Talk:List of women who led a revolt or rebellion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chart[edit]

It would be great if someone could put together a chart

Date / Name(s) / Conflict / What happened

USchick (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved entries[edit]

These three entries are respectively: not about a revolution but a defense of one, not a positive contribution but hurting someone else which caused them to do something that incited a revolution, and not a revolution but a strike.

I suggest these be removed, or moved to a Related/Other category. Ocaasi c 17:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replies:
  1. Do you think that Cleopatra (not a revolution but a coup d'etat) and Jingu (not a revolution but a conquest) should also be removed?
  2. Do you think that Cordelia should be removed? If we include some folkloric people, that opens up a whole new can of worms about who should be included. (And Deborah and Jael?)
  3. What is to be done about the type of action here? Most of these women were military leaders, but the ones under "recent history" are politicians, activists, or bloggers. Doesn't this oblige us either to consider earlier non-military women or to remove these ones?
Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I think revolution, coup and conquest are very similar in their result of taking over or overthrowing a government.
  2. {have to check}
  3. I think 'sparked a revolution or significantly changed its course' doesn't imply leadership, only impact. So I'd lean towards the more inclusive approach, provided they fit in the overall category, and are in the right sub-section. I'd prefer to have this discussion once the axe of deletion has been slightly shifted, but I do want to see this article remain, so let's take individual examples and see if we can integrate them. Ocaasi c 18:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More replies
If we like this article enough to keep it (I do), what's important to remember is that historically women have been behind the scenes, making strategic moves that weren't always visible. Often it was only a "spark" that took a lot of other momentum to make it happen. The example about Faida Hamdi that literally caused Mohammed Bouazizi to set himself on fire... if that's not a spark, I'm not sure what is. No disrespect intended. USchick (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That example, although it clearly shows a link between a woman and the man whose actions started the revolution, bothers me the most. It just seems like the wrong context, since in a way, the woman was perceived as doing harm to Bouazizi, who then protested this by burning himself. That action is what was recognized as the spark [horribly no pun intended]. I think tracing it back to the person who gave the ticket is confusing 'sides' of the revolution. IMO, women on this list should be operating only from the pro-revolution side, to keep the theme consistent. Otherwise, I'd put the entries in an Other section, where there's a bit more latitude about their role. Ocaasi c 18:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to keep the article, so however you'd like to rearrange it is fine with me. At the same time, I would like to caution against making this a Public Relations article about only positive roles that women played in history. It is what it is, and people can be ruthless, especially in war. (Faida Hamdi is my favorite story! Not in this article, but in general. Sometimes it takes so little to push someone over the edge, and in the right environment... Tunisia, Egypt, and on and on. To exclude her from her role in history is a mistake, in my opinion.) USchick (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right that reality is much more complicated and we shouldn't whitewash it. I was just responding to the fact that the vast majority of these examples are on the revolutionary side (probably because even fewer women held power than challenged it). I still find the Bouazizi example to be a bit off, since the ticket was just the trigger for the spark. It was like the foot-bump that caused the man to scream. It just seems trivial in comparison to the very real contributions that many of the women on this list had. I can see Queen Elizabeth in a different light now, since you make it clear that her role in the revolution was still major, even if her role was crushing it. So my only problem is the strike example, which is just a strike, and Bouazizi, where the spark was technically in the chain of events but also kind of trivial. Can we leave those two out, and put Elizabeth back, perhaps in a separate section or with a distinctive description (at least until there are more examples of 'other-side' actions)? Ocaasi c 19:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I read a bit about Hamdi and the sources weren't clear that she was the main focus or the officers with her. Did you read otherwise? Hamdi, for me, opens the door to more disparate examples (the clothing strike, Rosa Parks, Deborah Sampson Gannett, 'Molly Pitcher', Margaret Corbin--the last three are from the American Revolution). I think we should work out how these fit into the scope/significant impact criteria so we keep the list focused and meaningful. Ocaasi c 19:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you would tell Bouazizi that what she did was trivial! :-) Writing women out of history again.... There's enough on her to write an article, but it's fine for now, she can be left out. USchick (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I read some more and she's clearly identified. I don't know if I'd call it a 'favorite story' but I guess it is important anyway. I'm on the fence about it, still because of the negative impact. I did see this page in a generally pro-revolutionary light; maybe it needs to be made more clear in the introduction that women have both stopped revolutions, and incited others to overthrow the governments under whose power they abused. For me a bit of context would help. I would slow down on the 'writing women out of history' part; we're discussing this very list to keep them in it; just deciding how to do that. Ocaasi c 19:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Faida Hamdi doesn't qualify for an article due to WP:BLP1E. Furthermore, she denies the charges against her, and an investigation found her innocent. Therefore, what she is claimed to have done (which is to confiscate Mohamed Bouazizi's wares, toss his produce cart, slap him in the face, spit on him, and insult his dead father before having her two male aides beat him in the street because his willingness to pay only a small bribe--the equivalent of a full day's earnings--was insufficient for her), by her side of it, never happened. In which case, any argument that she deserves some sort of credit for "sparking" the Jasmine Revolution is invalid. Now, should you not be one to believe her story--that an unprovoked man lit himself on fire for no apparent reason--and believe that all the above did happen, then I would argue it would be an unpopular position to take that her actions "sparked" the revolution. More appropriately framed, her actions triggered the spark, as Ocaasi worded it. Bouazizi sacrificed himself for his country. He inspired the revolution. That's what every single source (and I read probably 150-200 during the time I worked on his biography) credits him for. I've not read a single source that gives her such credit. To write it any differently in this list would not only be original research, but an unspeakably disrespectful expression of a personal opinion that drastically devalues the sacrifice of Mohamed Bouazizi. Lara 21:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

