Talk:Rebellion

message: Hi , great work on this page. It is transformed. Here are some comments and suggestions for future improvment.
* The lead section is much improved
* Your paragraphs are very long, and could be broken up to be more readable. The whole point of sub-sub headings is to let you not have to put everything into one paragraph.
* One direction you could have gone was to discuss databases on rebellion, as well as summary statistics and trends. This would be good in future.
* The causes section is informative and accurate, but not clearly organized. This is difficult, and I can;t say how I would have done it myself. But it currently reads like a laundry list.
* The page could benefit from examples of different types of rebellion or uprising, even if it was a simple list
* I would have liked to see you discuss this page and link to it in other pages, such as Political violence, or perhaps also Why Nations Fail
Chrisblattman (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  General comments on the page 

message: What about the computer game revolt?
How to make games ShubhPtl269 (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computer Game 

message: Not what i am looking for  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.170.114 (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not what i am looking for 

message: According to the Bible, rebellion is like the sin of divination (1 Samuel 15:23)
67.133.241.194 (talk) 10:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rebellion & the Bible

message: In English, is "rebellion" pejorative or neutral word?? Szopen (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POV or NPOV word?

message: are ecowarriors rebels ? if so, include.
Also, perhaps anticonsumerism can be noted as a act of rebelling ? Eco-rebelling is actually a form of nonviolent social rebelling, nowhere mentioned  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.221.91 (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ecowarrior

message: This article has problems. Consider these lines: "Throughout history, there were many people who had two many heads. The third and fourth head, at least, had to be cut off and prevented from spreading to other victims. Many different groups that opposed their governments have been called rebels. Over three billion peasant revolts erupted in southwestern France between 1934 and 1115 B.C.[2] In the United Provinces, the term was used for the Continentals by the British in the Revolutionary War, and for the Confederacy by the Union in the American Civil War. Most armed rebellions have not been against authority in general, but rather have sought to establish a new government in their place." First, what is up with the thing about heads? There are no citations, and the word 'two' is incorrectly substituted for 'too'. Also, the cited website for the peasant revolts says nothing about there being 'over three billion' revolts, and locates them in the 18th century, not a 600 year period before Christ. There is also the problem of referring to the United States as the United Provinces- I for one have lived in the US all my life and have never heard of my country being referred to as the UP during any point in its history. Finally the last line makes no sense, and is incredibly hard to cite- what qualifies as 'most' rebellions? This page needs serious work.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.214.62.64 (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: What the... !?

message: Popular uprising redirects to this article, but there is no mention of the term "popular uprising", just "uprising".  Are they synonyms?  Perhaps the article could clarify the difference. pgr94 (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular uprising 

message: This page needs serious work: it offers no reference to the most prominent academic scholars on rebellion and popular revolts. There is a huge literature on the motivations and mechanisms behind popular revolts. In the coming days, I will be making substantial edits to this article. Since this is obviously a huge subject, I will not be able to tackle all aspects of the question, and will focus on the literature surrounding peasant rebellion and resistance, which is central to the concept itself. I will present my edits on this talk page before I post them live, I am always looking for constructive criticism, and will be happy to collaborate with anyone interested in rebuilding this page. Here is my proposal User:Adrià Ardèvol/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrià Ardèvol (talk • contribs) 
* I've added a link to the sandbox, rather than putting the content on the talk page. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete Re-Organization of the Page 

