Talk:Revolution/Archive 1

Archive 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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)

SylvieHorse- Also, Revolution can mean orbiting, or going around a point of land mass. Example: The earth has a revolution around the sun. I think this should be included in this article.

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)

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)

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)

Why is there no mentioning of Hannah Arendt in the whole article (apart from the literature part in the end)? Especially in this section Arendt ought to be mentioned, she explicitly deals with the social and political dimensions of revolution(s) in her work "On Revolution". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.2.51.174 (talk) 04:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

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.

Of course the American Revolution was a revolution. Wars and revolutions do not necessarily exclude each other. For a 200-page explanation of the political dimensions of this genuine revolution, see Arendt (On Revolution, Penguin Classics). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.2.51.174 (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Non-revolutions

• "Romanian Revolution" - Ceauşescu was replaced by another Communist, Ion Iliescu. No remarkable change in the political system there.

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]

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

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)

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)

Third world? Are you kidding me?! It should be included in "great revolutions" (revolutions that transform economic and social structures as well as political institutions, such as the French Revolution of 1789, Russian Revolution of 1917) See: Atatürk's Reforms -- Meta Maniac 815 —Preceding undated comment added 15:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC).

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))

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)

Having just added an etymology on the word, I have seen this comment. The Ascent of Man mentions this in the episode called The Starry Messenger 10 mins in. I also added a reference source in the paragraph I wrote which you can check. Genjix (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence about Copernicus from the etymology section, because it was misleading. The source (http://chagala.com/russia/pipes.htm) gives Copernicus' book title (which was written in Latin!) merely as an example of the early use of the word in relation to the revolution of planets. The impression that he was the origin of the word (in any language), or that the Scientific Revolution was called such because of the title of the book, is false. IamNotU (talk) 03:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

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)

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!)

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?

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)

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."

Moved unsigned thread element above into proper chronological order, dunno when or who started the thread. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Events since my original response to this thread seem to confirm it. The violence in the Arab Spring betrays the relative backwardness of the societies in question and is still relatively non-violent in comparison with violent revolutions of the past. Revolution in American culture is a proper topic of development of a section of the article, doubt there's anything else in wiki except for the content associated with the founders war and the slaver rebellion. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

So it's here. I think. Enjoy. Lycurgus (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

_

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Quote by Mao

It's pretty, but do we really need it? He is a controversial person, and the quote is not very encyclopedic.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree; I'll remove it in a sec. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have moved all three non-scholarly quote - by Mao, Che and Napoleon - to wikiquote.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection

It seems this article is a magnet for anon's vandalism, most of the recent history is anon's vandalism and registered users' reversal of it. If there are no objections, I'll perm semiprotect this article in a few days.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

No objections, and I reviewed the last three months of edits - nearly daily vandalism, and next to no positive contribs from non-established editors. Semi it is, then.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Original Meaning of "Revolution"

There is no mention in this article about the change in meaning of the term "revolution". The English civil war in the 17th century was described as a revolution because the king had been overthrown but the monarchy was subsequently restored and things were back to how they were originally before the war happened - the wheel had turned full circle - a 360 degree revolution. It was only later since the French revolution that the word has come to have the meaning as we know it today, as a fundamental political change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cap (talk • contribs) 17:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Pick a less polarizing individual's image for the topic side column?

Hi, i was wondering if it could be possible to pick a less polarizing individual than Che for the Topic's sidebar image. While some people may still claim that Che was a revolutionary, many view him being in a more negative light. I for one view his 'revolutionary activities' with disgust and would prefer one of many various others who were both less polarizing and distasteful in their actions. Che's popularized image on T-shirts does not equal value or relevance for conveying the importance of revolution in the lives of real people in history and modern times, and I honestly believe that there are many potential people who's image could better serve the topic. Grendol (talk) 07:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Grendol