References

  1. ^ Tunisia suicide protester Mohammed Bouazizi dies, BBC, 5 January 2011.
  2. ^ "Tunisia: 'I have lost my son, but I am proud of what he did'". London. 2011-01-21. Retrieved 2011-01-23. {{cite news}}: Text "publisher The Independent" ignored (help)
  3. ^ Wyre Davies (15 December 2010). "BBC News – Tunisia: President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali forced out". BBC News. Retrieved 2011-01-14.
  4. ^ "Uprising in Tunisia: People Power topples Ben Ali regime". Indybay. 16 January 2011. Retrieved 2011-01-26.

Olga of Kiev[edit]

It's unclear to me that Olga's attacks on the Drevlians were what we would term a revolution. In the sense that the Kievan Rus' had already seized the Drevlian territory and were already extracting a sort of tax from them, the leadership had already been established; her reign of terror over them seems partially out of revenge for their having killed her husband (which would make them the rebels), partly an authoritarian crackdown, and partly a genocide. I don't know how much a campaign of heavy taxation and religious proselytizing—however unprecedented both may have been in Drevlian territory at the time—by someone already in a leadership position, against her subjects, can be considered a revolution; it's an interesting concept, but without her bloody work actually termed a revolution or rebellion in a reliable source, it is certainly what Wikipedia terms WP:Original research. Please present such a source or remove her entry to this section at the talk page pending such a source. Abrazame (talk) 13:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the story of Olga needs to be expanded and I'll be happy to do that if it qualifies. There are several uprisings attributed to Olga. Her husband was killed by the Drevlyans, leaving the throne vulnerable because her son (the successor) was only 3 years old. The Drevlyans came to Kiev to capture Olga and marry her off to their prince, for the Drevlyans to gain control of Kiev. Because they had their own prince, this makes them adversaries and not just subjects under her rule. That's when she proceeded to destroy the Drevlyans.
Unlike a male military leader, she literally killed them with kindness, first she tricked the people who came to capture her and buried them alive, then she invited the leaders of the Drevlyans to visit her, and burned them alive. Then under the pretense of kindness, she destroyed 5,000 of them on their own territory because all their leaders were already dead.[1] This scared people not to mess with her, so she ruled over Kiev until her son was old enough, and even then, they shared leadership until she died and Olga controlled the Rus' army the entire time. At one time, Kiev was attacked by the Pechenegs, and Olga had to defend the city by herself, and was successful. This is a different story, but it qualifies as well. Because of her military leadership, she was able to hang on to Kiev, a very important strategic location, and they made her a Saint! USchick (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Powerful tale, but it's not "sparking a revolution". Let's get the terms right and we won't have to reframe everything as if we disagree about the importance of women's varied roles through history. Ocaasi c 16:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. A lot of the stories on this list have to do with women's military strategy and leadership being very different from male. This is not something you will read about in The Art of War, except maybe under "surprise your enemy." There was a question earlier about these stories being stubs. Just because they happen to be stubs on English language Wikipedia, does not mean they're not major stories in their country of origin and very well sourced. USchick (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that they're stubs is only a problem in so far as the entries here often don't explain how they qualify for inclusion (what revolution or rebellion did they inspire?) and then clicking the article to get further details results in no additional information. The further issue is that many of these women either did not inspire a revolution or rebellion or they didn't even participate in one at all, so then we have a problem in that we're misinforming and misleading readers. That is unacceptable. Lara 21:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New title[edit]

