'eng's fall. In a feint, Mao called on another political rival, the mayor of Beijing, to censure the journalist, whereupon Mao had a pretext for dismissing the mayor and a host of other officials.
Was Mao sincerely motivated by a desire to propell the revolution, or by a desire to stifle all dissent and political opposition within the party? It is my opinion that it is largely the latter, legitimized through the language of the former. Slrubenstein

Looking at what Mao says and paying attention also to the dates you will get some idea of the depth of his ideology. He was an ideologue; yet he also had the flexible mind of inspired military genius. He was playing for keeps for sure. Everybody knew what Mao thought because of the propaganda.

So how dangerous was being publicly identified as a reactionary person or class by Chairman Mao, Hero of The Long March? Roughly speaking the people were with Mao and the result was the Cultural Revolution. It nearly wrecked China and created The Lost Generation. It got very out of hand. It was also the outcome of his strategy of revolution.

Time to hear from Mao:

The imperialists and domestic reactionaries will certainly not take their defeat Iying down and they will struggle to the last ditch. After there is peace and order throughout the country, they will still engage in sabotage and create disturbances in various ways and will try every day and every minute to stage a come-back. This is inevitable and beyond all doubt, and under no circumstances must we relax our vigilance.

Opening address at the Pirst Plenary Session of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (September 21. 1949).

As for the reactionaries in China, it is up to us to organize the people to overthrow them. Everything reactionary is the same; if you don't hit it, it won't fall. This is also like sweeping the floor; as a rule, where the broom does not reach, the dust will not vanish of it self.

The Situation and Our Policy After the Victory in the War of Resistance Against Japan (August 13, 1945), Selected Works, Vol.IV, p. 19.

A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.

Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan (March 1927), Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 28.

Classes struggle, some classes triumph, others are eliminated. Such is history, such is the history of civilization for thousands of years.

Cast Away Illusions, Prepare for Struggle" (August 14, 1949), Selected Works, Vol.IV, p. 428.

In class society everyone lives as a member of a particular class, and every kind of thinking, without exception, is stamped with the brand of a class.

On Practice (July 1937), Selected Works, Vol.I, p. 296.

Those folks had no idea that the were being programmed to be a weapon in class struggle. But Mao knew. He planned it. The notion that Mao was largely consolidating power misses the point that he unleash a revolution that went out of control. A revolution that he planned.

Slru: Maybe its time to get that Little Red Book so that you might have an opinion worth offering on 20th Century Chinese History. Mao studied the philosophy of war and if you want to understand the Mao or the Cultural Revolution you must do the same. I wonder, could you tell me when the Cultural Revolution took place? 64.229.11.123 Two16

Since you wonder -- really, I am surprised you didn't know -- 1966, with the publication of the Shanghai article (and Mao's political maneuverings afterwards). The issue here is not what Mao wrote; the issue is, what is the relationship between words, institutions, and actions in history? The task of historians and other scholars is to interpret this complex relationship, not to reduce it to repeating some quotes. You claim that we know what Mao thought because of his propaganda; I "diasgree." We know what Mao wrote to a particular audience, but what people write, even what they say, is not identical with what they think, and certainly not with all that they think (see reader response theory). Mao wrote other things; he said things that he did not write down, and he thought things that he neither wrote nor said. Also, what he wrote could have been intended to have, and could actually have had, a variety of effects and meanings. Also, even if these quotes illustrate what Mao wanted people to think Mao thought, they do not illustrate what people themselves thought. Did people have no idea they were being "programmed?" Maybe, maybe not -- you can't tell from the evidence you present. the fact that things got out of control indicates that people weren't really effectively programmed. The Cultural Revolution involved more than Mao's stated intentions; it involved how people understood these statements and intentions, and also how people acted on their own intentions (as you say, no longer under Mao's control). You see, historical interpretation requires a lot more than repeating quotes.
I have nothing more to say on this topic because frankly I see that you are not worth talking to.
for others, to get back to the main point, I still question placing "sexul revolution" and "The Cultural Revolution" under one category (cultural revolutions) while placing "The French Revolution" and "the Mexican Revolution" under a different category (political/ socio-political revoultions). Bothe the sexual and the Cultural revolutions were also political, and both the French and Mexican revolutions were also cultural. We need to rethink these categories. Slrubenstein

Slru can you stop building straw man arguements out of my posts? If you can't understand an arguement I wrote or what its implications might be, please ask.