I agree with you, and I'd suggest replacing it with our pick of storming the Bastille. One way or another, the discussion should take place at Template talk:Revolution sidebar. I suggest you copy this thread there.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree also. Should someone responsible of the deaths of thousands who killed innocent people in the name of Stalinist era Communism be considered a true revolutionary? What about Lech Walesa? Lech Walesa led a true revolution, peacefully, in which instead of using violence he had popular support and led a revolution against the Communist oppressors. If Che Guevara was leading a 'people's revolution' why did he need to terrorise the people into submission? Choose Walesa for the sidebar image, not Che. When I attempted to replace Che with Walesa not only was the change reversed, but Walesa was taken out of the list of revolutionary people. He had already been there before I'd done anything. Was this some kind of retribution? - Zaffa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.99.156 (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Wondering if Rebellion is always start of Revolution? The article did not mention Rebllions,are they always the start of any revolution?eajamtu6160921stcent.dcidSWORDINHAND (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Typographical error

The article makes reference to "Ted Roberts Gurr" - his name is Ted Robert Gurr -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Robert_Gurr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdanning (talk • contribs) 19:20, August 16, 2009

Solution. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Photo of Mao Zedong missing

The Image of Mao Zedong is missing in the "People"-Section in the upper right of the article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.79.170.229 (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

List of people shown in revolution box

I think Oliver Cromwell should be added to the list of revolutionaries shown in the infobox on this page. He led a political, religious and social revolution long before any of the classical revolutions in Europe. Similarly, it could be said his was the first of these classical revolutions.

I do not post this suggestion out of admiration or any personal preference, I add it simply out of observing that he led a revolution, the quality and nature of which matches that of the other revolutionaries on this list, long before the others on this list; yet he is not included.SKC (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Rebellion Revolution different>?

Is a rebellion diufferent then a revolution article didnt say.ANDRENEW (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Short answer: yes. Long answer: read rebellion and compare. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Issues with Article

Is it simply me, or is there a large [literal] gap in the article? A white space between the introduction and further content. I went to edit the page, and could not find the problem. --Tatoranaki (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you should rename your section: all the sections here are on the article's issues:) JLincoln (talk) 12:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Add proposal

I 'd like propose to add to the final list of revolutionary thinkers Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt, two of the most important living philosopher who write about revolution in post-modern society —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echo-EXP (talk • contribs) 12:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Edit request from Mhvk, 14 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} On the page for "Revolution", near the start, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium is incorrectly attributed to Gallileo; it should be Copernicus.

Mhvk (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done by Piotrus --Stickee (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead Sentence

For the life of me, I cannot figure out what this sentence means, which is the second sentence in the article:

It's used to refer to political change dates[1] from the scientific revolution occasioned by Copernicus' famous De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium.[2]

Particularly, I don't know what a "political change date" is. I'd like to take a stab at re-working this sentence, but really don't know where to start. --Robthepiper (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, if one removes the apostrophe and the d from used, the sentence is grammatically correct (I almost wonder if it used to be "Its use ... dates to" and a casual and sloppy reader thought they were correcting the grammar?) although I m not sure that it is factually accurate (that of course depends on the source). Slrubenstein | Talk 20:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This is ineeded the form it had while ago. I will restore the old version. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

My fault entirely. I read the sentence incorrectly. It's fixed and is fine. Sorry for any confusion. --Robthepiper (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

English Civil War

The English civil war was a revolution in every sense of the word it should get mentioned in this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.145.233 (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

A civil war is generally only considered a revolution if it succeeds. Although the English Civil War did succeed in permanently establishing the primacy of Parliament, if failed to establish a Republic and the monarchy was restored. So yes, except for that it was one of the most important "revolutions" small r. However a revolution that doesn't result in a turn over of the social order or where that turn over is reversed is generally considered to be a mere revolt or rebellion. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

What matters is what significant views have to say - political scientists and historians whose area of expertise is the English Civil War. Find any who argue it is a revolution and we can add it. I think in fact most historians believe that it was not until the Glorious Revolution that the power of Parliament was established as supreme - hence, calling it a revolution. In any event we need to look at the major historians and report what they say. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