Very few entires fit within the criteria defined by the title. Considering the AFD is practically snowballing keep without any policy-based reasoning, the article needs to be revamped to meet standards. First necessity is to change the name. Of course, to do that, you need to decide what you want it to include. If you're going for women who inspired a revolution, you're going to have to cut around half of the article out, at least, because it's original research to credit them with such when no reliable sources have. If you want to broaden it to include a greater number of women then it needs a name to reflect more accurately what they are known for. If it's not possible to come up with a realistic name that includes all the current entries on the list, perhaps consider making more than one list and connecting them through "See also" sections and a category. And then, for whatever way you end up defining the list(s), be sure each entry clearly explains (based on reliable sources) what the woman did to earn such a distinction. As it is, most of the entries don't explain anything regarding a revolution. Defeats the purpose of the list. Lara 20:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed
Considering the issues with women leading revolutions issue explained above and at the AFD, perhaps List of women in war and a separate List of women who influenced a rebellion or revolution. The former will cover all the women who had some significant impact during wartime, and the latter covers women who made any sort of significant impact on a revolution, whether it be that they helped ignite it, helped it gain momentum, or were otherwise involved in such a way as to make a significant impact. Lara 23:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of women in war may be too broad because it would include nurses and other support roles in war. How about List of women who influenced a rebellion or revolution and List of female military leaders? USchick (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whichever, just make sure you don't add women who fall outside the defined criteria. And make sure each entry clearly explains how the woman meets the criteria. Lara 03:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think before settling on a title, we should decide what is to be included. Looking at the current list, for example - would we want to include Gbowee and Freeman? That would exclude pretty much every title that refers to the military, war, revolution, or rebellion. (Because yes, they were leaders and they influenced a war which led to a change of government, but it would be misleading at best and possibly inaccurate.) Korolyuk and Tymoshenko - they weren't military leaders, and indeed the Orange Revolution was not a military event. What about Cleopatra? Was she really at the head of her troops, or was she just a political leader in a time of war? And again, "revolution" or "rebellion" excludes Cleopatra, Jingu, Deborah, Jael, Joan of Arc, and probably others. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest settling on two or three titles, and WP:Sandboxing them all. Be honest with yourself and with us about who fits into which parameters and who does not as is supported by a reliable source. Share your work with us by linking to the sandbox from here, and people can weigh in with suggestions, criticism, and support. For that matter, use this list we already have with the different titles as subheads. This way you'll wind up with a sense of which list winds up with the swath of stories that you've been aiming for. I'd suggest List of female military leaders and List of women who led a revolution or rebellion. I think what we'd find is that the two lists will be distinct enough that we could keep both of them, because of course the first is limited to military (while allowing for women who are fighting for the status quo or some non-revolutionary outcome) while the second includes nonviolent actions, and the result would be two lists that between them include nearly every woman on your initial list. Abrazame (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please let's decide on terminology. I think we already determined that a Revolution does not have to be a military event. The Orange Revolution was non-violent, just like the 2011 Egyptian revolution. (Revolution –– a sudden, radical, or complete change.) Also, how do I use the Sandbox without it being erased in 12 hours? USchick (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can create your own personal sandbox at User:USchick/Sandbox (or User:USchick/Women and revolution etc. etc. if you want to use a more descriptive title, as I usually do). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look what I found! Timeline of women in ancient warfare now all we need is a Timeline of women in modern warfare. Does anyone have any issues about working with this list since it's all inclusive? USchick (talk) 03:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By all means start one, but keep in mind that it would still exclude some of the people on your original list. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something still needs to happen with this list. The AFD is set to close in a few hours and it's full of keep votes. We need to pick one of the above title changes and trim the list to the appropriate women. Move the rest to a sandbox or two. Lara 04:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To USchick, it is obviously not all inclusive, as a few of your suggestions, including the Egyptian Revolution and Clara Lemlich were wholly unrelated to warfare. As I've stated, the element of nonviolent revolutions being (in a few cases, at least) as effective as wars was what I thought brought unique value to what you were working on. If "all we need" is to focus on modern warfare, and throw these other women contributing to this other aspect of revolutions under the bus, then I've misunderstood your intent all along (and wish you had responded directly to any of my posts) and of course that makes several of my statements here and at the AfD moot. But this was your effort, and I acknowledge that women in modern warfare is certainly a reasonable metric, so I wish you well focusing on that aspect.
To all incl. Lara, I am willing to put a little work (which is all I think you will see is required to bring this into compliance with the proposed title) into this list with other interested editors if the sphere of focus includes both violent or military and nonviolent or non-military revolutions and rebellions. Abrazame (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abrazame, sometimes what's obviously clear to me is not at all clear to other people, so I'm willing to throw some entries under the bus if necessary. I didn't want to lead this discussion with my opinions, since I created the list. I copied the list and saved it, so if it gets deleted, no problem, I still have it. I'm willing to use this article Timeline of women in ancient warfare, which includes a lot of people from my list already and then expand it by including the ones that don't. Can someone please suggest what time period is considered "Ancient"? Then I'd like to create a complementary list of women in modern warfare. We'll see who is left over and maybe find a place for them somewhere else. Considering that in recent history there are numerous examples of non violent revolutions, maybe they need to be addressed separately. Timeline of women in ancient warfare includes women who were simply involved in some way, (including Deborah, Mother Lu, and women who were buried with weapons). The lead-in explains that their role was so significant, that it has not been wiped out by rewriting of history, which often happens in a conquest. I'm very happy to find this list because it addresses the question of why these women are included. USchick (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ancient, according to the article, goes to 500AD. But the article you want to create already exists.
There's also List of women warriors in folklore and Women in the military by country.
As far as working this into a list about women who've led revolutions or rebellions, if it's not overly redundant of another list, then go for it. Be bold. Rename a prune. The sooner, the better. Lara 02:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New list[edit]

