Talk:Colour revolution/Archive 1

Minor issue[edit]

I notice someone changed all the instances of "colour" to "color", but the title remains "Colour revolution". I think we should at least be consistent within this article. The article on the property of light is currently at color, but it does tend to change every so often. From a google search, the American spelling may be somewhat more common, but it's not a big deal either way. Either the article should be moved, or the spelling just changed back.--Pharos 03:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I moved it for consistency's sake. Perhaps the title should be in the plural, but for now I've kept it singular. Aris Katsaris 04:30, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Within Communist Societies[edit]

What about the, mostly peaceful, revolutions which toppled communist regimes? I think they qualify as 'color revolutions' I think especially of Czechoslovakia's velvet revolution. --81.48.235.73 11:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They weren't called color revolutions, AFAIK, so how can they have "qualified" for it? The name "color revolutions" has only been used for *this* series of revolution, I believe, not preceding ones. But if you have evidence that the term has been used for those past revolutions, please offer your cite. Aris Katsaris 14:22, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Related movements[edit]

Why EDSAII can be considered as a "related movement" but Spanish march 13th SMS demonstrations not? Estructurally, polliticaly and in their consecuences, both movements are exactly the same

"Color revolution" is a specific term[edit]

"Color revolution" refers specifically to the related movements that have developed with each other in post-Communist Eastern Europe and Central Asia. It does not refer to any non-violent revolution in the past few years. The Cedar Revolution movement in Lebanon is under 'Possibly related' because many of the demostrators have said they were inspired by the recent Orange Revolution in Ukraine. EDSA II is as far as I see not related, organizationally or inspirationally, but I have put it under 'other recent non-violent revolutions' for context, even if it's not really integral. The election in Spain was just that, it would be too much of a stretch to call it a revolution any more than any democracy can be said to experience a 'revolution' every time a new government is voted into power. The so-called "Purple Revolution" I put under 'Other uses' because it is only relevant in that the naming as such by George W. Bush is deliberately intended to associate it with the "color revolutions". Perhaps this is also displayed too prominently.--Pharos 12:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The massive "illegal" movilizations change the electoral result after the attacks. The speech of the demonstrators was just the oppossite to that of the media and the government. We lived it, and it's considered as a revolution, or for the old government a "coup d'etat". And from SMS to selforganization, from "ethical" vindication in front of Aznar presidency to its results, it was exactly an european version of EDSA II. We use to call it the "revolt of the cellulars" and at the moment its deep nature is the greatest national debate... as was in Phillipines...--Otpor

People fail to understand the purpose of this article, it seems. Its purpose is not to discuss peaceful revolutions as a whole, its purpose is to discuss the series of "color revolutions" -- a terms that's been applied to a specific series of revolutions, and not to peaceful revolutions in general. Mention to the term "purple revolution" should be here, because the term was invented specifically to link Iraq to that series of revolutions. The Cedar revolution should be mentioned, because it's again been linked to the series of color revolutions by many, and has been referred to as a "color revolution" before. If you want Spain's "peaceful revolution" anything to be mentioned, give us cites by press or officials that link it to the series of revolution. Else, I recommend to you to create a separate article on the issue. EDSA II should likewise not be discussed here IMO: It's never been linked to color revolutions AFAIK. Aris Katsaris 10:44, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

OK: it appeared related in the two main documentaries about it. The public channel TVE documentary and the History Channel/ Telecinco (main Spanish private TV)/ ARTE (european cultural channel). Other sources: the most read book about the 11M attacks and its consecuences... and even me... I have to write an article about it for the second most read magazine in Spain explaining EDSAII, the color revolutions and Spanish 13M as a whole and one phenomenom.