That's what matters as far as acceptability of content wrt wiki policy, in particular OR, it isn't the sole nor the primary determinant of the development of quality content, however and the statement, therefore, seems to represent an especially narrow and prematurely contentious viewpoint. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

imbecile etymology

the § needs attention, as it stands now it's a "best of wikipedia" comparable to a "best of craigslist". Unfortunately freedom of access exposes the failure of education. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I had an edit on that section, so I corrected this. The redaction is complete except that I may have understated the case. Social revolutions certainly occurred in the history of Rome, for example in the founding of the Republic, the emergence of the Principate, etc. It's possible the use of the latin root in this context could be attested. The thing about Copernicus appears to have been surmised/confabulated, could easily have been avoided by a little research, and should have been sensed to be wrong. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 09:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

So I made what may appear a similar error on the caption of the illustration of the bug on Computer Programming. It doesn't feel quite the same and think I could be articulate about the difference, but at some level it is the same. You shouldn't assume an etymology is correct, period. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Excessive red links

compared to the current wikipedia norm for an article like this. I will address this if there are no objections. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Addressing the body section, the one in question, is problematic. At this point the article is relatively "clean" up to that point. This is not the right venue for anything much to be done with the body of the article other than perhaps an outline of references to other articles, developing my ideas in my draft space. The thread above on the English Civil War and the timidity with which the etymology thing was dealt with pretty much makes clear why. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Freedom Square Baku 1990.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Freedom Square Baku 1990.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Moved threads

Thought maybe there was a missing archive of this talk page but appears not, moved some threads that were placed at top into approx right position. The current top one shows as the one when the page was created. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Style of the Article

Images' titles

Let me think: I think that there's a clear difference between the title for an image and the description. So, we have, on the Page, at least one image under which there's a description (thus it's o'k with it), and a number of ones titled.
The title usually doesn't end with a full stop, please. Let me think it's proper to amend the amount of titles which end with the full stop (which is not very orderly). Of course, it's not very crucial. JLincoln (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Revolution and philosophy

Should there be a section about revolution and philosophy or thinking about revolution? In history, many philosophers made various comments about revolution and its possible impact on the development of history. Major philosophers, such as Hegel and Kant, did talk about revolution and assume revolution as an essential way to realize the development of history. Politicians, such as Mao of PRC who ever said that revolution is not a dinner party and revolution is not a crime! Rebellion is justified! and so on, also made some comments on their thinking about revolution. Is there a necessity to expand this kind of section and put in some content on thinking about revolution in this entry?-Aronlee90 (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Practically probably not, due to the partisanship of the editors as a whole and the sensitivity of the topic. Logically, yes a well written such piece would be a valuable addition to the article. In particular, the role of revolution you refer to, historically manifested in dynastic turnover in China, the loss of the Mandate of Heaven, etc. would be relevant. The course of least resistance is to leave it as essentially a lexical article. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

question

what is the difference between revolution and civil war? because someone I know suggested that the American Revolution could just as easily be described as a Civil War. So now I am confused (Fdsdh1 (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC))

Well, for starters, not all revolutions are wars. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

A revolution may result in a civil war (Russia 1917) and a civil war may result in a revolution (England 1650s). They are however entirely distinct things. The American Civil War was not a revolution and the American revolutionary war was not a civil war although the latter is a special case because there was no state in which a civil war could occur (unless you consider that state to be Great Britain), the revolution was against a distant power. The British loyalists did not make the revolution a civil war. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Recall too, the American Revolution is not considered a revolution by all scholars. Some political scientists and historians have argued the real revolution is linked to the American Civil War. To be concise, if one does not see a revolution in the American Revolution, the next best answer is simply a war for independence. Ceremonious (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

True. The French and Russian revolutions are the models. The American War of Independence was a war of national liberation led by the American ruling class. The slaver rebellion was just that, a civil war or rebellion and not by any means a revolution. Revolutions overturn existing social orders, the purpose of the slavers rebellion was to preserve slavery and the South's ability to expand it. That's kind of the opposite of a revolution. Ceremonius is right in that the slavers sought to overturn the assertion of egalitarian principles asserted in the founding of the United States and never explicitly denied to the slaves except to count them as 3/5 of a citizen. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 11:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Use a version of Aristotle's Politics that is available on line?