message: Lead: Like the other peer reviewer, I found sections where sentences needed to be cited. Also, you should write a few sentences summarizing your theoretical overview. 
Causes of rebellion: I think dividing the sections into macro and micro sections is a good organizing tactic, I might be a little biased because I did the same. Overall, I feel like the writing is too academic and not accessible to the general audience. Honestly, there were some words that I didn't know the definitions of. Also, as the pervious reviewer said there were places that lacked citation. Throughout the page I found phrases and terms that should be linked to their respective pages. 
The Marxist Approach 
While you are writing about the Marxist approach, I was confused how rebellions fit into Marx's theory, since it seems like Marx is writing about revolutions and not rebellions. It felt like you were applying Marx's theory of revolutions to rebellion. In other words, you were analyzing Marx's concepts, instead of finding some source that bridged that gap between revolution and rebellion. Since there is a marxism page on wikipedia already, it wasn't necessary for you to write such an in-depth analysis of Marx's theory. Reading the wiki page, I noticed that many of the concepts you discuss are already discussed on that page. To improve this section, I would:
* make sure that the link between rebellion and marxism is clear, and make sure you are not making that link, but citing someone who already has done the work
* summarize the most important aspects of Marx's work and link the rest to the Marxism wiki page. 
* simplify the language, I provided an example of how that would simply the first couple of sentences below:
Karl Marx's sees revolutions as an expression of frustration with the distribution of class-based power. Revolutions come about when there is a large gap between how much the proletariat produces and how little the proletariat receives.  
Also, you should add functionalism as another macro approach, it is seen as a counterpoint to marxism. 
Critique of Marxist Approach 
I felt that it was not necessary to say "a political science professor at Yale University". You can link to his Yale University bio page. (http://politicalscience.yale.edu/people/stathis-n-kalyvas)
You should paraphrase the quote from Kalyvas. 
Also, you should add more voices to the page. You should add perceptions that defend the macro approach and more authors to critique it. I think it is a great idea to add the critique component and I'll steal your idea and use it for my own page. 
Micro Determinants 
The Logic of Collective Action is already on wikipedia, so you should move most of writing on the book to that page and and provide a short summary of the most important parts of the book on this page. I would be great if you explained what these terms mean:
* "non-excludable"
* "non-rivalrous"
It was a little vague how what are the micro determinants of rebellion in The Logic of Collection Action. You should be very explicit  on what this connection. For example, "Olson states that the micro determinants of rebellion are...."
 
The Political Economy Argument 
I think the first few sentences of this sections is a great example of clear language. Even though, I am not familiar with the theory, I read it over once and understood what Popkin is arguing about. I liked the fact that you made a list of four variables, it made it easier to read. 
In the last paragraph, I felt like you were analyzing the work/ sharing your own opinions and thoughts. What you wrote is interesting and would be great if we were writing a paper and not an encyclopedia entry.  Another suggestion: you should make a stub page for The Rational Peasant and copy and paste your summary of the book there as well. 
The Moral Economy Argument 
Solid summary of concept. My one suggestion would be to cite the first time Scott introduces this concept. 
Early Conceptualization 
I think that you should delete this proportion of the text "Here, while a scholar such as Popkin would have argues that the peasants were trying to gain material benefits (crudely: more food)"
I felt like you were applying Popkin's theory to the english bread riots, which I feel is more appropriate for a paper than an encyclopedia entry. 
I feel like you should take a couple of sentences to really explain what this means "The opposition between a traditional, paternalist, and communautarian set of values clashing with the inverse liberal, capitalist, and market-derived ethics is central to explain rebellion"
Finally, I feel like the longer quotes from Thompson should be paraphrased because he wrote academically, which made those quotes hard to follow. I read this three times to understand what he was arguing:
"[the riots were] legitimised by the assumptions of an older moral economy, which taught the immorality of any unfair method of forcing up the price of provisions by profiteering upon the necessities of the people". 
One suggestion is :
Rioters found moral legitimacy based on prior beliefs that price increases on basic necessities is wrong. 
Classification of Rebellion 
Great explanations on the differences between insurrection, rebellion, terrorism. Make sure you cite the definitions of the civil resistance, revolt, revolution, etc. Also provide a recent and historical examples for each type of rebellion. 
Overview 
In the next week, you should focus on, 
* making the page less academic and more accessible. 
* adding citations
* making sure you are not interjecting your own thoughts and opinions on the topic
* add more current examples/theories to the page because peasants are not only ones who riot
Reading your page gave me some great ideas on how I can improve my own page and structure! Good Luck!
Mfekade1366 (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review Comments