I asked you if you knew when the Cultural Revolution was, because the first date you mention in your attempt is 1959 and the last date is 1963. You don't actually mention Cultural Revolution at all. The Cultural Revolution is name given by sinologists to a time in the history of Communist China. Cultural Revolution is ""bolded""in this article. Why didn't you even click through and read it ?

If a man incites atrocity in accordance with his voluminous words over decades, we can probably say that we know what he thought. That is what the quotes from Mao did.

Mao wrote and radio speechified to a huge audience of hundreds of millions of people. Calling that many people a particular audience is a gross misrepesentation.

Words have meaning one can't really define them at will

The thing that would help you most to clear your thinking is Aristoles Four Causes. You need a primer on logical arguement. You have another long, multipost muddled trail in black and beige. 64.229.181.27 20:37 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC) Two16

[edit] "Revolutions" in East European countries

I deleted some East European countries from the list of Marxist-Leninist revolutions because in these countries Communism was superimposed by the Soviet Union and not started by any revolutions (there were no dates anyway). Kpalion 21:02, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophical revolutions

I wanted to add the Scientific revolution, but didn't feel it belonged under existing categories. This was a major change in philosophical outlook (i.e., how to look at and learn about "Nature"), so I created a Philosophical revolutions section. I'm sure there are more candidates for radical shifts in philosophy, but I'll leave those for others to add. -- Jeff Q 09:14, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Yugoslavia and Albania in 1944

There was no Marxist-Leninist revolution per se in Yugoslavia in 1944, the country had been immersed in a brutal local war and a world-war-induced occupation, for three years already at the time. The Communist-led anti-fascist resistance gradually gained popularity during the period, and I don't recall a single event from 1944 that could be called "revolutionary". --Shallot 12:57, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Same goes for Albania. There were more events there in 1944 that marked a beginning of Communism, but still not a revolution. --Shallot 13:12, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Non-revolutions

I beg to differ. Just look at the context and time slightly less rigidly. --Joy [shallot]
  • "Indonesian Revolution" - Suharto was replaced by his deputy, BJ Habibie, who handed power to Gus Dur (nothing revolutionary there), who handed power to Megawati, who was endorsed by Golkar (Suharto's party) in the recent election. Other former presidential candidates have strong ties to the military and Suharto, notably SBY and Gen. Wiranto. Hamzah Haz and Amien Rais also represent nothing revolutionary. No remarkable change in the political system there.
  • "Serbian October Revolution" - Milošević was forced out of office by slightly less poisonous nationalists, Koštunica included, and extreme right-wingers, such as Vojislav Šešelj and Tomislav Nikolić. No remarkable change in the political system there. In addition, the name of this supposed revolution has nothing to do with what it implies. --Sesel 18:03, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It is true that the term liberal revolution doesn't quite apply to the October 5, 2000 demonstrations and rioting in Belgrade. Milosevic was "merely" an authoritarian ruler, he was elected by democratic means and deposed using pretty much the same process. However, the above statements are untrue, Milosevic was actually forced to flee by the mob after he wouldn't acknowledge results of the election that he lost to the Democratic Opposition of Serbia (which did not include the SRS, and which included more than just DSS). --Joy [shallot]