Trying to follow back the reference from Aristotle, the first in the article to the edition edited by T.A. Sinclair (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1964, 1972) I was frustrated to find that it's not available on line (and only available at the British Library!). It would be very helpful if the reference was to an edition that IS readable on line, with the reference added as a hyperlink. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Done it myself - hope it's OK Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

"Social revolutions"

The article refers to revolutions "outside the political sphere", such as in science, philosophy, technology etc. as "social revolutions". This should be sharply differentiated in the text from the sense of "social revolution" used in socialist and other radical discourse, which is to say a revolution which not only changes the political regime ("superstructure") but also the economic and social relations ("base"). I would suggest "cultural revolution" to refer to such "revolutions", but that is also a problematic term due to the Chinese history, but anyway the distinction needs to be clear. 2607:F470:6:2006:200F:AAA6:D003:F54B (talk) 08:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

New book that may be relevant

Scripting Revolution: A Historical Approach to the Comparative Study of Revolutions edited by Keith Michael Baker and Dan Edelstein, 2015, Stanford University Press. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The ebook and the SUP site are crappy (broken links on the latter). There are all kinds of problems with the distribution, I've bought the ebook but still haven't been able to access it. I will but just advising of unusual hoopfulness especially I guess if you're not on windows, haven't tried it there or on Mac yet. No rush I guess, right? Lycurgus (talk) 05:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Well it's actual hermeneutics, OK? You gotta be OK with that, otherwise the proprietary ereader it requires does run on older iPad. Lycurgus (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

For this particular article, I don't think this is relevant, adds anything of interest. Others where revolution is considered from various perspectives, in this case a structuralist post modern kind of development of the "scripting" of revolution can fit it might be apropos, but adds nothing new to understanding of the basic thing. Useful background read, could go in External Links. Lycurgus (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a worthwhile book, and relevant, probably a mention/reference is appropriate if there's none, I believe it does itself have a reference count, have seen it referred to elsewhere. Not sure more than that is right for this article, which is basically a dictionary entry. Also I think "scripting of revolution(s)" as such, stuff going by that is bigger than this title. 108.183.102.223 (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2016

The first listed external link has a broken URL. It reads: "Interface journal special issue on 'Crises, social movements and revolutionary transformations'" The accurate URL is http://www.interfacejournal.net/2010/05/interface-21-crises-social-movements-and-revolutionary-transformations/ David-w-oaks (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Done clpo13_(talk) 16:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2017

Place at end of Types

There are revolutions and counter revolutions. Both revolutions and counter revolutions can occur unexpectedly from anywhere. Often after a revolution has taken place the revolutionaries become slowed down in administration making way for the possibility of a counter revolution. Many times after a revolution has happened, the paper work of the revolutionaries afterwards means little is achieved of the original revolutionary’s aims. Many people think of the American War of Independence as a revolution but instead it is a breakaway of a colony. Every so often someone will become in a strong position to unexpectedly do a revolution or counter revolution. Revolutions do not just refer to wars they can be social revolutions, industrial revolutions and cultural revolutions. Many scholars say giving way to some of the revolutionaries’ demands is no guarantee a revolution will stop. Revolutions can occur if the leadership looks unstable. Revolutions can occur if a country is slow to adapt to changing trends. Poverty and economic decline can make way for revolutions. Kings being out of touch with the interests of people leads to revolutions. PyroDroid (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Halted article

@Deacon Vorbis:This is a general type of article. We are having quality problems on far to many articles of this kind. In June 2017, I added a few contributions to another general article, President (some issues on the French 3 & 4th Rebublics vs the current De Gaulle 5th French Republic. "Strong" president vs a President who also is leader of the government (not above it), and "weak" Presidents like in Germany today. Etc. This seems to have began a major revision and improvement of that article.
This status of this article resembles President as of last summer. The well-known painting from the French 1789 Revolution doesn't help much. The article is too dry, far too theoretical (compared to the subject), has a non teasing lead followed by a whole bunch of red links. I say - We can do better here ! I will have a look at my last attempt, change it and improve it. But then please wait a month and see. As I see it the ball has to be put in play here. Time will then hopefully do the rest. Boeing720 (talk) 04:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