Aris & Pharos, I believe I see your point, but I think you're missing the larger picture. Most people would fail to see any major distinction between color revolution and any other chiefly non-violent overthrow of a government; most people would, in fact, see them as connected and mutually inspired. You're the Dutch boy holding back the sea on this point. There is no international organization coordinating these color revolutions, there is no specific philosophical movement to which they're tied (indeed, as you yourself note, often they are quite different). For example, there have been several regime changes in South America caused by people power. To my mind this very clearly part of a worldwide trend toward populist democracy. --Dhartung | Talk 18:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When a described set has no definitive membership, then it's reasonable to go by consensus as perceived by the world. The regime changes in South America may have been seen in your mind as belonging in the same series of revolutions as that of Ukraine and Georgia, but they weren't perceived as such by the participants in them themselves, nor by reporters in general, nor by the political leadership of any nation as far as I can see. A number of leaders in the post-Soviet area (e.g. Akayev and Lukashenko) have talked about "colored revolutions": and they always seemed to include Ukraine and Georgia, but they never included South American regime changes. Aris Katsaris 19:24, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

You'll have to be much more clear than you have been. What distinguishes the color revolutions from the people power revolutions? Is it geography (Europe vs. Asia/S. America)? Is it the targeted regime (communist vs. fascist/capitalist/non-specific authoritarian)? Is it simply a chain of "inspiration"? What are the specifically distinguishing characteristics? How are you able to gloss over the non-trivial differences between the revolutions you feel should be included while others are not? These are honest questions. --Dhartung | Talk 19:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I do *not* have to be more clear, because I'm not creating original research here. I did not invent the term "color revolution" myself, and therefore I do not need to define it myself. If the people using the term "color revolutions" are using it vaguely, then I'm just helping report its vague usage. The revolutions that I "feel" should be included in the article of colour revolutions are the ones that have been actually considered part of the series of colour revolutions, and widely considered linked to them. Aris Katsaris 21:51, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

I almost always find that a "problem" article is not simply badly written, it's poorly factored. In this case, there was no article for the broader history of non-violent revolution; I hope by refactoring the topic and creating that article we can avoid any future rancor, while giving these important events their own historical due. I would also hope you understand my disappointment when I ask for clarification of an encyclopedic nature, and get instead a circular definition. Accepting that the distinctions you're being a stickler for are somewhat arbitrary, especially to the lay observer, would be a helpful approach. Compare the complexity of this chart with the single label that the average American would use (you can see it toward the bottom, off to one side), and you'll see my point. --Dhartung | Talk 02:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There may well be some broad worldwide trend toward populist democracy, but if so, the "color revolutions" in Eastern Europe and Central Asia still form quite a distinctive group, with common elements of history and geography, liberal and to some extent nationalist ideals, and protest methods organized according to Gene Sharp's theories by student groups directly tied to each other by organizational links.

There is, of course, room on Wikipedia for Nonviolent revolution and History of Democracy articles.--Pharos 19:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pharos, I agree with you. The real problem is that there is no article for Non-violent revolution. I'll agree that color revolution and people power are both (and not the only) subtypes, although I see the color revolution family's particular distinctiveness as less obvious. I'll do some work to merge the "extraneous" material here into that article, which will free this one up (as long as they're obviously linked). --Dhartung | Talk 05:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-violent revolution article[edit]

I have started the Non-violent revolution article. My intent is to have a broader focus beginning with Mahatma Gandhi and Indian independence and proceed chronologically through some of the revolutions and quasi-revolutions that were rejected for this article as extraneous (while keeping a distinction with nonviolent resistance). There will, necessarily, be a summary section on color revolutions with a standard Main article: Color revolution notice. After I've gotten the rough outline in place you're invited, if so inclined, to help me with that article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uzbekistan[edit]

I add the term Farmers' Revolution, source: http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/pp031705.shtml, as opposition leader Nigora Hidoyatova referred to a theoretical Uzbek revolution as this. freestylefrappe 02:13, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that she used "farmers' revolution" as a description, not as a name. We must be careful to only report, not invent. I'm rephrasing the sentence you added, to remove the idea of it as a name, until it indeed starts being used as a name, if ever. Aris Katsaris 02:21, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree...and the fact of the matter is, almost all of the names for the color revolutions have been invented by the media. The movements usually adopt them after the media has made them widespread.

