Talk:Civil resistance

I'll comment as I see anything problematic.

If you are wondering about my strong concerns, here's a link to relevant article - Janet Conway, 2002, published in OSGOODE HALL LAW JOURNAL - CIVIL RESISTANCE AND THE “DIVERSITY OF TACTICS” IN THE ANTI-GLOBALIZATION MOVEMENT: PROBLEMS OF VIOLENCE, SILENCE, AND SOLIDARITY IN ACTIVIST POLITICS" PDF. As she discussed in 2002, and as is true today, on the activist level, if not the academic, the problem is that people who want to trash things at demos, fight with police, and worse want to get away from the terminology "Nonviolent resistance" and "Nonviolent action" to something more general like "Civil resistance." Here's a search on black bloc and civil resistance for more such mentions. So that's a whole issue that needs to be tackled in a section. I'm motivated to do it in the near future and it will make it clearer why and how "civil resistance" terminology and nnonviolent action material that does not use phrase "civil resistance" might be separated in the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Carol,

I understand better now where you are coming from, and of course am willing to see some addition to take account of your concern. I know the article by Janet Conway. It's not the easiest thing to cite here, as she doesn't give concrete examples of actual cases of (mis-)use of the term "civil resistance". However, I'd suggest that something roughly on following lines be added at end of the second para:

On the other hand, arising from experience within the anti-globalization movement, there have been indications of concern that the term “civil resistance” might on occasion be stretched in a highly controversial way, with “new forms of civil resistance” being associated with a problematic departure from a previously more widely shared commitment to maintaining non-violent discipline.^[1]

Let me know in due course what you think. You may, as you indicate, want to say more in due course, but the above might be a useful patch for now.Aberdonian99 (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That was just one example using term about how definition evolving among some activists. Hopefully can find others in future. I know term currently is used by some in peace/antiwar movement who also have been overly tolerant of diversity of tactics. Will report. Important for readers to understand the distinction so they are not mislead by those redefining it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Carol, have done above change in a way that leaves room for further additions on this point. OK? Other changes are v minor.Aberdonian99 (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks good! I'll keep my eye open for any other statements of or criticisms of naughty uses of the term and report or enter it as appropriate and we can play with it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

There are compeling resasons for the merging. It is basicaly the same concept. The examples cited are also the same! Olegwiki (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, but there are reasons for keeping both terms (and some other near-synonyms) in use. Some of the reasons are indicated in the opening paragraphs of the article, and are implied in the section added today on the relation to other forms of power. I'd just add that in different societies, or in different contexts, one term may be more appropriate than the other. The fact is that both terms, and others, are widely used. I'd completely agree that there should be extensive cross-referencing between the articles that relate to these terms. Aberdonian99 (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the term is increasingly being used (news.google it for 2011) makes it notable, though a clearer presentation of why it is being used so much more lately than just nonviolent action or resistance would be helpful - including in the nonviolent resistance article. Words and phrases go in and out of fashion for various reasons and in different areas, sometimes just because of drift, sometimes for very specific reasons motivated by specific individuals or groups. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I have attempted to address the points raised by Olegwiki and Carolmooredc, mainly by inserting a partly new section on "the term civil resistance: merits and concerns". I have left the "Merge" note at the top of the entry for the time being, but I hope the changes can lead to it being removed in due course. Aberdonian99 (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC) I have now made further changes, mostly responding to these same points, and have removed the merge notice from both articles. Aberdonian99 (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I know those who most have worked on this have written their own books and articles. But they must make sure that the way this material is presented is not just a reflection of their views but of a number of views. (Others can summarize your views, but at very least you have to identify them as yours if you are doing so, plus of course provide cites.)

I don't feel like giving detailed specifics right now, though the introductory paragraphs and numbered lists in last two sections stand out as particularly problematic. Please read and consider what is on the policy page WP:Original Research. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. This requires some further checking and thought. I will get back on all this later in the month when I get time.Aberdonian99 (talk) 09:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The process of revision and adding sources is now in train. The changes made to date further clarify that the article has the character of drawing on a wide range of views and sources, and conforms to the policy on original research. Further work is yet to be done: this is more because there is always room for improvement than because of specific policy issues, but I will keep the latter in mind. Aberdonian99 (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the "freedom of worship" section for two reasons. Firstly, while it cited many sources, those sources largely didn't discuss civil resistance. Thus it was original synthesis, if not outright original research. Secondly, that topic was given far too much weight. Discussing one specific example of civil resistance at such length is hardly appropriate, more so when it's a comparatively little-known example. Discussing the Women of the Wall at greater length than Gandhi and the US civil rights movement combined borders on the absurd. Huon (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, editors. I have stumbled upon this article and would like to correct what I see as a very big error. I refer to the picture that is used to illustrate the term civil resistance. It is a misconception to think that Boris Yeltsin was acting in the interest of the people or was a leader of something resembling a civil resistance movement. He was a communist and he was acting in the interest of the close-knit group of people who would go on to become oligarchs during his rule. Therefore putting Yeltsins picture to illustrate the article on civil resistance is even somewhat insulting to me. I propose to remove the controversial picture and substitute it for something more suitable and less disputed. If any sources and or references need to be provided, I would be happy to do so, just say the word) Net mozgov (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Net mozgov (talk • contribs)

Hello Net mozgov, thank you for your question. The picture was added by user:Aberdonian99, apparently a respected scholar in the field. I asked him; let's wait for his reply. — Sebastian 11:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Net mozgov, thank you for your good question about Boris Yeltsin. Please accept my apologies for my long delay in responding. Including him or anyone else does not imply approval of subsequent actions. The reason for including the picture and caption is that these events were a significant chapter in the ending of communist rule in the Soviet Union. A military coup by hard-line opponents of democratic reforms was challenged and undermined. The mix of factors that led to the collapse of the coup included fairly widespread civil resistance. Many of the most respected works in the field of civil resistance include these events of August 1991. See e.g. Gene Sharp in collaboration with Joshua Paulson,Waging Nonviolent Struggle: 20th century Practice and 21st Century Potential, Porter Sargent, Boston, 2005, pp. 287-98; and Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan,Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict, Columbia University Press, New York, 2011, p. 236. Aberdonian99 (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Boris Yeltsin 19 August 1991-1.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC)