Talk:Revolution

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2023

The image in the quick preview of any link that redirects to this page has an image of a fly feeding on faeces. This is clearly an act of vandalism and the quick preview image should be one that is appropriate to the topic, i.e. the Delacroix painting that appears on the article itself. 2001:818:C413:E700:F1C6:DE21:2B7D:1F3C (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

In progress: An editor is implementing the requested edit. Known issue, is being worked on. It's unclear what exactly is happening, but the important people who understand this stuff know about it :) Actualcpscm (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose merging Social Revolution into Revolution. As the two articles are structured, there is no difference in how revolution is understood and defined. If there are nuanced differences, then those differences can be fleshed out in Revolution. As it stands, the existing of two separate articles leads to duplicated content and worse article quality. Thenightaway (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose — "Social revolution" is a specific classification within revolution studies in fields such as history and philosophy. Revolutions do not always bring changes in societal structures or systems. If anything, the definition in the lead of this article (Revolution) should be more general initially and then describe specific classifications like social revolution. Social revolution is not "different" from revolution; social revolution is a type of revolution. Yue🌙 21:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article isn't great, but social revolutions are a distinct and notable enough concept to require an independent article. The term "social revolution" gets no less than 234,000 hits on Google Scholar. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose — If we look to the International Encyclopedia of Political Science, for the entry on "Revolutions" we find "social revolutions" referred to multiple times as specific and unique form of revolutions that is an important area of research. We also find "social revolutions" come up specifically in the entries for "Terrorist groups", "Communist parties", "Comparative methods", "Democracy", "Feminist movements", and "Marxism". So it is evidently viewed as an important and distinct form of revolution by multiple leading academics, this along with Grnrchst's point show how it is something worthy of it's own article on Wikipedia, even if the current article is lacking. --Cdjp1 (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"According to the sociologist Jack Goldstone"

hi,

Just a note.

I find it very "biased" that within the first paragraph there is a thinker mentioned and his definition of the topic (revolution) thrown in as a basis. If this thinker was from the 1800s, it would make sense. But thinker born in 1953 has very many significant parallel thinkers :)

How does he come to lead this topic?

If the article went like "Jack Goldstone, for example, interprets revolutions as, ..."

we could say, cool, fine. If then two more thinkers were also mentioned, it would be even great :)

But dropping the phenomenon and the history of revolution in the lap of a young, i.e. contemporary thinker, is like claiming that history has disappeared, it only exists in as much as someone, preferably in the US, has something to say about it.

Please don't take it as an offense.

I believe that the knowledge "preserved", or rather, "living" in Wikipedia should be immune to Orwellian (1984-ian) swift transformations, intellectual acquisitions, takeovers, what not. Wikipedia should remain a calm place with a robust body of text, that keeps links back to history, longer than just a few decades.

With respect,

--peter.josvai (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

---

PS:

I will read this contemporary thinker, Jack Goldstone, thank you for mentioning him.

Looking at the title of his works, he sure is a fresh thinker! Can't wait to read him.

• Revolutions of the Late Twentieth Century (1991)

• Why Europe? The Rise of the West in World History 1500-1850

• Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World (1991)

--peter.josvai (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2026 (UTC)