Check the article itself -- every word is capitalized in the title, but in the text itself the words "farmers' revolution" is not capitalized. And iff your argument is that we are allowed to invent a name, because "everyone does it" I can't express how much I disagree with such an attitude. Other media may manufacture the news instead of reporting them, other media may intentionally create catchy expressions to sell more ads, but I'll do all I can to prevent Wikipedia going that path. Aris Katsaris 03:13, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, do you have cites for the Mongolia unrest? Here is the article about the color revolutions, so we can justify inclusion of Mongolia here only if there's an actual connection -- and the more we can document such a connection, the better. Otherwise, if there's no connecting link or similarity, I'm gonna have to dispute its inclusion here. Besides, "please cite your sources" is one of the Wikipedia guidelines of editing. Aris Katsaris 03:24, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, I found an article, and I'm gonna cite it myself. Aris Katsaris 03:27, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

If you're really against the term Farmers' Revolution then go ahead and get rid of it, but as I have neither read nor seen any alternatives used by opposition leaders, I would leave it in until it is certifiably proven incorrect. freestylefrappe 18:02, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

That's not the way that citing works. It doesn't matter one tiny bit whether "alternatives" have been used by opposition leaders. I'm "against it" in the sense that I've seen no evidence that it's been ever used as a name for such a hypothetical revolution. Aris Katsaris 20:49, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Critical view[edit]

The article should not feel like example of bad journalism.

The names are invented by and for mass media, conveniently putting different and complicated events into single basket so even sub-average reader/viewer could understand and feel "informed".

The article (as now) contains strange mish-mash of events from the whole world - just because a power-hungry group is skilled in reading media messages and names their own fight as "brown revolution" doesn't mean its notable and comparable with other events.

Pavel Vozenilek 01:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not just the mass media, the leaders of those nations and the protesters themselves also seem to consider their movements part of a series of movement, each inspiring the next, just as shown in the cited quotes and examples. You are ofcourse free to indicate dissimilarities between these movements, even as the similarities and connections are shown. All Wikipedia articles should be in a process of constant improvement. Aris Katsaris 02:13, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Claiming someone's else fame is often used and often sucessful political tactic and its sells in media as well. The article concentrates way too much on symbols and their reflection in Western media (very skewed view IMHO). Some deeper analysis may be useful.

About a bit I have some knowledge: the reference to so called Velvet Revolution is misleading. All regimes in Central and Eastern Europe imploded because their structure was rotten from inside out and suddenly there was no one (USSSR) to support them. The term Velvet Revolution is journalistic, was invented later and is restricted to just one country. Pavel Vozenilek 03:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Some deeper analysis may be useful" you say, however the way I understand it it's not Wikipedia's job to publish original scholarly work, it's to report what already exists. The term "color revolution" exists, we describe its meaning. People claim or advertise or utilize a connection between their own movement and the whole series of color revolution, we report that they do so. American president tried to connect color revolution with the elections in Iraq, we report that as well. If you have an analysis around on color revolutions by a third party, we can link to it in an "External links" section. Aris Katsaris 05:06, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

There are clearly real connections, particularly direct organizational links between the student groups in Serbia, Georgia and Ukraine. I think, though, that Pavel has a point about some overemphasis on specific symbols. The specific symbols are clearly less important than the highly organized (except rather unorganized in Kyrgystan) protest movements they have been used in. There is a deeper story here; I think we should focus on expanding the 'Influencing factors' section'.--Pharos 21:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest the main influencing factor being huge disappointment of the people, comparing their life with some luckier neighbour country and seeing no progress from current establishment? Then you do not need large-scale conspiracies or mystical symbols; having information is enough. This was case of socialist Czechoslovakia and its "Velvet revolution". Pavel Vozenilek 00:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Back in the real world[edit]

There was another president toppled in Ecuador. Gutierrez took part in the coup of 2000 and became president in 2003. He was recently deposed by mass protests, ending with a congressional resolution. CNN and BBC are now reporting it and are comparing it to Ukraine and Georgia.