[edit] Bolivarian Revolution

Even if Venezuela cannot be said to have a socialist economy, Hugo Chávez certainly considers himself a socialist, as do many of his supporters, and I don't see any reason to deny this. Certainly he's not a liberal; he and his supporters are specifically reacting against liberalism.--Pharos 21:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He is a New Deal-type liberal, not a neo-liberal. —Seselwa 21:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think "New Deal-type liberal" has much meaning in Latin America. Chávez is far from Lenin, but he calls himself a socialist and certainly his "Bolivarian Revolution" can only be seen as a movement toward socialism and away from liberalism.--Pharos 21:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, Hugo Chavez is not a "new deal-type liberal" and he is strongly opposed to neo-liberalism. To reply to the comment the first individual in regards to Chavez's non-socialist economy. I would disagree with you, I would say if anything, it is at LEAST a mild version of Social Democracy if not Democratic Socialism.--xcuref1endx 14:20 Pacific Time, 20 Aug 2006

[edit] Countering subtle anti-communist propaganda

My comments on the four sections I reverted from a previous edit:

  1. "Bolshevik" is a sufficient descriptor. "Marxist-Leninist Bolshevik" is redundant.
  2. "Communist People's Republic of China" is redundant when it is mentioned that the CPC led the rebellion.
  3. The Cuban Revolution did not become Marxist until the early 1960s.
  4. The Nicaraguan Revolution was quite popular when they overthrew Somoza. Elections held 10 years later do not change this fact. The people of Nicaragua would have voted Sandinista if the first "democratic" election was free and fair. Instead, the brutal proxy war waged by Ronald Reagan forced voters to choose Sra Chamorro: the people simply wanted the US to f*** off and stop terrorizing and raping their country. Also, describing the Sandinistas as "Marxist" is misleading; it was and is a multi-tendency movement, not a monolithic top-down party. —Seselwa 9 July 2005 06:02 (UTC)
I think the Sandinista movement & "the people's" views of it are a bit more nuanced than you are suggesting, and your description suggests a quite-heavy POV. Please take that into account when editing these articles. Thanks! Zenosparadox 19:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turkish Revolution?

I'm not sure where to include the Turkish Revolution. It is an anti-imperialist bourgeois revolution overthrowing the monarchy, establishing a republic with social welfare state principles, followed by radical economic and cultural reforms. (See also: History of Turkey)

Maybe another category of 'third world revolutions', also containing Indian, Mexican, Algerian, Bolivarian -and possibly other- revolutions, would be appropriate? -- Gandy.Phoebus 23:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I dispute the 'liberal revolutions' Britian and USA were not!

especailly England. That was a Conservative one if anything with a liberal element. It was never about liberty rather about religion and a forceful king. The left was purged by cromwell immediatly after and fairfax was a staunch consevative who led the model army and wanted to perserve the magna carta, while the landowners made up parliment.

The USA was also regarding a forceful king and taxes. Liberty was at the root here however

You must think the US is the center and absolute linguistic ruler of the world, with no other possible interpretations of the word "liberalism." —Sesel 00:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


So what. The English civil war was just that a civil war. What is liberal really conservative in europe? (24.75.194.50 16:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC))

Philosophical liberalism translates into free trade, individual liberty, and separation of church and state. "Liberalism" as used in the US has nothing to do with how the word is used in the rest of the world; many Republicans and all Libertarians could be described as liberals in an economic sense, but the current Republican leadership is very socially conservative. —Sesel 23:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


Liberalism translates ANYWHERE into liberty and the protection of rights and openness. Sounds kindof general to me. Throw in the fact that conservatives can push liberal ideas and vice versa. The english civil war did not match most of that if any. Besides the levellers there was no liberty out of the English model. Despotism was at the core with either the king or with Cromwell. Religion decided which side you were on anyway (so much for church and state) and the preservation of the magna carta which was under attack by a power hungry king.

The american model is also a point of contention. Despite the liberal policies notice not many of the founding fathers supported the french model. One can say that it was not radical at all, but rather temperate. A reason why the founder of the conservative movement (Burke) supported the US Revolution and hated the French one (which was radical).