This is my attempt at a new list Women who led a rebellion or a revolution. Feel free to prune, but I think I was very selective. USchick (talk) 05:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improper synthesis discussion[edit]

A question has been brought up about source #1 that goes with the statement "nonviolent civil resistance is often associated with the advancement of democracy." The question is whether the source mentions women and if it doesn't is it an appropriate source.

  • The source is used to illustrate the correlation between between nonviolence and democracy. Populations are analyzed as a whole where men are not mentioned as participants. The report is a pdf document that anyone can download from the link if interested. I will summarize here. It's a Freedom House statistical analysis over time, of countries using non-violent civic resistance vs. force and the achieved rate of democracy. The report concludes that "Civic resistance was a key factor in driving 50 of 67 transitions." and "The central conclusion of this study is that how a transition from authoritarianism occurs and the types of forces that are engaged in pressing the transition have significant impact on the success or failure of democratic reform." USchick (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The source supports the statement because it is a scientific study of the entire population, half of which are women and in some countries more than half, making them the majority of the population. USchick (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't have to mention women because the sentence in which it supports doesn't make a claim about women. "Armed rebellion is an organized attempt to destroy the existing authority and establish a new government, while nonviolent civil resistance is often associated with the advancement of democracy." If it supports that claim, then it's an appropriate source. Lara 15:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged it not knowing for sure if that was improper synthesis, but sensing it was somehow off. It's a good point that not mentioning women explicitly shouldn't matter so long as they're in the population/involved. 1) My original confusion was actually not about that but about why we are giving a particular reading of revolution and rebellion in this article's introduction. I was also concerned that we're using a primary study from a group with a pro-democracy/activist bias to define the history and tendencies of armed vs. unarmed revolution. I'd prefer we use an unideological/nonactivist social science study or text if we can find one. Is that understanding of the function of violent vs. nonviolent rebellion widespread? In the American revolution, there was loads of violence and an increase in Democracy. Obviously I didn't conduct the full study, but I'm a bit concerned we're advancing a description as universally accepted if it's not. 3) Otherwise, the sentence struck me as somewhat random education for our readers. Maybe it doesn't seem to work to me because it's not incorporated more into the topic of the article; aren't we really trying to say that "women have helped or lead armed rebellions--overthrowing governments with violence, as well as nonviolent revolutions--which typically advance democracy" (ironically, there's more synthesis there, but it integrates the point with the article's topic). 4) Most of these examples in the article are from before democracy's modern existence, and the 3 nonviolent examples are all from the 20th century. So saying 'they are often associated with an advance in democracy' mislead me to think we were crediting ancient women with creating democracies that didn't exist. I think we might need to set the stage of the article a bit better so that information anticipates what readers will find in the body. Perhaps just more context will help. Ocaasi c 16:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is still tagged for deletion. If we can determine that this list is a keeper, I don't mind working on the intro. USchick (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's the least of concerns at this point. Do the entries you've included have reliable sources that state these women led a revolution or rebellion. If not, they need to be removed. There seems to be a lot being conflated here. Like women who have fought in battle. Does, for example, a queen defeating her husband in battle to take control of a country count as a revolution? Well, not for us to decide. Sources do not appear to consider it such. Synthesis in the body is a real problem with this article. That's what you need to be focusing on more than anything else. Lara 21:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable as a revolution[edit]

Defensive military actions[edit]

  • In 101 BC, General Marius of the Romans fought the Teutonic Cimbrians. Cimbrian women followed the men in battle, shooting arrows from mobile "wagon castles", and occasionally left the wagon castles to fight with swords. Marius reported that when the battle went poorly for the men, the women emerged from their wagon castles with swords and threatened their own men to ensure that they would continue to fight. After reinforcements arrived for the Romans, the Cimbrian men all were killed, but the women continued to fight. When the Cimbrian women saw that defeat was imminent, they killed their children and committed suicide rather than be taken as captives.[8]
  • In 378 AD, Roman Empress Albia Dominica organized her people in defense against the invading Goths after her husband had died in battle.[10]
  • In the 4th century, As military commander for the Emperor of China, Li Xiu took her father's place and defeated a rebellion.[12]
  • In 1559–1560, Mary of Guise, Regent of Scotland, leads French armies against the protestant rebellion.

Offensive military actions[edit]

  • In 315–308 BC, Cratesipolis commanded an army of mercenaries and forced cities to submit to her.[15]
  • In late 4th century through early 3rd century BC, Amastris, wife of Dionysius of Heraclea, conquered four settlements and united them into a new city-state, named after her.[16]
  • In the 1st century, Agrippina the Younger, wife of Emperor Claudius, commanded Roman legions in Britain. The defeated Celtic captives bowed before her throne and ignored that of the emperor.[19]
  • In 200, Empress Jingū was an onna bugeisha who led an invasion of Korea after her husband, the fourteenth emperor of Japan, Emperor Chūai was slain in battle. According to legend, she miraculously led a Japanese conquest of Korea without shedding a drop of blood.
Empress Jingū setting foot in the Promised Land. Painting by Yoshitoshi (1880).
  • In 912–922, Ethelfleda, ruler of Mercia, commanded armies, fortified towns and defeated the Danes. She also defeated the Welsh and forced them to pay tribute to her.[21]
  • In the mid-10th century Queen Thyra of Denmark leads an army against the Germans.[22]
  • In 1536–1573, Amina, ruler of the Hausa empire in Niger. She personally led an army of over 20,000 soldiers.[30]

Coups[edit]

  • 1688: A coup Siam was led by a woman named Ma Ying Taphan who led women drilled in the use of muskets. They replaced the mercenaries and samurai who had served the old government.