I've searched briefly on the BBC and CNN sites, but have not seen the connection drawn. Either way, until we get definite cites of people giving it the label of "color revolution", it's not our job to give it that either. Moving it downwards to the unrelated revolutions. Aris Katsaris 06:25, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Frankly we shouldnt be dumping any revolution that occurs from now on onto this page. I would advocate removing the entire "more recent nonviolent revolutions" paragraph due to its irrelevance. freestylefrappe 21:52, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

I think I'll second this. Aris Katsaris 06:58, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

I'd have to agree; if there is not even of a suggestion of a connection to Georgia, Ukraine etc., it doesn't really belong on this page.--Pharos 08:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Definite yes --Humble Guy 04:50, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

The new Non-violent revolutions article will be broad enough to consider any of these events, past or future. --Dhartung | Talk 02:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I guess all movements that are not directly related to the color revs could be placed in the new article. --Humble Guy 04:50, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Significance of Belarus Blue?[edit]

I remember reading somewhere that Lukashenko's comment that there would be no blue or cornflower revolution in Belarus was a reference to homosexuality, symbolized by the color blue there. I can't find a source for it though. michael 20:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://abdymok.net/tic-tic-tic. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 03:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes concerning Azerbaijan[edit]

Azadlig is NOT a youth movement. Rather, it is a coalition of (grownup) political parties, such as the Popular Front - whose members are largely adults in their 40s and 50s who look back fondly on the era of President Elchibey, who governed in the early 1990s. There are several significant youth movements that are affiliated loosely with Azadlig, most conspicuously Yeni Fekr (New Idea), which shares office space in Azadlig's headquarters in Baku. YF is the best known and best organized youth movement (not "Yoh").

Other youth groups are Magam ("It's time"), which is also very significant, and Dalga (wave). Magam in particular modeled itself after the Ukrainian example, even printing 800 copies of Gene Sharp's book.

I don't know how to edit a Wiki article or what the etiquette is, but these factual errors ought to be rectified.

Kyrgyzstan: KelKel largely irrelevent[edit]

I believe that the consensus regarding Kyrgyzstan is that KelKel was largely irrelevent (see Alisher Khamidov: "Kyrgyzstan's Revolutionary Youth: Between State and Opposition") They were indeed inspired by the various other color revolutions, but were not able to mobilize many for the protests that toppled Akiev. They did get some media attention, tho.

Instead, it is generally believed (check Sean Roberts from Georgetown) that it was the ability of a disjoint and initially unconnected group of elites to mobilize their support/patronage networks to get people into the streets that lead to the overthrow of the government. Cdoten 05:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Cdoten —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cdoten (talk • contribs) 05:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Improved Azerbaijan section[edit]

I deleted misinformation that Azadlig is a youth group. It's not (as becomes clear if you read about Azerbaijani politics). It's an alliance of political parties such as the Popular Front and Musavat (now left the bloc). Then I corrected the information on Azeri youth groups, inserting info on Yeni Fekir and Magam - the two most important groups. I will try to remember to go back and insert info that they were inspired by Gene Sharp, which they were.

IsorukuIsoruku 05:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should Flower Revolution redirect here without a disambiguation page?[edit]

I came to this page looking under the term Flower Revolution for the 1974 revolution in Portugal (which I eventually found here as the Carnation Revolution). Although it was also non-violent, and although these later Color Revolutions are also called Flower Revolutions, should this more modern usage of the name fully usurp the old one? Or should there be some sort of disambiguation page asking which Flower Revolution the reader meant? Andrew.langmead 04:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also came here looking for the same information. Its interesting to note that this article talks about the coloured revolutions as being largely peaceful, pro-democracy and directed against authoratarian figures. This sounds almost like a description of the Carnation Revolution. Perhaps it should be noted in the lead that the Carnation revolution preceded these movements by a few decades?--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United States[edit]

Could the youth, influenced by Ron Paul, eventually challenge the Electoral results? The Ron Paul Revolution is underway, and if it happens to gain major momentum, and you see people taking it out to the streets and surrounding the white house and capitol, could this also be considered a flower revolution?

It is now well known that on the cauci and primaries, there is plenty of evidence of electoral fraud. How can neocons like Romney or McCain win more than an honest libertarian?

The golden youth is influenced by Ron Paul, this is why no one is challenging the electoral results. They do call it a controlled opposition for a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H9787987987 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what about your black lives matter revolution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:2F0:91A0:F41E:75C8:AE67:DF94:C9EA (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colour or color[edit]

As an european topic shouldnt it be the word be spelt the british english way and not the american way? See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English, Pro66 (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved it now. Pro66 (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"colour" is British. :) Gantuya eng (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what does that even mean?