My bad forgot to sign page (68.227.211.175 01:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC))


[edit] Copernicus and revolution

Sounds alot like an urban myth, can anyone actually verify that the current sense came from his book about the planets' revolving? I'd say it's hogwash. 194.144.112.46 18:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I want to believe it, but the numbers don't add up, according to the etymology website, the new use of the word started cerca 1450, but copernicus's book was not published untill 1543 over a hundred years later, and he wasn't even born yet in 1450, maybe that part should be cut out Ndelphia 22:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted some redundancy

I deleted a text about Color revolutions saying they did not change the political system, because

  1. some did,
  2. some other events higher in the list did not change the system either, and
  3. it might be that they are not over, so the results may change. --Compay 19:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silk Revolution

I came to Wiki to read about silk revolutions and found nothing. I'm new to Wiki and I'm sure this is not the right channel to use for requesting "coverage" of the topic, but I thought I'd give it a try. Google supplies some info about "silk revolutions" but Wiki would be better! Thanks. --Auliya 11:09, 04 July 2006 (Great date for questions about Revolution!)

[edit] the next step towards american revolution

hello. welcome. i invite all who have anything to say to say it. i have one question for someone to answer: is a peacefull revolution possible? if so how can we start such a movement?

Every revolution involves a fight, but not necessarily a violent one. Just two of quite a number of examples: In the Philippines the People Power Revolution overthrew dictator Ferdinand Marcos in 1986; also the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, 1989. As to the question of how to start such a revolution in the USA, you might begin with Robert Struble, Jr., Treatise on Twelve Lights, chapter one, “Radical Turnabout. See the summary in this article under the heading, "Proposed revolutions for the 21st century."

Revolutions are inherently destructive. Revolutions which occur without violence to people are given laudatory attribution such as Glorious, Rose, Velvet, etc. To be maximally effective they must maximize the destruction of the old in order to make way for the radically different new thing. A fake revolution can be worse than none at all if it deceives that a solution to a serious problem has been applied when it hasn't. To be maximally glorious, a revolution must be careful to minimize harm and maximize benefit to all concerned and to assure that there is no reversal of the hard won gains of revolutionary struggle. Revolutions since the collapse of the Soviet Union have tended to be primarily non-violent and the result of a precipitated level of a new consciousness so even if there are future revolutions that dwarf even the great class revolutions of the past they can be expected to be mostly peaceful and mainly centered around a change in thinking rather than who can bonk who the hardest. Lycurgus 22:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] merging of 'revolutionary' with 'revolution'?

The suggestion is marked on this page, but doesn't seem to have been discussed. I would oppose such a merge for two reasons.

  • the concept of a revolution historically pre-dates the notion of a 'revolutionary', i.e. a recognizable social type of person systematically aiming at such an upheaval. So, for example, 'revolutionary' was used as an adjective (as in 'revolutionary age' etc.) much more than as a substantive at the time of the French Revolution, and was essentially only used as a substantive to label those who wanted to defend and deepen the revolution once it had begun. On the other hand, there were plenty of self-described revolutionaries (Marxist, anarchist or whatever) prior to the Russian Revolution - however much they hoped for such change. In the first case: no self-described revolutionaries until a revolution. In the second case: plenty of self-described revolutionaries hoping for revolution (whatever they meant by that)
  • The categories under which 'revolutionary' and 'revolution' are included are properly different. Semantic information - revolutionaries are people, revolutions are events - would be lost in the merger. Such semantic information is no doubt obvious to human readers of the page, but useful to guide people to the page and also potentially useful to automated readers of Wikipedia. Dsp13 11:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Gah - I am shocked at the pitful state of those articles. As for merge, I can support a temporary merge (of two stubs with lists...) but in the long run I am sure we will have to separate articles: revolutionary can discuss the famous revolutionaries, the mindset of what makes one a revolutionary, atc.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Don't Merge Since this is basically just a list article, change the title of this article to "List of revolutionaries" keep the list, keep the definition of what a revolutionary is, keep the definition as a mention in Revolution article as well.--jeffrey elliot 04:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] american civil war

