My concern is that the question is "Why has this event achieved influence in the scholarly literature?", but the introduction to the question is "is commonly portrayed as influential in the sociology of Western activism, and in the contemporary history of social movements and the left in the First World." Doesn't that mean that the answer to the question is embedded in the question? Is that really appropriate for Hist:SE?

If the opinion "is commonly portrayed" were attributed to someone, then we could discuss whether that opinion is legitimate, well reasoned, supported by evidence, etc. But the non-attributed quote means that the question is self referential

My effort was to bring the question into line with basic English expression and the answerable work in the field. I think Mark's point is correct, se questions should be questions that are answerable. I think there's a difference between "influential" and "mentioned a lot in scholarly literature"—scholars are interested in influential things, but scholarly interest is not what makes something influential.

Unfortunately it seems my expansion of the question to get the right answer also answers part of the bloody thing by supplying the debate's context.