Talk:Nonviolent resistance

Case of Czechoslovakia

Velvet revolution 1989 is correctly shown as an example of non-violent resistence, however the description of this event is wrong. There is desribed a resistence after Soviet invasion in 1968, Velvet revolution was a non-violent revolution which overthrown the communist regime more than 20 years later, it was not a response to any military action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.80.222.164 (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Overlap between Nonviolence, Nonviolent Action, and Pacifism

Stale

There is definitely overlap between these three articles. I believe there is a distinction between nonviolent action and pacifism (one being active and one passive, respectfully), but I am not aware of a distinction between nonviolence and nonviolent action. Any thoughts? Salinecjr (talk) 22:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, and I will bring it up at talk:Nonviolence#Distinction between different NV articles; that's the most generic name, and maybe there are more people there. — Sebastian 22:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This Page Should be a List

Resolved

I hate to throw this out there when I don't have the time to change it, but I think this page should be a list considering the article simply explains the nonviolent aspects of certain movements. Does anyone else think it would be rational to move the majority of information to their own respective articles and turn this into a nice looking list (See this really nice example of Prehistoric Scotland).

Additionally, I think the name could be changed from Nonviolent resistance to something like 'Timeline of Nonviolent Movements' or 'Nonviolent Movements'. Salinecjr (talk) 06:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Name change

Stale

Now that these examples have been organized in list form, I suggest renaming the article "List of nonviolent resistance" Salinecjr (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Other names (proposed in previous section) are: 'Timeline of Nonviolent Movements' or 'Nonviolent Movements'. Maybe we could also have a name of the pattern "History of ...". For the second half of the name, we might also consider just "nonviolence", since we currently don't have such a more general list, and it seems a bit arbitrary to exclude other notable or influential moments of NV history from such a list. For that reason, I would like to postpone that decision till after we reached a decision on talk:Nonviolence#Distinction between different NV articles. — Sebastian 22:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that discussion has become stale, so that we don't have a decision there yet - after over a year! In the meantime, I noticed that we also have Peace movement, which also is a collection of different events in history. Still, I like the table format here better, and I'm tempted to propose a merge of these two, so that all can be listed in table format. — Sebastian 01:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Just an idea: The merged article could be named timeline of nonviolence. — Sebastian 05:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thoreau?

Stale

Do you think Henry Thoreau should be listed in this article? - Babygrand1 (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That depends on whether we want this to be a timeline of nonviolent movements, or more generally a timeline of nonviolence - see previous section #Name change. — Sebastian 22:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Replace "country" with "region" and leave out flags?

Resolved

We can't really limit ourselves to "countries". Judea never was a country, nor were the Chatham Islands. How about if we change the heading to "region"? Also, MOS:FLAG requires a "good reason" for adding flags. Is there one, other than that it looks nice? Most of the flags are wrong, since they use the flags for current countries instead of the historic ones, and it's hard to come up with flags for regions like Judea. How about if we remove the flags? — Sebastian 06:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Iranian election protests non-violent?

Resolved

I'm not 100% sure I would call the Iranian election protests non-violent in the truest sense of the term, not all, but many have been going out looking for confrontations with police, throwing bricks and petrol bombs, burning cars and buses, some looting, and fighting with police. I would call the iranian eletion protests more of a typical uprising than non-violent protest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.131.97 (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, you seem to be right. The cited article[1] says "Reformist candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi urged his supporters to avoid violence", but later reports "secret policemen being attacked and chased away by protesters" and "police motorbikes were set on fire". The video shows what appear to be some nonviolent protesters being clubbed by the police, but also protesters throwing stones. The article 2009–2010 Iranian election protests lists some nonviolent actions, such as "using tactics such as the boycott of goods advertised on state-controlled television", but also says they were chanting chant "Death to the dictator!", which doesn't sound nonviolent to me. So, at best, it's a very mixed picture, but I don't see the level of nonviolence that would warrant for it to be listed here. — Sebastian 00:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Palestinians Try a Less Violent Path to Resistance

Resolved

 – This didn't need to be resolved in the first place.

