h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Great looks a bit better but I was thinking that are there any parts that are worth separating with headers.

no i dont think so, anything like that would require rewriting and putting the bits into a different order.

mini

OK.
Anyway apart from all that it is a great guide entry.

do you reckon it is ready to go then, or are there any other nitpicks?

mini

It isn't really my place to say but I know either the Scouts or the Sub-Editors will tell.

*waits patiently*

I've had a quick scan through, and I have quite a few grammatical nitpicks, which to be honest can be sorted out in the editing process.

I do, however, need to read this properly when I have a less tired head on, and will come back to it tomorrow morning to ask questions of your arguments

Briefly, it reads interestingly, but I'm not sure about the use of other people's arguments so heavily, as opposed to your own. Like I said, let me read it again tomorrow, 'in the light' as such, and I'll comment properly.

Right, grammar and so forth nitpickery ahoy

This might seem pretty harsh, but you did ask for it Things in brackets are corrections or suggested changes, words like -this- are for removal

Here we go!

>The first two definitions above certainly serve some purpose in helping our understanding of what a revolution is, But (no need for the capital B) they do not tell us what it is that defines a revolution.

This entry (capitalise Entry) will attempt to make use of both the dictionary definition(,) and the observations of historians(,) to establish a working definition for use by (do you need to add the word 'other' or 'amateur' or use the term 'historical researchers' or even the phrase 'those interested in the subject of historical revolution') historians.

Many amateur historians would define revolution as 'A (lower case a) short period of of large changes.' This definition whist (while) not being essentially correct(,) does pose some interesting questions. Just how long is a 'short' period,(?) Months, Years, Decades? Also how do you define 'L(lower case l)arge changes'? Some historians will argue that revolution is more a form of forced evolution that(n)(, for example,) a sudden uprising against an inept leader.

Marx (which Marx?) believed that history was cyclic and that revolutions were therefore inevitable to happen eventually (inevitable, or happen eventually - not both ). He argued that there were four distinct phases that were (can remove that were) common to all revolutions.

Perhaps now break the Entry up by adding <UL<LIL around your four phases - although I do note you kind of skip over phase three and four and don't define them as such so perhaps you need to do that, or reword so you use his first and second phases only, in which case forget about dividing the Entry up as suggested into the four phases...kapeesh? )

The first phase consist(s)-ing- of class antagonism, inept leadership, intellectual changeover and ineffective use of force by the state.

(The) -Marx's- second phase of revolution consist(s)-ed- of financial breakdown and protests against the government. As such Marx believed that revolutions were automatically violent, (but) if this is true why then do we talk about the 'Industrial Revolution'?

Do we refer to an 'Industrial Revolution' simply because revolution is such a buzzword nowadays, O(lowercase o)r was the i(I)ndustrial r(R)evolution(,) as the Oxford English Dictionary definition suggests(,) 'a dramatic and far-reaching change.' This researcher (It's okay to use this researcher, but it makes your argument seem a little wobbly - opinion, not matter of fact - force your reader into believing what you do! Perhaps remove and say 'Some') would argue that the i(I)ndustrial r(R)evolution falls under that definition, but (others)-some historians- (counter)-would argue- that it was more an (')i(I)ndustrial e(E)volution(')(,) rather than a revolution. (this next section I'd footnote, you're arguing about revolution, not Scotland)It can be successfully argued that in Scotland an industrial revolution did take place. For some years Glasgow and Dundee competed for the title of 'Slum capital of Britain.'

(I'd whack a header in here - Revolutionaries)

(use the Blockquote> and tags around any quotes - and if possible give your source)

Revolutionaries do not automatically mean there *is*(instead of the asterisks, italicise this word) a revolution. Also, one can revolt without -it- being revolutionary (i.e. largely impacting the whole in a meaningful way).

A revolution is impossible without a revolutionary situation; furthermore, not every revolutionary situation leads to revolution.

These arguments come from two separate historians.(,) but does this mean that a revolution must impact the whole in a meaningful way in order to be classed as a revolution? Some historians would argue -as we can see- that the American Revolution(,for example,) did little to change the lives of women or slaves, yet it is one of the most commonly cited examples of a revolution.

(Blockquote and source) We call the move from hunting and gathering to settled agriculture the 'Neolithic Revolution' but all evidence points to it taking some 10 thousand years to occur.