(Pings don't work if you don't get the username right when it's signed). I looked at President, and your edits were quickly removed, probably because someone there felt they were about as equally inappropriate as they are here. You don't seem to have the necessary proficiency with English to make these major changes. I didn't mention in the summary, but the quote you added was also pretty inappropriate. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with this change. Leads aren't supposed to "tease"; they're supposed to summarize the key points in the article. This is an encyclopedia entry, not a newspaper article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2019

Mark Katz should link to Mark_N._Katz, not Mark_Katz. Ekspreslaan (talk) 09:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

True Etymology

Revolution in engineering terms means to complete a cycle.

Democracy translated from its prefix & suffix greek means People [Daemos] Circle [Cracy].

So I'm rooting for anyone who properly fixes the etymology section on the article to match what is essentially what we all know to be the case....moving in a circle to achieve basically the same thing over again.

Revolutions in the historical sense are useful, don't get me wrong, but lets face it, their end goal is always to prevent another revolution from happening cuz we all hate moving in violent circles as if in some berserkr rampage.

How many revolutions per minute RPM can we mark till someone figures out just how dumb the article looks?

2601:681:4F00:2094:15CA:9225:C151:146A (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2021

Want to add more information under the etymology section. This is what I would like to add:

Etymological evolution

All uses of the word revolution can trace their root back to the late Latin term: revolvere 'to turn, to roll back'. The term found itself in English from the Old French term from the 14th century: revolutionem. Upon its entrance into the English language, the term was used to denote the movement of celestial bodies and/or the movement of space and time. The technical use of the term remains to this day; denoting a recurring technical movement; for example, in engines: revolutions per minute or rpm, sometimes shortened to revs. The emergence of revolution in the political lexical field is unclear, however the rise of the word revolt in the 16th century from the French révolter was used in English in a political context. Thus, it is argued that the term revolution’s use in a political context was contemporaneous with the verb revolt, itself referring to rolling back a political status quo.

Before the contemporary political meaning of revolution came to exist, the term revolution had two contrasting meanings that dated back to 1635. Revolution had a religious meaning; it signified the way in which the heavens travelled in circular motions around the earth. The term revolution later evolved into a scientific concept thanks to Sir Thomas Browne who theorised that every day the sun made a revolution. The political theory, termed as La Revolucion naturelle des polices by Louis Le Roy, arose from the circular notion of revolution that was signified by its scientific and religious meanings, and aided the development of the current political meaning of revolution. La Revolucion naturelle des polices is a theory in which systems of governance evolve in circular motions as opposed to spiral or linear motions. This means that the pattern of governance systems adopted in societies repeats itself eternally; political change was seen as reversible, always returning to a past state. However, in the 17th century, the ‘re’ prefix began to lose this meaning of repetition; Revolution was now seen as inciting irreversible change. This semantic shift was partly incited by the French Revolution which innovated new governance systems, thus breaking the eternal cycle of governance. Rabaud St Etienne, a member of the French National Assembly, explained this notion clearly by stating that ‘it was necessary to destroy everything in order to remake everything’. The previous meaning of revolution was metaphysical; the ethereal scientific and religious revolutions acted upon man, whereas in the more modern meaning, a revolution is understood as something created by man. This is illustrated by the birth of the nouns ‘revolutioner’ in 1695, ‘revolutionist’ in 1710, and ‘revolutionary’ in 1850; words were created to signify those that actively brought about revolutions. For a long period the previous meanings of revolution as a recurrent cycle and the modern meaning of revolution as an irreversible change co-existed. However in literature the latter meaning was increasingly used, to the extent that in 1680 the french Dictionary, Dictionnaire Royal, deemed the primary meaning of revolution political. While revolution in it’s political sense is still commonly used today, the word is increasingly used outside of this political realm. The industrial revolution can be held accountable for this, since the discourse of this era associated the concept of revolution to the concept of innovation. Not just political innovation, but innovation of external activities, such as technology. Today the word revolution, revolutionise and revolutionary can be applied to practically any subject matter.

