Talk:Colour revolution

Colour revolutions as opposed to regular nonviolent revolutions

So it appears as though the article, in its current state, is still subject to the same criticism that it received all the way back in 2005 - that it details a list of various unrelated revolutions, as opposed to revolutions that have been described by RS as "colour revolutions". While I do have to praise the well-made table of revolutions, I also have to question the relevance of many entries. For example - the "Pearl Revolution" is a term that is not mentioned even once in the article that actually describes the event, which instead opts for "2011 Bahraini Protests" or "Pearl Rebellion". Similarly, the term "Coffee Revolution" does not appear at all on the article to which it linkes, and the "Purple Revolution" was not even a protest movement at all, simply a phrase used by George Bush to comment on his view of the post-invasion development of the Iraqi political system. Then we have some of the various other Arab Spring articles, the "colour" names of which are very rarely, if ever, used in popular discourse. "Colour Revolution" is a term typically only applied to a specific type of uprising in the post-Soviet sphere, and application of the term globally raises the question of wether the term means anything at all. Furthermore, though many of these protest movements might at some point beeen referred to by someone (or subsection of the movement itself) as a colour revolution, but should that label really be applied, if it is not a popular label used by RS? All of these problems point to the need of an actual, concrete definition of what a "colour revolution" is for the purposes of this article, and if that definition is simply a "(mostly) non-violent protest movement", then shouldn't this list just be merged with the non-violent revolutions article?

Adding some tags for all those reasons.

PS. The article is also quite difficult to read, confusing and at times contradictory. It should probably be rewritten. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I could see a re-write, especially given that we're decades further out from the earliest events that coined the term, but whether the term means anything at all is not a serious question... there are many entire books about color revolutions. That's why the "Further reading" section of the article essentially just gives up and provides links to library searches. Also at this point in history, nearly a quarter of the way into the twenty-first century, Russia and China appear willing to call the most minor political disturbances anywhere in the world a "color revolution", so we won't be at a loss for mentions of the term even outside of the more synoptic Western and non-Russian post-Soviet scholarship on the topic. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 23:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Another thing... your desire for a concrete definition is at variance with Wikipedia's concept of notability, which doesn't require concreteness or firm conceptual delineation for a topic to have its own article. I don't know if a burrito is a sandwich, I don't know if a hot dog in a bun is a sandwich, I don't know if a slice of pizza or Welsh rarebit are open-faced sandwiches, but Wikipedia has a "sandwich" article. All that's required in that regard is that original research is not necessary to compose an article on the topic. That said, credence should be given when including particular events in this particular article to how prominently and consistently reliable sources characterize them as color revolutions. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 01:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. You raise an interesting point regarding the Chinese and Russian sources - many list even very minor political disturbances in the post-Soviet or third world as "colour revolutions". At the same time, you have scenarios such as the "Velvet Revolution" in Armenia, which although listed here as a "colour revolution" and although having had many of the characteristics of one - did not result in a geopolitical reorientation of Armenia. The country remains alligned primarily with Russia and their new leader has stated that the policy is there to say. In regards to your second point, I agree that a concrete defitnion is not always necessary to create an article. However, when it becomes very hard to tell what exactly an article is talking about, that's when it becomes an issue. Are we using the classical 'strict' definition of a 'colour revolution' - much like many Russian and Chinese sources use? Or do we just dub every mostly non-violent protest movement as a 'colour revolution'? If so, then what's the difference between this list and the article on non-violent revolutions? Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I meant to convey that Russia and China (their governments particularly, who don't qualify as reliable sources though, but I'm sure the government stances bleed over into scholarship) don't use the term strictly: my impression is that they apply it to any political unrest anywhere which they want to imply is the result of manipulation by their geopolitical opponents.

In any case, per Wikipedia policies and guidelines we shouldn't be deciding what is and isn't a colour revolution ourselves; we should only be documenting what verifiable, reliable sources say on the matter. You're right that the article isn't very cohesive and I wouldn't be surprised if many of the events categorized here as color revolutions don't bear up under scrutiny as being corroborated in substantial sources. (And hence, we should remove them from the article if we take a good look at it and confirm that they aren't consistently referred to as colour revolutions.) --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 17:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd say the Russian and Chinese positions are considerably stricter than the very broad 'non-violent' definiton, that encompasses many political movements troughout the world. I also wasn't just referring to official government positions, but moreso to academic publications and political theories originating from those countries. I also appear to be misunderstood, so perhaps I didn't express myself clearly. I didn't mean to say that we should do our own OR and determine what a colour revolution is. I meant that we should review reliable sources that speak on the matter and note what the general consensus among RS appears to be, then use that definition for the purposes of the article. My questions as to "what defintion are we using?" were mostly rhethorical - intended to underline the need for authoritative sources on the matter to determine a concrete defintion, so that the article can become cohesive, logically consistent and easily understood. Goodposts (talk) 12:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm. I would be somewhat surprised if the strictness of Russian and Chinese definitions extends to the point of identifying any unrest facilitated by their own governments' espionage or state security organizations as a "colour revolution", at least among those definitions where such subterfuge crops up as a definitional aspect of the topic. But I would be happy to be disproven from RS. In any case it seems that we agree on what the scope of this article should be. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 14:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Concern over article description

cc:

@HMSLavender: @Horse Eye's Back: @Citobun:

Hi there,

Let me first make clear that I did not join Wikipedia as an editor to "edit war". I didn't even know there was such a thing until today. I joined as an editor just because I saw what I found to be overt bias in this article and in another article (the latter even more severe, on "One country, two systems" (you can see my comments on the talk page there also where I talk about my background/intentions more) and was so disappointed in this undermining of Wikipedia as a neutral information source that I felt compelled to act.

The description on this page that I take issue with is "Political term associated with democratization". I have repeatedly tried changing this to "Political term associated with democratization as well as foreign-sponsored regime change". What I added is a fact, as the article itself makes clear, in how countries like Russia and China view "color revolutions". Millions (or more) of people associate color revolutions with foreign-sponsored regime change more than they do democratization. In other words, this is a CONTROVERSIAL political term. I am not trying to delete the portion about it being "associated with democratization" from the article description. I am simply trying to add an alternative association which many people carry with the term primarily. To refuse this change seems to me to be an insistence on maintaining a particular bias in the article description. I am not trying to introduce my own bias to the exclusion of other views...I am trying to show alternative associations alongside each other...let people then make up their own mind after reading more. But some people may not read more than the article description and this is why I think it's so unfair to not let both views be represented in the article description. I joined Wikipedia as an editor for one reason only: to make it better, more neutral and more fair. I don't believe it should be used as a tool for political or ideological activists (including myself). It should be a neutral source of information.

I hope that clarifies my intentions and we can come to some sort of agreement without the need for further action/intervention. We're all grown ups here (I hope), so let's not involve higher-ups if we can avoid it.

If it's best to just remove the description entirely or make it even more bland, then I'm fine with that, but my intention is not to introduce bias, but to remove it.

Wishing everyone well, genuinely.

Read-learn-love (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

P.S. I am here to engage in good faith dispute resolution. I hope the same of others. Otherwise, if others clearly are not interested in that, then I will follow Wikipedia's stated procedure on how to proceed when "one or more users fail to cease edit warring, refuse to work collaboratively or heed the information given to them, or do not move on to appropriate dispute resolution". I will stop editing myself at this point. Wishing everyone well...

No definition?

No definition...? 2A00:23C5:1203:CE01:D0EB:84C6:352:AF3 (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't edit Wikipedia, but there is no clear definition of Color revolution. Its just a geopolitical term used to support a theory of "west bad". I believe it's important to write that there is no clear definition of color theory in the introduction. Color revolution is clearly a political term, which will change from person to person. Even i may be misrepresenting color revolution, that's why I believe showing the dilemma is important. Royal Respects (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Repetition in the China chapter

In the second to last sentence, it says crowd twice in a non-sensical manner? Can we change it to something more sensical? FusionSub (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Otpor!: Cherry-picked facts

I removed the additon about US funding for Serbian Otpor!. Although based on RS, this seems not relevant here. Not all facts are relevant, and facts that are used to support Russian or Chinese narratives should be considered carefully. Where is the academic historian or political scientist considering the US funds for Otpor! relevant ? Rsk6400 (talk) 08:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

If Russia and China have a widely-known narrative about a given topic, known enough to get a mention in the lead of an article no less, then surely facts that help either corroborate or contradict those narratives are relevant to that topic. We wouldn't avoid talking about lynchings in the USA because the USSR used "And you are lynching Negroes" as a recurring theme in their propaganda, what makes this any different? If anything, avoiding talking about it so pointedly seems to me that it benefits the Russian narrative, as if we are so afraid of the "truth" that all these revolutions are "illegitimate western-backed coups" that we're covering up the evidence. Whereas if we acknowledge that these movements had some western support, it would defuse it. 2001:8003:266B:E700:4812:B723:9042:411A (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Please read my comment again. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

You should read the other guy's comment again. 108.49.222.200 (talk) 05:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rsk6400 I think noting who financially backs a movement in an article about that sort of movement is absolutely relevant - surely it's "cherry-picking facts" to deliberately omit reliable information for explicitly political reasons, not to mention a clear violation of WP:NPOV? SaintJimmy13 (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

As editors, we have to avoid all sorts of orginal research, WP:OR. That means that it is not for us to decide what is relevant or not. The decision is made by reliable sources, see WP:RS. That's why I asked about "the academic historian or political scientist ..." NPOV doesn't mean neutrality between mainstream and propaganda, it means neutrally reporting what reliable sources say. Merry Xmas to you. Rsk6400 (talk) 10:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)