(Another -researcher's argument- (take) on the definition of 'revolution'(, but) W(lowercase w)hy is there so much debate over the use of this term?

'Why is it that when the English chop of their king's head, it isn't nearly as definitive as the French doing the same thing more than a century later?' -One researcher argues that- the difference between the English c(C)ivil w(W)ar and the French r(R)evolution (can be defined) i(a)s this(

It actually followed the French Revolution reasonably accurately(,) albeit over 100 years earlier(how can you follow something be being earlier? Perhaps you meant it went along the same lines as): overthrow of unpopular and authoritarian monarchy replaced by unstable republic due to power vacuum, replaced by de-facto dictatorship (under the Cromwells - I didn't realise the Cromwell's ruled France too You need to remove this bit or certify that you mean the English Civil War). The big difference is that the French (')Cromwell('), Napoleon, became Emperor whil-st-(e) (whilst is considered archaic - sorry. I prefer the old school myself) the actual Cromwell died unexpectedly and his successor was ill-prepared to rule which lead (the whole end of this sentence is a bit confused, it reads repetitively, try tidying it up) to the restoration[of the monarchy] of the republic proper and its instability which lead to a restoration. The French had a restoration after Napoleon(,) but it proved unstable (as did the English restoration); the difference is that the English created a 'constitutional monarchy' (following what they ironically *did* (italicise instead) call a revolution even though it wasn't a revolution so much as a coup de tait</I&gt whil-st-(e) the French created an unstable 'citizen monarchy', then another republic, then another empire, then another republic which managed to stay (reasonably) stable.

(another header 'Reaching Towarsd Revolution? or something like that)

What in short makes a series of events a 'revolution'? Does the revolution have to be wholly or partly successful in order to be named as such? Again there is debate about this.

-One researcher's argument-(There are arguments) against the suggestion that we are currently undergoing a revolution at the moment

(Blockquote and source) I don't see any basis for or possible indication of a revolution. For a start, revolutions only happen in countries with constitutionally or de-facto unmovable governments and there isn't a single Western country with any such thing. Secondly, they require massive social/economic/political unrest and that isn't happening. There's some real chaos in the economic sphere at the moment but that's about it and, in the West at least, if it manages to create a massive shift in public political mood then the mechanism is there to change the government anyway. This has happened before - notably in Britain's election of a post-war socialist government.

So revolutions only occur when there is no system in place to replace the government. Does this hold true in the revolutions mentioned? France was under the control of a Monarchy system when the revolution put a republic into place. America was under the British Empire when they revolted to become an independent nation. This definition of Revolution would seem to hold true for our purposes, until of course we come to the industrial revolution. Being more a social and economic revolution than a political revolution makes it a bit of a fly in the ointment.

Maybe a revolution can only be really seen in retrospect. (Opps! First person here! Argh! How about saying 'Various editions of the BBC programme') -I've been watching a fair few- 'Newsnight'1(forget the footnote and just link to the bbc homepage on Newsnight ) -programmes of late-(,) and various people(who?)(,) keep saying that what is happening at present in world stock exchanges is huge and once in a life time. We can't really know -at present- the possible implications of what is happening (in the early 21st Century) and how it will eventually be viewed. (First person again) -I- (It is) doubtful in the *early days*(italicise) of many so called revolutions it was properly realised what the historical implications might be. (Yoinks! An opinion in first person! Argh! Dive, dive! how about 'But it is possible the early signs of revolution are there' or just remove it completely)Yes we might be on the brink I think.

This is another response to the suggestion that we may even now be in the throes of some form of revolution. Any modern western revolution however(not sure however is the right word here, perhaps just 'could be considered') -would be- more (of a ) social and economic (revolution,) rather than violent and political as the French and American revolutions were. This again raises the question as to whether a 'revolution' requires some element of forced change,(.) The force may not involve lives of course, 'Forced Evolution' could here be a better definition of 'revolution' in the -current- (political) climate (of the early 21st Century).

No, things would have to get a lot more desperate than they are at the moment. Only people with very little to lose get involved in revolutions, and for most of us, we have too much to lose and too big a stake in the society we live in (this is a very sweeping staement, perhaps you need to suggest that only people with very little to lose - pop a 'It can be suggested that'at the start of the sentence). Most of the Socialist Workers and Workers' Revolutionary Party hard-liners -I knew- (First person again) (of) -twenty-odd years ago- (the 'give a decade') have since succumbed to homes, families, children, careers... you don't hear so much glib talk about an all-out general strike from people who have to pay a mortgage bill on the fifteenth of each month!

(Header - 'New Revolutions'?)

An argument against the suggestion of a -current- revolution (in the early years of the 21st Century,) and quite a valid one in the opinion of some historians (is this

(Blockquote and source) Seems to me there can be revolutions in several different aspects, economics and politics just being the most obvious ones as they probably involve violence. However a scientific revolution doesn't really involve any force as such.

-Another researcher's argument on the definition of revolution.- -Which leads this entry on to make some conclusions.- There is a great amount of debate amongst historians the world over as to what does and does not constitute a 'Revolution'. Some definitions state that violence or force must be in some way present for any series of events to be classed as a 'revolution', others argue that a certain measure of change has to occur and that a certain percentage of the populace has to be affected before anything can be a revolution. The suggestion of a -current- (modern) revolution also brings up much debate, but to determine any series of events as 'revolutionary' the general consensus is that the benefit of hindsight must be used. - As for the Oxford English Dictionary definition of revolution, -this researcher believes that- it (appears to sum up revolution just fine.)-accurately describes revolutions.-<

As you can see, I've fairly gone to town, sorry. It's a well structured peice, a little opinionated, but that's not such a terrible thing, gives it grounding. You'll note I've added bits and pieces to keep the Entry from getting dated. Well done. Not terrible to read at all, over and over!

Another thing you might like to start adding are some links to the various people and revolutions you reference to throughout the Entry, such as the Civil War and the revolutions, and Marx. This helps people get more of an idea about what you're on about, and can do further reading.

I hope that helps, and doesn't hinder - or put you off

Good luck with this.

Oh, another thing, you may need to change the title a bit.

Perhaps - 'Revolutions - an Explanation'? or something like that? At present the title is a bit GCSE if you catch my drift. You need to be firm and confident in telling people what you are giving them to read

That's about my lot.

umm i might as well make a star on it! if i get lost in all the brackets and stuff i might give you a shout!

Most of the quotes are from other H2G2 researchers, how do i go about referencing them to the right people? (considering that some change nemes quite regularly)

Also you say to italicise all quotes including blockquotes, but then you say certain words (which Researchers have put in asterisks) should be italicised, surely if the whole qoute is already italicised then theis wont show, should i make the ofending words bold instead?

umm right i WILL start this now, might have to do it in stages though!

Don't worry too much about the quotes, a sub editor can sort that out for you if you don't feel confident.

So, these quotes are not actually from historians? Just laypeople really? If you're using more than just a sentence or two from someone you really need to credit them as co author I'm afraid, as it's their work/opinion. You need their permission as such too, I'm sure would be most honoured though

To add someone as a co-author you need to put their User Number into the Set Researchers box when editing the Entry, and click on Set Researchers. Then the list will change above the box to add those people who have contributed sections to the Entry.

That make sense?

right i think i have made most of the suggested changes, i need to go back through my sources to see who needs credit (and to get their researcher numbers)

how is it looking now?

GuideML hates me!

mini

A43331816

For someone who GuideML hates you've done well keeping it in line.

I'd just give it a read through and watch out for some spelling errors, and italicise that last quote

If all the quotes are from h2g2 Researchers, all you need do is add this between the last italic tag and the blockquote tag.

- an h2g2 Researcher

But apart from that, it reads less like a bunch of opinions tagged together

Great stuff

researchers credited and tags added to the quotes (apart from the one thats from an actual historian whose name i am just about to check)

spelling mistakes! oh no! i think all the GuideML would confuse my spellcheck too much, let me know if you spot any!

mini

ah, don't sweat it, hopefully this activity will bring in some more people who might like to comment on the content more, which I think is fine by the way

While you're waiting why not try looking for some h2g2 links to add?

right final quote attributed to the correct author.

Done?

mini

You put the clarification in the wronge place, Mouse-o

"became Emperor while the actual Cromwell in England died unexpectedly and his successor was ill-prepared to rule which lead to the restoration of the republic proper and its instability which lead to a restoration [of the monarchy]."

Is how it should read.

trying to make that quote sensible took ages as well! right i will change it later. Just remind me!

mini

is that it now Zag?

mini

Still seems to be the same.

well i copied what you suggested and pasted it in the place of what i had before, so unless i already had what you suggested then it is your exact wording from your previous post if you feel the need to completely reword your statement then let me know.

mini