Definition of Revolution in other languages and how it is used in each country historical context:

1. English ( England ) :

According to the cambridge dictionary, “ revolution” is defined as 'a change in the way a country is governed -- usually to a different political system and often using violence or war'.

Historically, at one point, the word revolution has been used in the context of “English Civil War” and were also known as “The English revolution” to some. However, many scholars, including Reynold Williams, noted an interesting keyword here that those who opposed the movement often refer to this event as " The Great Rebellion" whereas those who were neutral to the event consider it " The English Civil War". As for the word revolution, it was used in another events instead : “ The Glorious Revolution” of 1688 or “ The bloodless revolution”. This event was called 'a revolution' by historians, although there was no violence, uprising, or change in the system of monarchy. It was still consider a revolution, one that brought England back to its original state and restored a Protestant King and Queen on the English throne. In this instance, revolution is about going back to its root, not a new abrupt and violent change to the governing system. So the meaning is different from the way we understand “revolution” today.

2. Thai : Revolution is called “การปฏิวัติ” , which is defined in Thai language as “the change in power structure or a ‘reorganisation’ of the political system that occurred over a relatively short period of time. This change in the system typically refers to the demolishing/ canceling of the old structure and replacing it with the new.“

In comparison to the western definition of a revolution , a revolution in Thailand does not need to be achieved by having large numbers of people fighting together for basic social, economic, and political change. It is not so much a social movement by the people for the people as it is a small political group making the decision. As seen in how the Thai’s history records have only considered themselves to have one political revolution only ; namely the Siam Revolution of June 1932. Scholars argue that this is considered a revolution because it is the change that transforms Thai’s regime from a system of Absolute Monarchy to a Constitutional Monarchy instead.

But a closer analysis of the event suggested that this so-called “ revolution” is more similar to a coup instead. Steinberg suggested that as this small group of aristocrats and elites were forcing the 7th King of Thailand to give up his power as the Absolute Monarchy and change it to a Constitutional Monarchy instead so that politicians could come into play. The general public, to a certain extent, was almost ignorant of this change when it happened. Thus, it is more in accordance with the definition of Coup d’état or "การรัฐประหาร" in Thai, which refer to the sudden, decisive exercise of power whereby the existing government is subverted without the consent of the people; an unexpected measure of state, more or less violent; a stroke of policy. Or according to Webster's Dictionary : Coup d’état ‐ Stroke of State: the sudden forcible overthrow of a ruler, government, etc., sometimes with violence, by a small group of people already having some political or military authority.

However, in Thailand, they defined a coup d'etat “การรัฐประหาร” as ‘ a seizing of power by unconstitutional means; following the overthrow of the government or the administrator of the state at time, they would either continue to use the old constitution or promulgated a new constitution in order to have an election taking place soon after. But they would not overthrow the regime or the entire state.’

Furthermore, it should be noted that the Thai’s Supreme Court interprets that “ a coup d'état is not against the law, because "law is an order, an order of Ratthathipat” "กฎหมายคือคำสั่งคำบัญชาของรัฏฐาธิปัตย์" ; which means “law is an order, an order of sovereignty.” Thus, the King can sign the approval of a coup and make it righteous in the eyes of the law. Overall, since the Siam “revolution” of 1932, Thailand has had a total of 13 coup d’etat in total. To a certain extent, the coup act as an insurance, every time the politician has committed too much crime, the army would rise up and take control back until there is a new election again. Those army who lead a successful coup would often call themselves, "คณะปฏิรูป" or "คณะปฏิวัติ", which has the same meaning to the world revolution “การปฏิวัติ” in the Thai language instead of using word that has similar meaning to a coup. Lydscooper (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

References

References

@DesertPipeline: You have been at Wikipedia long enough that you are an extended-confirmed editor. You may make these edits yourself. RudolfRed (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