I'm assuming that you're talking about the "strong national ties to a topic" section of the MOS link you left. Note that it says "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the English of that nation." So how does this article have strong ties to British English? Because a few of the countries are in Eastern Europe? I don't really know if Georgia is considered in Europe or Asia. Either way, it's just as much an Asian topic as a European one IMO. I guess if you consider the whole of the CIS to be European, even though 90% of the territory is in Asia (no idea about the ppl), then it would make more sense as part of characteristics of the revolutions is that they are former USSR states. I don't think it matters either way... but it definitely sounds like someone changed them all to British English simply because no American English editors were working on the article. Fair enough I guess, but you don't have to justify it by saying it's an "Euorpean" topic. I hate to think that every single article with connections to Europe would be edit warred over this something so vague. I don't want to change anything, but feel that I could simply because there's more in the article concerning the United States (and its suspected involvment with the revolutions). Lime in the Coconut 16:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The very first sentence of this article reads: "is a term that was widely used by the US media...". As such, the term used by whichever US media outlets perpetuated its use would have been "Color Revolution". Therefore, the location of said revolutions is irrelevant to how the term should be spelled. This is an article about the term, not about the individual revolutions, which would, or should, have their own articles already. If the term was first used by US media outlets, then it should be spelled the way they would have spelled it, "Color Revolution". Ge0nk (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does not the mis-spelling indicate something? That the US cheer-leaders of the "People Power" revolts where not aware the correct selling is C-o-l-o-u-r? End of Term Report: Freedom House really should have done their homework. 92.17.179.99 (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not indicate anything; see American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#-our.2C_-or. Colour and Color are both correct English. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since most words ending in our are British English, and those ending in or, American English, is not this a possible indication of US involvement the 'Color' revolutions? And yet, some on this site point-blank refuse to admit this might be so - interesting. 92.17.179.99 (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SPECULATION: Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. And Wikipedia talk pages are not for general discussion of the subject. Besides there is more Ukrainian diaspora and academics and journalists in North-American then in the United Kingdom; that might also have contributed to the use of American English of some of them.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While there is something in your first comment, it is undermined by your claim that there are more Ukrainian journalists in the US. For is it not speculation to say that this "might" have contributed to the use of American English? 92.17.179.99 (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How's it a "european" topic? The revolutions are mostly U.S. sponsored and the victims are all over the world, from Myanmar, Iran, Venezuela to China and back. In fact, if you look at the Ukraine, the U.S. has to really push the europeans to get the sanctions to go through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H9787987987 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolia July 2008[edit]

Some edits made by Gantuya eng were erased by me, as were not supported with the relevant sources. It does not mean it was not true, but form (emotional definitions) and lack of sources make them not appropriate in Wiki. In my 28 November 2008 edit I've erased some emotional (but in my POV possibly correct) definitions and supported (where it was possible) events background with relevant sources.

In 1 December 2008 edit Gantuya eng reverted some definitions. This behaviour looks like an edits war, so I will not continue revert Gantuya eng edits. But these edits, especially "cruelly tortured", "pro-MPRP speech on the official TV channel unceremoniously interfering the internal politics of the independent state" and "were unable to observe the process of counting the ballot cards" not supported with relevant sources are an editors POV (these informations can be true, but even if an editor was an eye-witness, they will be an original reserch or POV according the WikiPedia rules). I need to shift the BBC News link to the International observers said July 1 general election was free and fair phrase as this information was in referenced source, but though they were unable to observe the process of counting the ballot cards was added by Gantuya eng without any relevant sources support.

I want to invite Gantuya eng to continue work on this article and provide relevant sources to make all informations encyclopedic. Bogomolov.PL|Bogomolov.PL]] (talk) 08:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bogomolov.PL. Can I ask you to be a little bit politer, please? I'm frightened very easily. Now I'm unwatching this article. Gantuya eng (talk) 11:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I decided it would be proper to remove the sentences concerning the embassies. Gantuya eng (talk) 12:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why if they were in reality? I've found the US Amb. declaration, so it is encyclopedic. If it will be possible to find Russian one - it will be a fine job. I think your information would be wery useful if good sourced.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Color revolution in Lebanon?[edit]

I live in Lebanon and I am aware of no such revolution. Color revolutions are usually made to describe revolutions in CIS states.. So why include Lebanon. Syrian pullout was due to US pressure not said revolution. I keep losing more and more faith in Wikipedia, in some ways it has become more bias than mass media itself.