from the article: "they exclude coups d'états, civil wars, revolts and rebellions that make no effort to transform institutions or the justification for authority (such as Józef Piłsudski's May Coup of 1926 or the American Civil War),". It's just the fact that a great many american civil war scholars would disagree with that statement ('no effort to transform institutions or the justification of authority')Off the top of my head, James McPherson would definitely disagree (he even had a small booked called 'Lincoln and the Second American Revolution'), as would Bruce Levine. Anyway, the sentence just needs a little more work... the explanation for excluding it seems iffy, although I do not doubt that it is generally excluded (and perhaps rightfully so)- it definitely does not fit the revolution mold. Novium 10:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 12, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Some sections, such as the lead, are reasonably clear and well-written. Other sections, particularly "Political and socioeconomic revolutions," are not. Long lists of redlinked names, dense and sometimes confusing text, and unexplained references (eg. to "cognitive psychology and frustration-aggression theory") all contribute to making this segment difficult to follow. The bottom half of the article is composed almost entirely of lists and could use further explanatory and (with suitable reference citations) interpretive text.
2. Factually accurate?: Citations are good as far as they go, but are not sufficient. There is at least one "citation needed" tag, and one entire section marked as unsourced, which must be addressed. The "Cultural, intellectual..." section also needs citations.
3. Broad in coverage?: The article does make an effort to cover the breadth of its topic (which is considerable). However, aside from the political and socioeconomic meaning, it does not do so in any depth. While I realize the other meanings are covered in separate articles, it would be beneficial to have a short summary of a paragraph or two here, with a "main article" link for further detail, rather than to have only the current list of wikilinks and single sentences.
4. Neutral point of view?: I see no POV issues that shouldn't be addressed by citations.
5. Article stability? It's stable.
6. Images?: Images are all tagged and seem fine. Placement seems reasonable, and captions are helpful.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --Shimeru 22:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date of the Neolithic Revolution

When did the Neolithic Revolution did occur?

In this article says that It was 13000 years ago, but in the Neolithic Revolution article mentions different dates.

Which is the best to put in this article?

--Camahuetos 13:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I cannot answer your question about what is best, but the standard answer is 10,000 BP. Know though that this is necessarily a rough estimate, and that the earliest signs of the development of irrigation agriculture may well precede this date, and that archeologists are constantly discovering new evidence. My suggestion: raise this question on the Archeology page and ask people if they can provide the most recent citations for published work on it. Another piece of advice: Fagan's textbook on archeology ispretty good, see if you can find the latest edition (I do not have it) and see what date(s) he provides. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

_

[edit] Roman Revolution

Wasn't the expulsion of the last Roman king and the erection of the Roman republic 5?? BC a revolution, too? This was a political and social overthrow, started by an élite and supported by the majority of the people. There was even some violence. Why is this nowhere called among the revolutions? Does anybody know?

Maybe, a mere constitutional overthrow without any knowledge of the social conflicts causing it, makes it too difficult to call it a “revolution”. Traditionally, Tarquinius Superbus was just a bad king; and the strong Etruscian influence remained strong. (As well, in Athens we know even less about the end of the kingdom under Kodros … ) Hapeless, €pa 12:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oxymoron