You may have a case of mistaken identity User:RudolfRed... I just added a reflist-talk template to this person's request to neaten up the page :) Or if you were suggesting that I implement the person above's request... I'd like to help them, but it's way outside my level of ability I'm afraid :( DesertPipeline (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@DesertPipeline: You are correct, I misread the page history and thought you added this request. It actually came from @Lydscooper:. I will mark this as unanswered. Sorry for the confusion. RudolfRed (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This is far, far, far too much information for an etymology section, which I see no reason to be more than about a paragraph long unless there's something specifically relevant and notable about the etymology that would demand its inclusion. Also, the etymology of the Thai translation of the word "revolution" is I don't think relevant information at all for an English language Wikipedia article, so I don't think any of the content in that section has reason to be added – maybe you could try adding it to the page over at the Thai Wikipedia. There's perhaps a couple sentences in the "Etymological evolution" section (or possibly even the section on England) that might warrant inclusion. Feel free to re-open this request (change "answered=yes" to "answered=no") if you have suggestions about changes to the existing information in the article, or some far shorter additional chunks of information you think warrant inclusion in the section. Volteer1 (talk) 12:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Etymological evolution of revolution form cyclical to political.

Waiting on editing permission to make changes to the etymology section of the revolution page, to include the pre-politcial meaning of revolution and how it became political. Please feel free to make changes and suggestions. We also invite you to add your cultural understanding of revolution, and how it has been used in your country's historical context.

Etymological evolution

All uses of the word revolution can trace their root back to the late Latin term: revolvere 'to turn, to roll back'. The term found itself in English from the Old French term from the 14th century: revolutionem. Upon its entrance into the English language, the term was used to denote the movement of celestial bodies and/or the movement of space and time. The technical use of the term remains to this day; denoting a recurring technical movement; for example, in engines: revolutions per minute or rpm, sometimes shortened to revs. The emergence of revolution in the political lexical field is unclear, however the rise of the word revolt in the 16th century from the French révolter was used in English in a political context. Thus, it is argued that the term revolution’s use in a political context was contemporaneous with the verb revolt, itself referring to rolling back a political status quo.

Before the contemporary political meaning of revolution came to exist, the term revolution had two contrasting meanings that dated back to 1635. Revolution had a religious meaning; it signified the way in which the heavens travelled in circular motions around the earth. The term revolution later evolved into a scientific concept thanks to Sir Thomas Browne who theorised that every day the sun made a revolution. The political theory, termed as La Revolucion naturelle des polices by Louis Le Roy, arose from the circular notion of revolution that was signified by its scientific and religious meanings, and aided the development of the current political meaning of revolution. La Revolucion naturelle des polices is a theory in which systems of governance evolve in circular motions as opposed to spiral or linear motions. This means that the pattern of governance systems adopted in societies repeats itself eternally; political change was seen as reversible, always returning to a past state. However, in the 17th century, the ‘re’ prefix began to lose this meaning of repetition; Revolution was now seen as inciting irreversible change. This semantic shift was partly incited by the French Revolution which innovated new governance systems, thus breaking the eternal cycle of governance. Rabaud St Etienne, a member of the French National Assembly, explained this notion clearly by stating that ‘it was necessary to destroy everything in order to remake everything’. The previous meaning of revolution was metaphysical; the ethereal scientific and religious revolutions acted upon man, whereas in the more modern meaning, a revolution is understood as something created by man. This is illustrated by the birth of the nouns ‘revolutioner’ in 1695, ‘revolutionist’ in 1710, and ‘revolutionary’ in 1850; words were created to signify those that actively brought about revolutions. For a long period the previous meanings of revolution as a recurrent cycle and the modern meaning of revolution as an irreversible change co-existed. However in literature the latter meaning was increasingly used, to the extent that in 1680 the french Dictionary, Dictionnaire Royal, deemed the primary meaning of revolution political. While revolution in it’s political sense is still commonly used today, the word is increasingly used outside of this political realm. The industrial revolution can be held accountable for this, since the discourse of this era associated the concept of revolution to the concept of innovation. Not just political innovation, but innovation of external activities, such as technology. Today the word revolution, revolutionise and revolutionary can be applied to practically any subject matter.

