Template:Did you know nominations/Revolutionary movement

Revolutionary movement

 * ... that a modern-day revolutionary movement in the United States would have to challenge the country's dominant economic system (capitalism) or political system (two-party representative democracy)?
 * Reviewed: Byron Khun de Prorok

Created/expanded by Piotrus (talk). Self nom at 17:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Date and expansion checks out. But I'm a bit concerned about the hook. Revolution is essentially a political term, and to state conditions in a hook for what is to be considered as revolutionary becomes pov (even if the pov originated in an academic text). I'd prefer a hook that is more historical than speculative. --Soman (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We could attribute it. I do think this is the most interesting claim in the article. If attribution is not enough, I'd like to ask for a second reviewer opinion with regards to the hook appropriateness. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 15:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Soman. Feminists and others would argue that a revolutionary movement might equally target cultural norms, for example.--Carabinieri (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's their problem. Unless they reference it, I don't see how this applies to the article in question. I am open to an alt, if anybody would like to suggest something. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 07:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of feminist writings at least as reliable as the one you have cited that make just that claim.--Carabinieri (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * They are not cited in the article, and neither are they mentioned by you, so the accusation seems ORish to me. But fine, here's an alt hook.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 04:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ... ALT1: that depending on a time and place, the same social movement may be revolutionary or not?


 * Well, the reason they're not cited in the article is because they haven't been added. I don't see where I accused you of anything. I'm merely uncomfortable with the hook you have proposed as well as the corresponding claim in the article. I don't see how my statements constitute original research, since I haven't added any content to the article. I'm good with ALT1.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg I see no progress in resolving the impasse on this one. Like Soman and Carabinieri, I am very uncomfortable with the original hook (the statement in the hook is an inherently unprovable hypothesis or supposition, but it is presented as if it were an incontrovertible fact). Also, I am uncomfortable with the article for presenting a few authors' typology of social movements as if the typology were some form of Revealed Truth. The article is unchanged since 12 April, and there is no progress here, either. --Orlady (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh, did you miss that the previous reviewer agreed on ALT1? And DYKs do not have to be fully comprehensive, this is not a GA/FA review. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 04:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Carabinieri does not appear to have approved the ALT1 hook; as I read it, the comment merely indicates that the wording of ALT1 avoids the main issue with the original hook. --Orlady (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I haven't commented on this nomination again because I'm on the fence myself. I think the article is well-written, well-sourced, etc. There is certainly no systematic POV. However, the problem is that the term revolutionary movement is rather vague and used by a lot of different people in different ways. The article is certainly too short to cover all or even most of the views on this topic. However, there is no discernible systematic POV to it; the article just happens to use certain sources and therefore those authors' views are given what one might describe as undue weight. For GA, this article would certainly be expected to discuss a greater variety of views on this topic. However, DYK isn't GA and the standard here should be much lower. I think, given its length, the article does a very good job of summarizing the topic. That's why I'm on the fence, but leaning towards approving this nomination.--Carabinieri (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. This is a start-class article - a beginning, but not inspiring to be comprehensive. I started it because I was appalled such a key term was not even defined on Wikipedia. I think that the article does a decent job defining it, but of course there is much more that could be written about the topic that isn't. There is still so much missing... for example, we don't have an article on human right movement, too! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 04:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Since no one is commenting, I'm just going to approve ALT1 for the reasons I stated above.--Carabinieri (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)