As a fair number of such comments indicate, it often seems that (just like Tony Blair) the sexed-up tone of Wikipedia is more that of Cheer-Leader for US policy. And yet, anyone that highlight this is likely to be side-lined, insulted or shot-down. Must not use Wikipedia to question possible US involvement and backing for the Color revolutions? 92.17.179.99 (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the CIA? What a joke...[edit]

No mention of the CIA? What a joke... another white-washed Wikipedia article. Get serious! 24.11.186.64 (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But this site allows anyone to comment - as long as such remarks do not conflict with Wikipedia or its US based views. But should that stop people trying to put a balanced or world-view?

84.13.14.146 (talk) 13:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The main organizer of color revolutions is the US State Department, funding NGOs through the NED, not the CIA. Ukraine is a case in point. You had Victoria Nuland discussing with the US ambassador to Ukraine who the new prime minister would be after the coup took place. But your point that this article is a joke, because it does not make clear that color revolutions are not spontaneous movements produced by local activists, but merely the postmodern means which the US now overthrows governments it doesn't like, stands. (Before, when the CIA ran coups, the local military overthrew a legitimate government; now the overthrow is performed by "pro-democracy activists".) – Herzen (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When the USA gets its own color revolution, then maybe the truth will come out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H9787987987 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Truth is already came out. A German Journalist wrote a book about all military and intelliogence operations of the USA which is based on official American documents. Unfortunately the book was not translated into English.--Galliard Jonathan Mecklenburg (talk) 09:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Middle East[edit]

Among some of the revolutions are the Blue Revolution, Purple Revolution, Green Revolution and the Jasmine Revolution. While the 1st 2 might be reasonably connected to the color revolutions, the others happened a while after the color revolutions & it's doubtful that they can be connected to the color revolutions.71.142.237.133 (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

China[edit]

Why is China on this page? There's been no revolution in China, no government change, no changes in governmental policy. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 13:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fast-forward to 2014 and make that comment. 84.13.14.146 (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think what's most interesting about China is that it actually funds its own color revolutions by buying American, and western products. I think most of us can say that the funding of these color revolutions comes from the west, and that the west is able to fund these revolutions through selling their products, ie Maybeline, Loreal, Volkswagon, Thysen Krup, Otis, Ford, Boeing, iphone, etc, which China seems to be the biggest consumer of. China buys more GM cars than America does. I do not even have to mention that China lends money to America, and the west by the trillions. Most recently, it bought Motorola, and the Waldorf Astoria to the tune of several billions. No one is talking about it, but China is digging its own grave. Well not only will China be funding its own color revolutions, but it will be indirectly arming its own enemies (via buying western products) like Viet Nam, the Philipines, and Japan. And speaking of enemies, the best selling cars in China are south Korean, and Japanese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H9787987987 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Insert missing reference in first paragraph of article[edit]

In the introduction paragraph of the article, the following phrase exists without a citation:

"Some observers[who?] have called the events a revolutionary wave...."

The "who?" citation should be for, Samuel P. Huntington, and the source should be "The third wave: democratization in the late twentieth century" (ed. 1993)

I haven't made the change, I'd like somebody to confirm this.

Happy reading! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dadude268 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand red-shirts[edit]

Is it worth mentioning the "red shirt"/"yellow shirt" protests in Thailand? It's clear that the colours became very strong symbols associated with the political turmoil... Grutness...wha? 12:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure. Red-white-blue was a very strong symbol associated with, well, the French revolution. Yet nobody calls that a color revolution. Ahyangyi (talk) 09:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would count it in. Red-white-blue tricolore is used in Russia and lots of places (GB asf.) 93.197.136.158 (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

misuse of sources[edit]

I'm concerned about this edit. Славянский патриот, you added the weasel-word "alleged", with the edit summary "The source stated what the opposition said, which is not independent". However, the reliable source says no such thing; it discusses repression explicitly, without caveats. I cannot fathom why an honest editor would do such a thing. bobrayner (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP faking as usual. 93.197.136.158 (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Colour revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

+[edit]

What is with the Snow Revolution (Russia), The revolution of the dignity (Ukraine), Umbrella Revolution (Hong Kong), 2015 Moldovan protests, Electric Yerevan (Armenia), Melon Revolution (Kyrgyzstan) (according to the Russian wiki and the Image) Braganza (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Colour revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070930163715/http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/050419184754.74ehx330 to http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/050419184754.74ehx330

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colour revolution in Brazil?[edit]

Anyone looking close to the Brazilian political crisis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.204.177.198 (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Colour revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Colour revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soros involvement in Color Revolutions[edit]

It's interesting that he's not mentioned in this article. I believe I've seen interviews with him where he talks about his organizations working to support at least some of the color revolutions. In popular immagination he does seem to be linked with them. For instance the Wikipedia search "Soros" "Color Revolutions" returns 47,000 results. Yes, some of these are conspiracy theory sites, but others seem pretty legit. Cetainly the Russian press makes this claim constantly, and several nations have revoked the licenses of his NGO's to operate, fearing they are secretly inculcating color revolutions.

Seems a gaping omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.76.12 (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colour Revolutions are regime changes based on American intelligence operations[edit]

Its already proved that all so-called Colour Revolutions were intelligence operations of the USA to cause a regime change. The German Journalist Armin Wertz wrote a book about all American military and intelligence operations which is based on official documents of Congress and governement of the United States.--Galliard Jonathan Mecklenburg (talk) 08:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True. See Otpor and "revolution in the box" materials, to which Russia replied via their "green men" active measures.

It should be discussed here.

Zezen (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was made by a now banned user. It should be clear that authoritarian governments see any color revolution as a threat. In such a context any attention given to a movement from abroad, no matter how innocent, would be seen as a threat as well. In this sense the whole argument is tautological. Color revolutions contradict my regime, contradiction is not possible in my regime so it must come abroad. --2003:E6:2F20:C400:35E1:912D:2E0A:A737 (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Colour revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colour revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110627054009/http://www.civilresistancestudies.org/ to http://www.civilresistancestudies.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How come the article speaks about the Purple Revolution in Belarus, taking place from March 13th, 2020? That would be in the future, eight days from now, so I guess there is a typo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.104.27.130 (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible mistakes, unreadable English[edit]

This article needs a thorough rewrite. I have corrected a few things, but many more probably remain. It's written in incredibly botched English.--Adûnâi (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What Causes a "Color Revolution" ?[edit]

Just finished watching a Tucker Carlson segment wherein his guest asserts that the Democratic Party is engineering a "Color Revolution" against Donald Trump, and that the people that are doing the engineering are the same "professionals" that the US uses to engineer color revolutions in other countries. So I came here to more or less "fact check" and get a better understanding of the term "color revolution". Noticed that the Article is silent on the causes of these color revolutions. Carlson's guest asserts they are created (vs. spontaneously and organically occuring within the specfic country with no outside influence). The Article's quote from Putin could be interpreted at least two ways; either they (color revolutions) must be prevented as a matter of internal, domestic policy, or the influence of outside countries must be prevented. Or both, even. The Article is silent on this, and would be improved if some language could be found to expand on the sources or causes of color revolutions. Also I note a lot of the passages in the Article are tagged with "citation needed", and so I wonder to what extent the entire Article is a representation of a single Editor's opinions, or if it is actually a consensus of reliable sources.68.206.249.124 (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should be clear that authoritarian governments see any color revolution as a threat. In such a context any attention given to a movement from abroad, no matter how innocent, would be seen as a threat as well. In this sense the whole argument is tautological. Color revolutions show dissent with the regime, dissent is not possible in my regime so any dissent must come abroad and must be engineered by my enemies. --2003:E6:2F20:C400:35E1:912D:2E0A:A737 (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]