Talk:Civil resistance

Reference or make article about this one book

I see you are a new editor. If "civil resistance" is a term used widely by various movement please reference it with WP:Reliable sources. Otherwise it is all WP:Original research which can be removed. Or the article merged into a similar one like nonviolent resistance. Do not remove the tag until the whole article is properly sourced.

If you can't or don't find references the best thing to do with this article - besides delete it - is to move it to being about the contents of this one book. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• I put back the tag. You can only use material that actually mentions "civil resistance" and not put in material that is about something you consider to be civil resistance. I'll give you all a couple days to show those refs which do not have links or quotations to prove your point actually do so. Per this policy: WP:Proveit. Otherwise it is WP:original research.
• Also, per Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content that quote from the book is WAY too long - assuming it is a quote. If it is a summary it is still way too long. You can rewrite it by saying SO and SO makes these points in their introduction and then maybe 7 or 8 summary sentences. We'll see how rewrite goes.
• From a quick look at books google and news google it looks like a phrase used by just a few individuals in WP:Reliable sources and should be portray as such.
• I removed external links and bibliography that does not use term "Civil resistance" according to wikipedia policy. This is because wikipedia is not a forum for people who want to change common terminology by making it look like those using other terminology share their views when they do not use the same terminology. Please be aware of this issue in your editing. Thanks. :CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Carol,

Thank you for your messages. I appreciate both Wikipedia's rigorous policies that you mention, and also your specific concerns. The heart of the latter is that you have worries about the term 'civil resistance', believing that other terms, such as 'non-violent resistance' (which certainly has value and is a term I often use), are better as overall categories.

Can I just indicate some main lines of my response? They derive from my experience of working on this subject on and off for nearly 50 years, with a number of publications that I didn't put in the bibliography because I believe that one should be restrained in these matters.

1. Your deletions and changes caught me part-way through the amendment process, and some of the issues you raise were in any case planned for attention in further revisions today.

2. The article is about both the phenomenon of civil resistance and the term.

3. The term 'civil resistance' has along genealogy and is used widely - including in some of the references and bibliography items that you deleted. I can add to the references on this, as well as restoring any deleted items that do refer to it.

4. Your apparent requirement that each and every reference must specifically mention 'civil resistance' by name is problematic. Much organizing, reporting, and writing of many actions does not specifically mention 'non-violent resistance', 'civil resistance' or other such terms, yet the actions concerned are properly included in articles and books on non-violent resistance, civil resistance and related topics, whether in Wikipedia or elsewhere. Therefore there are some other references that I inserted in this article that should properly be restored.

5. As to the 4-para definition, it is the product of very extensive consultation, with all the contributors to Civil Resistance and Power Politics and many others besides, including many activists who attended the 2007 conference at Oxford. There is a serious case for leaving it intact. Indeed, this web page was started by an individual (I don't know who it was) precisely around the original version this definition.

In conclusion, can I suggest that, as you indicate, I revise the article further in the next few days, bearing in mind the points you make? Then one possibility might be that, rather than have a deletion process, which comes across as more authoritarian than I am sure you intend, perhaps as a first step you could indicate your thoughts on the talk page. Regards, Aberdonian99 (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No. 4: It's not my requirement all refs actually refer to the term used by WP:Reliable sources, but Wikipedias. When I first started editing it annoyed me, but over time I realized it's the best way to avoid bringing in people's original theories and fighting about them. If a term is notable it will be used. Just do the research to find actual uses. So putting back books that do not use the term as references. It does now occur that Biblio subsection about other books about nonviolent action appropriate. I'll show you.

No. 5: Is the summary a quote of what people wrote elsewhere that needs separate referencing? If the people you mentioned are trying to use wikipedia to promote their particular view of "civil resistance," that of course would be against Wikipedia policies. See Wikipedia not means of promotion. A four paragraph summary of any one source generally is WP:undue (or an indication it needs its own article). The best thing to do is create a section on the philosophy of civil resistance, using a number of sources.

No. 6: When a term that in the past only has been used here and there suddenly is being promoted by a number of people, obviously the reasons become of interest so I'm hoping a source that will make that explicit will be found. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Carol,

Thanks for this note. I've just been on a bicycle ride to clear my mind! I think I can see a way forward that may be OK.

4: I will also refer to more literature that uses the specific term "civil resistance". As many of these items are articles or short papers I incline to do that in footnotes rather than in the bibliography. And thank you for the idea of a biblio subsection of other books: that will enable me to reinstate such works as Gene Sharp's. I would also like to reinstate Semelin's new book even though it is only in French. (Is there a policy against foreign language works?)

5: I will think hard re yr helpful suggestion re "Philosophy of Civil Resistance". I won't rush into it without a clear plan.

6: I will include a short para near the beginning on the relation between key terms. This para will also respond to the important points that have arisen in the general discussion of terminology in the whole field of nonviolent resistance etc.

7: External links. I intend to reinstate the Einstein Institution under 'external links'. Also I'm uneasy about the distinction there between academic sites and activist sites. Some, such as Einstein, straddle that divide. I wonder if we need any subdivision when the list is (deliberately) quite short. I'll leave you to think over that one.

Thanks again for all your thoughts on this.Aberdonian99 (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: External links. See WP:External links. There probably is a better way to divide it. Sometimes personal web sites can be problematic, unless they really are experts which yours seem to be; activist sites can be more problematic - i.e., people can come along and make a big deal about deleting them. Sometimes breaking it up helps avoid that. But see how you read that policy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

"Diversity of tactics" misuse

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.

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)

References

Merge with "Non-violent resistance"

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)

Slipping back into WP:Original Research

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)

Freedom of worship

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)

Misconception regarding the picture

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)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

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)