Removed

  • Elite revolutions or revolutions from above - sweeping reforms carried out by elites who directly control mass mobilization

from types since it's an empty concept. Intensification of hold on power, recognition (in the case of scientific paradigms), etc. is not even counterrevolution, it's the essential opposite of revolution. What this would actually refer to is Change in specific spheres of activity supported by the ruling X (class, paradigm) which is self-directed change from the inside/outside or whatever the appropriate spatial analogy is. Revolution(sic) from 'above' X could at most be a self-evolution of X. Social revolution from above is an especially vacuous notion likely to be based on confusion of the aforementioned analogy as for example in the case of a monarchial revolution against say an oligarchy of nobles or elites. In this case the actual ruling class is said oligarchy whose perspectives determine 'up' and 'above' not said monarchy. Even the so-called Cultural Revolution whether it was a true revolution or a misguided reaction was still led against traditional Chinese culture which defined the above of Confucian virtue (heaven). Lycurgus 16:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed Good Article Nomination

This article failed good article nomination. As of December 5, 2007, this is how the article fared under each of the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The lead and the first portion of "Political and socioeconomic revolutions" are well written. However, the main body of "Political and socioeconomic revolutions" consists mainly of long lists of revolution theory philosophers and their opinions; which makes the article very difficult to read. Also, it did not give any examples of political and socioeconomic revolutions that occurred in and/or affected the "first generation of theories." The whole article seemed to focus more on the philosopher's opinions on the nature of human revolution rather than actual, observable trends in revolutions. A suggestion for the section on "Political and socioeconomic revolutions" would be to either reduce the length of the subsection (not labled) on "first generation theories," or expand the sections on "second and third generation theories." (Also, don't forget to provide examples of revolutions in the "first generation" as is done in the subsections on the "second and third generation theories.")
2. Factually accurate?: The provided citations are good and are probably adequate. However, it may be a good idea to find more sources to cite from as the current list is rather short for an article this size.
3. Broad in coverage?: The article does make a good attempt at covering its relatively broad subject. However, the article does not adequately cover types of revolutions other than "Political and socioeconomic revolutions." Although these types of revolutions are covered elsewhere, the sections in this article should be expanded. (Possibly add a paragraph or two on each of the "other types of revolutions."
4. Neutral point of view?: There are no POV statements that I see that are not covered by citations
5. Article stability? This article is definately stable.
6. Images?: All the images are tagged and the captions are creative and helpful.

When these few issues are addressed, this article will definately be ready to be resubmitted for consideration. Thank you far all your good work so far. Thingg (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression there was a week in which those issues could be address. No matter; here are my replies:
1. The article was copyedited a year ago for the last GA review. But I will ask for it to be copyedited again.
2. The article cites some of the best scholarly literature on that subject. While more can be added if the article is expanded, for the current content the number and quality of refs seem adequate.
3. The typology of revolutions deserves expansion into its own subarticle. However considering that there are probably dozens of such typologies, I believe that mentioning the few most prominent as examples is sufficient for the main article.
Thanks for the review; I will resubmit the article once the prose has been copyedited by a native English speaker. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

  • First off, (somewhat off the subject of ce) the redlinking has got to go. Unless you are planning articles for each in the near future, the article looks better off just de-linking the names. --Malachirality (talk) 07:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Me again; it's a shortish article, so this ce should be relatively painless. However, for GA, this article needs some content revision that goes beyond a simple ce. --Malachirality (talk) 07:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead

  • Second paragraph: "...center on several issues"-- what issues? summarize briefly.
  • The last sentence in the lead is IMO largely empty and a tad contradictory. Should be either fixed to say something encyclopedic, or removed (prefer the latter).
Which red links do you think are not notable? I will be happy to discuss them. "Several issues" are discussed in the following sentences. Feel free to rewrite this paragraph if you think you can make it better! Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red Links

Some of the red links all over the article seem to not be useful. Red links distract readers, because they are invalid. They also make the article less professional looking. One especially noteworthy place is in the area listing experts on the subject. Doesn't seem all that useful, especially if they're not properly linked.

24.90.80.236 (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Hannah

Please consult WP:RED.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed revolutions

I have removed a section about US-centric (fringe?) ideas related to Friends of the Article V Convention [1] and ideas of Robert Struble, Jr [2]. The section struck me as hardly notable, poorly referenced and likely fringe/of undue weight.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)