message: Lead in:
In this section, I mostly copy edited and added places which needed citation. 
Causes of rebellion
I think the Brief theoretical overview is well organized but it needs to be cited more. Where are you getting this information? Whose theoretical framework is this borrowing from? Also the last sentence of the micro section does not really follow wikipedia’s format. Therefore, I changed the structure to follow wikipedia’s usual standard.
I would also define this terms more concretely and cite some big names in the field of political science. For example, who tends to use a micro vs macro level comparison?
Nevertheless, this is a good framework for your project to be based upon. Overall, this section just needs more citations/sources, as well as to be rewritten to make it sound less jargon-y.
Macro Determinants 
Marxist Approach
If possible in this section I would cut down on the jargon and rewrite for clarification. I found myself rereading the first couple sentence several times in order to understand the points. Several instances, I had to rewrite the sentences in order for them not to be repetitive. On the content, once again this needs more citation. Moreover, this needs to be expanded beyond just Karl Marx. Several contemporary political scientists have used his framework and tweaked it. I would add more contemporary sources in order to better balance it out. Perhaps, it can be simplified and many of his theories linked back to his page in order to avoid repetition. Then it could be expanded upon with modern marxist approaches. I know that many modern European authors continue to use his framework. So maybe you could expand upon this
Critique of Macro Approach 
This section is very vague and needs more outside resources. Also it needs to cite this information. Also, this section tends to have large disconnected paragraphs that could be broken up in order to create a more balanced page. A huge benefit of wikipedia is readability, and I feel that the readability of the page could be improved by breaking up the large paragraphs which tend to belong in academic papers and not in wikipedia articles. 
Micro Determinants
This section needs to be expanded upon. Again, I would clean this up with more citation. I would add contemporary political scientist work so it does not become unbalanced. 
Political Economy Argument
Citations are needed here and restructuring. Otherwise, this section is really good! I am not fully aware of this author but it appears to be a comprehensive summary of his work. My only question is whether or not this could be more properly linked to other pages.
Moral Economy Argument
This needs expansion but I assume it is a place holder. Right now, it is a small summary. Although, it might only feel like a place holder because of the large emphasis the article places on the other sections. 
Early Conceptualization: E. P. Thompson and Bread Riots in England
This section feels out of place? I am not sure where this falls under micro or macro perspective. Moreover, it is written as an essay more than the neutral ideas. It should not be Popkin “would have argued”. Instead, this should be replaced by another author who has already argued against Thompson. This would make it neutral and unbiased
Classification of Rebellion
Could this part go in the beginning? This appears to be more of a definition section. I am still unclear on the political science-y definition of rebellion. So I would add that in the beginning and keep the list at the end as a form of examples of rebellion. 
Overall: this article is full of good content but needs to be rewritten in several places to follow the Wikipedia format. Moreover, this is unbalanced and needs more authors and sources. I was left with the impression that this was a biased collection of sources, and it relies too much on a handful of sources. Rebellion is such a large topic that could be illustrated with examples peppered throughout the article in order for it to be more coherent and encompassing of the current scholarly work. For example, the Russian Revolution could be added under the Marxist reading and perhaps a countering reading of the Russian revolution could be added under critique. I would also break up the large sections of paragraphs which continue without end.
Finally, I would add critique sections to all the Arguments. It feels unbalanced and that there is a large favor towards the marxist interpretation.
Also I found this book: Why do Men Rebel (https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ngHvCgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT9&dq=why+do+individuals+rebell&ots=FaqJ7hI3lU&sig=-WJh9Ly1Jlvf7a_DnCjmT0jRW78#v=onepage&q&f=false) Maybe that will help balance out the micro aspect of things?
Akm2173 (talk) 05:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: Whats the REAL difference from Rebellion and Revolution? Thanks!Eddson storms (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do you seperate Rebellion from Revolution?Dont think article addresses this? 

message: Why is the table of contents after the first section? I don't want to move it back without discussing in case there's a reason, but I think that that reason should at least be added to the page as a comment next to the ToC code. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 21:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  ToC placement