Random info[edit]

  • In 63, Tacitus wrote in his Annals that women of rank entered the gladiatorial arena.[33]

Inclusion visa-a-vis new title[edit]

The page move was in the right direction. The removed examples above do have some wiggle room, though. After all, a revolution has to succeed, but a revolt or rebellion just has to try. I think a coup is in the same category as a revolt or rebellion. The other weaselly word is "led" a revolution, which could imply nominal leadership or a lesser notable decision-making role (compare team-captain or coach to point-guard or play-maker). So, there might be room for women who made strong decisions but were not generals. Led might also apply to aspects of a rebellion, for example leading a charge rather than leading the entire campaign. Accepting that definition might require a new title: [List of women who led in a revolt or rebellion], since it is more inclusive. Of course, this is my sneaky semantic lawyer hat on, so take that for what it's worth. Alternately, a hard-line interpretation of revolution and leader could be used to shore up against the weak intruders. Ocaasi c 04:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, apologies for the delayed posting of the removed entries here. I was having serious connectivity issues last night (on-going problem with some line issue in the neighborhood or something like that) and my internet went down mid-post to the talk page. My own fault for doing the move first, thereby leading the first attempt to end in a "page doesn't exist" error.
Anyway, I agree. Some entries may still fit, which is why it's good to have them listed here. Easy to move them back. We also need a new lead. Something that better explains what we're talking about so the reader doesn't have to leave the list at the start to figure it out. Lara 12:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, also, in the name, I chose to use "revolt" as opposed to "revolution" because, as you note, it only requires the attempt, not that it actually succeed. The issue with the removed entries (which may be incorrect, but based on the wording and/or what I found clicking for further background) is that they don't seem to necessarily be revolts. Immediately available information didn't make it clear, at least. Lara 12:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Srsly my last post for a while! I have to go to class, but I'm thinking perhaps changing "revolt" to "revolution" in the title may be better, only because revolts and rebellions are so closely related. Thoughts? Lara 13:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the difference between revolt and rebellion, so for me revolution would be better. (Then again, I believe every revolution is also a revolt, so the leanest title could just be List of women who led a revolt. But it's not snappy. And it takes away from the major ones). What about List of women who led a revolt or revolution. For the same semantic buck, I like how it sounds. Ocaasi c 13:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, Revolt is a redirect to Revolution. Does that matter? Lara 16:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Revolt should redirect to rebellion, not to revolution, per my explanation below. Abrazame (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After much discussion in the AfD about the term revolution, and considering that we're pondering whether the current title is really where we'll end up, I'm wondering what the reasons were in going with revolt or rebellion rather than rebellion or revolution. Revolt and rebellion are the most synonymous, and so not necessary to indicate both in the title. Further, revolt and rebellion are reactions that have little to do with result, and often imply no result, whereas revolution is a step beyond. Revolution implies not simply the reaction and reasons for it, but the change that the reaction brings about.

Revolt is defined by Merriam-Webster as "to renounce allegiance or subjection (as to a government): REBEL".

Rebellion is defined as "1: opposition to one in authority or dominance; 2a: open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government; 2b: an instance of such defiance or resistance."

Revolution is defined as "2a: a sudden, radical, or complete change; 2b: a fundamental change in political organization; especially: the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed"

The definition of revolution is one that is posing a problem for me at another article; we can't title articles and lists with words we are not willing to understand and prepared to represent in the article or list. At this list, the suggestion of the somewhat synonymous "revolt or rebellion" and the rejection of the word "revolution" seems to presuppose we are going to present a list of failed attempts. The difference between failure and success in the real historical events can be great or small, but the difference between failure and success, as was implied in my suggested title "rebellion or revolution", and primarily failure but not success, as is implied in the current title, is disappointing. As I had pointed out here and/or at the AfD, we already combine failed and successful coups, and it seemed to me that given the limited parameter of "led by women", we should open the list up to both failed and successful revolts and revolutions. To contradict my fine colleague Ocaasi, yes, every revolution is also a revolt, but no, not every revolt is a revolution.