Definition of Revolution in other languages and how it is used in each country historical context:

1. English ( England ) :

According to the cambridge dictionary, “ revolution” is defined as 'a change in the way a country is governed -- usually to a different political system and often using violence or war'.

Historically, at one point, the word revolution has been used in the context of “English Civil War” and were also known as “The English revolution” to some. However, many scholars, including Reynold Williams, noted an interesting keyword here that those who opposed the movement often refer to this event as " The Great Rebellion" whereas those who were neutral to the event consider it " The English Civil War". As for the word revolution, it was used in another events instead : “ The Glorious Revolution” of 1688 or “ The bloodless revolution”. This event was called 'a revolution' by historians, although there was no violence, uprising, or change in the system of monarchy. It was still consider a revolution, one that brought England back to its original state and restored a Protestant King and Queen on the English throne. In this instance, revolution is about going back to its root, not a new abrupt and violent change to the governing system. So the meaning is different from the way we understand “revolution” today.

2. Thai : Revolution is called “การปฏิวัติ” , which is defined in Thai language as “the change in power structure or a ‘reorganisation’ of the political system that occurred over a relatively short period of time. This change in the system typically refers to the demolishing/ canceling of the old structure and replacing it with the new.“

In comparison to the western definition of a revolution , a revolution in Thailand does not need to be achieved by having large numbers of people fighting together for basic social, economic, and political change. It is not so much a social movement by the people for the people as it is a small political group making the decision. As seen in how the Thai’s history records have only considered themselves to have one political revolution only ; namely the Siam Revolution of June 1932. Scholars argue that this is considered a revolution because it is the change that transforms Thai’s regime from a system of Absolute Monarchy to a Constitutional Monarchy instead.

But a closer analysis of the event suggested that this so-called “ revolution” is more similar to a coup instead. Steinberg suggested that as this small group of aristocrats and elites were forcing the 7th King of Thailand to give up his power as the Absolute Monarchy and change it to a Constitutional Monarchy instead so that politicians could come into play. The general public, to a certain extent, was almost ignorant of this change when it happened. Thus, it is more in accordance with the definition of Coup d’état or "การรัฐประหาร" in Thai, which refer to the sudden, decisive exercise of power whereby the existing government is subverted without the consent of the people; an unexpected measure of state, more or less violent; a stroke of policy. Or according to Webster's Dictionary : Coup d’état ‐ Stroke of State: the sudden forcible overthrow of a ruler, government, etc., sometimes with violence, by a small group of people already having some political or military authority.

However, in Thailand, they defined a coup d'etat “การรัฐประหาร” as ‘ a seizing of power by unconstitutional means; following the overthrow of the government or the administrator of the state at time, they would either continue to use the old constitution or promulgated a new constitution in order to have an election taking place soon after. But they would not overthrow the regime or the entire state.’

Furthermore, it should be noted that the Thai’s Supreme Court interprets that “ a coup d'état is not against the law, because "law is an order, an order of Ratthathipat” "กฎหมายคือคำสั่งคำบัญชาของรัฏฐาธิปัตย์" ; which means “law is an order, an order of sovereignty.” Thus, the King can sign the approval of a coup and make it righteous in the eyes of the law. Overall, since the Siam “revolution” of 1932, Thailand has had a total of 13 coup d’etat in total. To a certain extent, the coup act as an insurance, every time the politician has committed too much crime, the army would rise up and take control back until there is a new election again. Those army who lead a successful coup would often call themselves, "คณะปฏิรูป" or "คณะปฏิวัติ", which has the same meaning to the world revolution “การปฏิวัติ” in the Thai language instead of using word that has similar meaning to a coup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lydscooper (talk • contribs) 11:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• The reference "OED vol Q-R p. 617 1979" seems to be incorrect because John Lydgate IS about planets.[3] 2A00:102A:4001:FDF0:1:0:8172:4524 (talk) 06:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

References