This is probably also not notable enough to be listed here, but it gives me hope, and I would like to celebrate it [2]: "Something is stirring in the West Bank. With both diplomacy and armed struggle out of favor for having failed to end the Israeli occupation, the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority, joined by the business community, is trying to forge a third way: to rouse popular passions while avoiding violence." Rajmohan Gandhi just visited Palestine for a protest march, and next week, Martin Luther King III is scheduled to speak here at a conference on nonviolence. Let's hope for the best! — Sebastian 00:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Section "Current and recent nonviolent resistance organizations"

Resolved

This section is a mess; it contains links to articles that are no organizations, and to articles that don't even mention "nonviolence". I will simply remove those that don't fit, and I will move those that seem to specifically advocate nonviolence to category:Nonviolent resistance movements or category:Nonviolence organizations, as appropriate. (See also Talk:Nonviolence#Organizations that embrace nonviolence and category talk:Nonviolence organizations.) — Sebastian 20:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Women of Liberia Mass Action for Peace

I'm taking the liberty to add the Women of Liberia Mass Action for Peace here. It probably should rather go in the peace movement article, but that article is a mess, and I like the table format here. Maybe, as mentioned above, one day we will merge the two anyway. — Sebastian 02:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Do we need the refs column?

While it is generally good to encourage the use of reliable sources, I don't think we need an extra column for that here. It seems obvious to me that whatever we write in the table here should always be an excerpt of the "main article", and that article already should have all the necessary references. Moreover, a general refs column doesn't make it clear what part of the text is being referenced. Can we therefore remove the refs column and move the existing refs to their pertinent locations? — Sebastian 02:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"Jasmine" revolution in Tunisia

I have added material concerning the "Jasmine" Revolution in Tunisia. I believe the protests would be widely considered non-violent. I would also like to see a link added to the page concerning "Islamic nonviolence" in parity with "Christian nonviolence", but I am running out of time to be online today. Are there any objections to my current material, or to the additions I propose? Feedback is very welcome, as this is a very serious and possibly controversial issue. -- TheLastWordSword (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge with "Civil 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). There has been a response to this suggestion in the talk page of civil resistance. Also both entries (CR and NVR) were promptly amended to take into account the points made in the CR talk page. I have now made further changes to the CR page, mostly responding to these same points, and have removed the merge notice from both articles. Aberdonian99 (talk) 10:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Bahrain

‎Wnjr reverted my addition of Bahrain to the article because "no indication of relevance to article". IMHO, this is invalid. The means of the uprising are non-violent and we already have Egypt and Tunisia there. Bahraini people didn't pick up arms like in Syrian and Libya. Could explain your reason a bit more? Same applies to the revert in Nonviolent revolution‎ article which the edit summary said "no indication Bahraini revolt is nonviolent, or relevant to article".

Maybe the text didn't display that clearly, but as far as I saw in the previous entries, this wasn't required. Anyway, here's a source to help clear the picture:

1. foreignpolicy: "Also there is a history of non-violent revolutions faling miserably as well: The Green Movement in Iran in 2009, The Burmese Saffron Revolution in 2007 and the Bahrain uprising this year".
2. There were general strikes: [3], [4].
3. Large peaceful protests: March of loyalty to martyrs.
4. And they even used flowers: [5] [6].

Good? Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Main section needs work - two suggestions.

I have spent parts of the last three days enhancing the "See also" and "Further reading" sections. I'd like to suggest two improvements to the main section - please say what you think:

1. The title of the main section, "History of nonviolent resistance," is misleading. It is not a history, and calling it a history is encouraging contributors to make overly long entries in the "Summary" boxes. It is, in fact, a timeline, and a wonderfully useful one. (I wish I'd had one like it many decades ago.) I believe a truer title for the main section would be, "Timeline of nonviolent resistance activities." I therefore propose substituting that title.

2. It is not consistent with balance and objectivity (i.e. with our encyclopedic enterprise) for some "Summaries" to be hugely longer than others. And it's silly, since every summary links to a "Main Article" where viewers can learn more. I therefore propose limiting all "Summary" boxes to 100 words or less, and putting the phrase "100 words max" in parenthesis after the "Summary" heading at the top of the timeline. (Perhaps someone with more temerity than I could edit existing summaries down to 100 words.)