In summary, the question, it seems to me, is what is the scale and parameter we are looking to include in this list? Is it our intention to include every time a woman's example in so doing led others to renounce allegiance or subjection (for example, we could include Rosa Parks' passive resistance to sitting in the back of the bus), or are we hoping to present women who actively sought to draw participants into, directed, and/or stood out in front on an issue (for example, the shirt factory woman)? Perhaps all (I'm not presenting an argument against all), but the problem I've had throughout these discussions is that we have a list of women in history who've done various things more or less militarily on the one hand and people who seem to object to lists of women on the other, without a serious and sustained, focused and informed thread of discussion about the unique value this list should present as distinguished from the women in war categories et al. I think I've been clear about what I see the value in presenting, but even if that's not the direction consensus takes this, I haven't really seen a case made for anything else, even as random else is what we've seen. Jennavecia, is this Lara? (It's not helpful to see one name in edit histories and another in signatures.) Why would you take it upon yourself to choose the title you did when you're expressly on record as not condoning the list in any iteration, and that's neither what we discussed at the AfD nor definitionally superior? Abrazame (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No contradiction sir, that's just what I meant by "But it's not snappy. And it takes away from the major ones." I think your analysis is right on. Rebellions can be quite minor and revolutions, which are almost always major, are not indicated by the current title. For me it's a) revolt or revolution; b) rebellion or revolution; c) rebellion (inclusive of revolutions) or d) revolution (but no minor events). [note: I was also confused by Jennavecia/Lara at first]. The move was in the right direction, and we're still working on it, so I'm not concerned about the AfD to here move, which was largely spurred on by the close of the thread. Ocaasi c 00:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That really long post seemed to have missed where I said "I'm thinking perhaps changing "revolt" to "revolution" in the title may be better, only because revolts and rebellions are so closely related. Thoughts? Lara 9:23 am, Yesterday (UTC−4)" Your question about why I chose this title was also explained above. I guess you missed that one too. "I chose to use "revolt" as opposed to "revolution" because, as you note, it only requires the attempt, not that it actually succeed." I originally chose the title because that seemed most inclusive based on the entries in the list coupled with a misunderstanding of what a revolt was considering its redirection to revolution. My thought was that a revolt would include both successful and non-successful attempts to overthrow a government. And then, upon greater research, I found it was basically the same thing as a rebellion and we're full circle back to my first quoted comment in this post. Perhaps if this article wasn't of such unfortunate quality, it wouldn't be so confusing and choosing a title wouldn't be such a burden. That said, this title, while not the best it turns out, is better than the original, which was wrong on multiple levels. As to why I chose "take it upon myself" (first, read the website's tagline, pause for a moment, let that sink in... okay, now read on), quite simply because no one else was doing it and that title needed to go 19 days ago. And your name, by the way, is conspicuously missing from the history, while Ocaasi and I have been working on the article for some time now, so I'm not quite sure where you feel it appropriate to question me about me "taking it upon myself" to edit the article you've never edited. Which brings me to some of your more personal and offensively inaccurate statements.
