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)
 * Pictogram voting wait blue.svg 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)

Geography
Motions of the earth 117.223.244.177 (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal
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)