Do you support either of these changes? - Babel41 (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your first suggestion, but the second needs working on. We're supposed to give due weight to events. For instance the Egyptian revolution should be given more weight than say the Bahraini uprising (these are easy to compare, because both are Arab Spring uprisings). The question is how do we determine the weight (significance) of the event? number of participants is good, but alone that is not enough and it might not be always available or accurate. The outcome, especially if it's successful is another thing to consider. Obviously inclusion criteria for any entry is that it is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article.

This article gets ~8500 reads per month and deserves to look better than this. I'd say the first thing to work on is to find citations for verification to almost all entries. I'm not ready to work on this article, but I can provide all source for the Bahraini uprising section (and to summarize it further if needed). Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The table contains two example that do not match the three criteria in the main body. Draft Resistance in the United States, attempting to evade the consequences of an unjust law is simply that evading the consequences - non nonviolent resistance at least as defined by Gandhi civil disobedience for the purpose of showing the injustice - and taking the consequences. The primary tactic in the 1960’s Draft Resistance that would meed the criteria was Burning one’s Draft Card. At Berkeley in 1968 - I was there - many of the protests included minor protestor violence (throwing back tear gas canisters, breaking windows, overturning random cars) that lacked the discipline of the earlier Free Speech Movement.

Aung San Sue Kyi’s movement in Myanmar should be included - notwithstanding the current criticism of her responses to the events in northern Burma later. It was a classic Gandhian movement.

Tree sitting should be included - Julie Butterfly Hill’s tree sit was a classic Gandhian action TheGooseAndTheRaven (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC) TheGooseAndTheRaven

Bad nonviolent resistance

Should we put examples of bad non violent resistance? For example:

• Protests and pro-NAMBLA activism, like the one in Los Angeles in 1986.
• The ongoing protests of the Westboro Baptist Church.

Otherwise this article fails the Socratic method by assuming that all nonviolent resistance is good. --Pepsi Lite (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

In general if they have their own articles, yes it is fine to include them. By the way, I don't think it's appropriate to say "bad" non-violent resistance in the article, since we're supposed to be NPOV. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Jan Rose Kasmir's picture

One of the people I removed from the See Also section was Jan Rose Kasmir, which is a pity because I really love her picture — I think it would be perfect for this article! Unfortunately, it's not in the public domain. — Sebastian 21:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Euromaidan as a sample of Nonviolent resistance?

I commented it out inside the table so far. As per List of people killed during Euromaidan "102 were conflict participants, 16 police officers, 1 bystander, 1 was allegedly killed by the activists". Placing it as a sample of a nonviolent resistance by Gandhi and Sharp brings an unnecessary black humor into a serious matter IMHO. --NeoLexx (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

New draft articles: Pacifism in France, Germany + USA‎

Please add to newly created Draft:Pacifism in France, Draft:Pacifism in Germany, and Draft:Pacifism in the United States. Thanks. M2545 (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The omission of Libya from the list is glaring

The initial protests in Libya in 2011 were non-violent, and as in Syria, were met with harsh violent repression by the authorities, sparking a civil war/revolution/whatever you want to call it. Syria's non-violent protests are acknowledged, but Libya's are ignored, despite the fact that the initial non-violence of the protests are both acknowledged and repeatedly sourced on another wiki page: Libyan Civil War#Beginnings_of_protests. I don't suspect a political ideology backs this omission necessarily, but it is not hard to imagine this might comport with the aims of those who might be trying to downplay the role nonviolence played in Libya. Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I was just coming here to comment on Libya. It seems very strange when you see what happened and what is happening now. Non-violent? dragging a leader in the street and killing him? It really worked out for the country. --Inayity (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

That was at the end of the civil war, not in the beginning of the protests. - SantiLak (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

"Independence"

The entry corresponding to "non-cooperation movement" states that "In addition to bringing about independence, Gandhi's nonviolence also helped improve the status of the Untouchables in Indian society." If there is any logical link that is being suggested between Indian independence and Gandhi's nonviolence, then it must be corroborated by proper, objective references. Also, there is little to suggest that the condition of the "untouchables" in India has improved 68 years after Indian independence, as seen in the continuing cases of persecution, marginalization and humiliation of Dalits and minorities in India in general. Hence, I am not sure the claim that "Gandhi's nonviolence helped improve the status of the untouchables in Indian society" is valid. Knaveknight (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Two Ukrainian movements "Do not buy Russian goods!"