Firstly, by simple opposition to using feminist arguments (which are completely without value in an AFD discussion), I am not opposed to lists of women. I happen to be one. To again clarify, I oppose poorly written, ill-defined, confusing lists that mislead readers and are redundant of other, more developed articles and violate some of the projects most important policies and guidelines, and the second pillar. I can use a bullet list if you'd consider my argument, which I've clearly stated multiple times, more focused. As for my name, you can hover my signature to confirm that I'm Jennavecia. Oh, and last, if you haven't seen a case made for anything else, you're giving a third example of you not reading other's comments. Perhaps next time, you'll allow yourself to get caught up in a discussion before you jump in to make uninformed comments and paint editors with a broad brush of assumptions.
Now, as to the title, like I said before, I think "revolt" should be changed to "revolution'. Informed thoughts? Lara 05:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Salmonson, p.229
  2. ^ Cooper, W.R. (1876). An Archaic Dictionary: Biographical, Historical, and Mythological, from the Egyptian, Assyrian, and Etruscan Monuments and Papyri. Samuel Bagster and Sons, 15 Pater Noster Row, London. p. 484.
  3. ^ Plutarch & Scott-Kilvert 1973, 27; Pomeroy 2002, p. 75.
  4. ^ Meyers, Carol, general editor. (2000). Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, and the New Testament. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York. p. 397. ISBN 0-395-70936-9. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  5. ^ Olsen, Kirstin (1994). Chronology of women's history. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 31. ISBN 978-0-313-28803-6.
  6. ^ Salmonson, p.126-7
  7. ^ Salmonson, Jessica Amanda (1991). The Encyclopedia of Amazons. Paragon House. p. 26.
  8. ^ Jones, David E., p.148-149
  9. ^ Salmonson, p. 17
  10. ^ Banchich, Thomas (3 November 1997). "Domnica Augusta, Wife of the Emperor Valens". Canisius College. Retrieved 10 May 2007. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  11. ^ "Warriors: Asian women in Asian society". Colorq.org. Retrieved 2008-06-30.
  12. ^ "Li Xiu - defender of Ningzhou from Colorq.org". Retrieved February 20, 2007.
  13. ^ Hannoum, Abdelmajid (2001). Post-Colonial Memories: The Legend of the Kahina, a North African Heroine (Studies in African Literature). ISBN 978-0-325-00253-8.
  14. ^ Salmonson, p. 7
  15. ^ Leon, p. 180
  16. ^ Salmonson, p.8
  17. ^ Tony Jaques, Dictionary of Battles and Sieges: A Guide to 8,500 Battles from Antiquity through the Twenty-first Century, Volume 2, F-O Retrieved from books.google.com
  18. ^ African Affairs - Sign In Page
  19. ^ Salmonson, p.4-5
  20. ^ Golden, Peter (1980). Khazar Studies: An Historio-Philological Inquiry into the Origins of the Khazars. Budapest: Akademia Kiado.
  21. ^ King, William C. (1902). Woman; Her Position, Influence, and Achievement Throughout the Civilized World. Her Biography and History. The King-Richardson co., Springfield, Massachusetts. p. 177.
  22. ^ Salmonson, p. 251
  23. ^ Stephens, Henry Morse (1895). The story of Portugal. The Knickerbocker Press. p. 29.
  24. ^ Stephens, H. Morse (1891). The Story of the Nations: Portugal. New York, G.P Putnam's Sons, London, T. Fisher Unwin. p. 29.
  25. ^ Lloyd, Sir John E. (1935). A History of Carmarthenshire. Pub. Caerdydd. p. 140.
  26. ^ Davis-Kimball, Jeannine (2002). Warrior Women, An Archaeologist's Search for History's Hidden Heroines. Warner Books Inc. pp. 226–228. ISBN 978-0-446-52546-6.
  27. ^ Berents, Dirk Arend (1994). Joan of Arc: Reality and Myth. Uitgeverij Verloren. p. 29. ISBN 978-90-6550-412-8. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  28. ^ Berents, p.32
  29. ^ Salmonson, p. 213
  30. ^ Salmonson, p.11-12
  31. ^ "Bibi Sahib Kaur (1771 - 1801 A.D.)", URL accessed 09/02/06
  32. ^ Johnson, Chris (2004). Afghanistan: the mirage of peace. Zed Books. p. 171. ISBN 1842773771, 9781842773772. Retrieved 2010-08-22. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  33. ^ Salmonson, p.100
  34. ^ Egyptian Internet Activist and Blogger Israa Abdel Fattah

Joan of Arc qualifies to be included[edit]

She had the rank of Captain, and she was assigned her own army.[2] She led the French army in a revolt [3] against the occupation of the English during the Hundred Years' War. She did this in defiance of the war council, (which is also a revolt). USchick (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa Luxemburg?[edit]

Is there any reason why Rosa Luxemburg is not included in this list? I can't see any discussion or suggestion, but I don't want to add her name if there is some decision or criterion which I am unaware of which would preclude this. RolandR (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its been three years since this comment and the omission of Rosa Luxemburg is bizarre unless the criteria was originally something like 'led a *successful* rebellion'. N0thingbetter (talk) 06:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima Lodhi[edit]

I moved this here because I can't find any news coverage of this person or movement. Perhaps it's just too soon. If you know of sources, in English media or Pakistani media, please list them below and we can put it back! Jake Ocaasi t | c 16:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • In 2013, Pakistani social activist, Fatima Lodhi launched Dark is Divine[4], an anti-colorism campaign to change the unjust attitudes and mindsets of the people towards dark skins and also envisions a society where the skin color of a person shouldnt be a deciding factor. She is the first Pakistani who taken a boold stand against Colorism and she aims to do so by redefining the society's unrealistic standards of beauty.

References[edit]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of women who led a revolt or rebellion. 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) 02:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of women who led a revolt or rebellion. 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) 11:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_women_who_led_a_revolt_or_rebellion&oldid=1208487122"