I doubt that "Do not buy Russian goods!" was a part of nonviolent resistance. Please remove it. It was closer to war between nations or propaganda trick. The definition of nonviolent resistance includes the word "resistance". Resistance should be against local authorities or some local stuff, not foreigners. Depesha (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nonviolent resistance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110609193534/http://www.iss.co.za/pubs/Books/AchievSec_Dec04/Martin.pdf to http://www.iss.co.za/pubs/Books/AchievSec_Dec04/Martin.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

WWII

What is the real reason it happened? Killereater23 (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Table

The section February 11, 1967 "main article" should be cleaned up by someone competent since it does not mention a real main article in fact, but rather gives a [confusing?] summary instead. Does anyone know what to do in this matter?--Hubon (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be an article about the "Black Cat Protest", the closest thing is Black Cat Tavern, which does give a little more information. - Lindert (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lindert: Thanks. So, shall we leave it that way here? While reading, I did find the section written a bit unclearly, though, don't you think?--Hubon (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The significant part seems to be its occurence a year before a significant event on the other side of the country, which hardly seems significant and applies to everything. No details on who this gay Republican is, why a stand-down order would apply "for decades", who "LAPD hierarchy" means, what happened in 2001 or whether the crowd resisted anything.

This, and the redlinked Burma one, stand out like sore thumbs and should be deleted till something clear comes along. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The Burmese one probably refers to the 8888 Uprising. If we wanted to fix that one, we should probably just pare the time scale back to 1988 and link to that article instead. The table here seems to conflate several distinct events over a long period of Burmese history, including the 8888 protests, the Saffron Revolution, and others. It is broadly true that Aung San Suu Kyi was a figurative leader of the nonviolent opposition in Burma for 30 years; however 1) there is not a single article for the entire time period, unless one counts the National League for Democracy which is really a political party more than a movement, and 2) I'm not sure their should be. At best, we should split it into one or two entries, and narrow the focus to the 8888 and Saffron articles. --Jayron32 19:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Black Lives Matter

The priposal is to remove Black Lives Matter as an example of a peaceful revolution.

User:Robynthehode states that: "Just because damage to property occurs at a protest doesn't mean the majority of protestors agree with this as a tactic of the movement."

User:Litesand states that: "the definition of nonviolent revolution requires the preservation of nonviolence as means for impact. Simply because the movement aims to accomplish change with nonviolent means, does not mean that said method is actually succesful. The occurance of a widespread violence as a result of BLM movement is evidence enough to remove this movemement as an example from this article. The road to hell is littered with good intentions, while the concept of nonviolent revolution is built on succesful application of civility, respect, and zero tolerance for violence. Nonviolent revololution presents an opportunity for civility, not an opportunity for looting and/or disturbance of peace. An ability to respect the freedom of speech is the abililty to be listened to. An abililty to be listened to is an ability to create a positive impact. Such as it is, the sacriface of a peaceful revolution is the sacrifice of violence itself. Peace is a power of change and cannot be excused with reality or finger-pointing. If a revolution fails at thier aim to be peaceful, it is no longer an example of a peaceful protest, plain and simple."

Thoughts? References? Litesand (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Litesand If your argument for inclusion in the article is followed lots of the listed non-violent movements would be removed because violence occurred during their protests. For example widespread violence occurred during the non-violent campaigns in India and Palestine. The key here is to find sources about the aims and stated strategies/tactics of the Black Lives Matter movement. Robynthehode (talk) 06:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Robynthehode The argument I am currently making is only to address this movement. This is to address a change I made to this article and the change you reverted. I agree that other examples may have to be removed as well, but it is not relevant to this discussion. The argument I am making is that those committed to nonviolence must be willing to suffer without retaliation. It is not enough to simply state that a movement is nonviolent, but the movement must actually prove their commitment in action. A practical commitment to nonviolence is a required element. Simply because majority of all revolutions are violent is not a reason to "lower the bar" for the definition itself. Of course, to an average person a justification can be made for violence as a "self-defense" an "accident" or "uncontrollable occurrence," but the ideology does not offer excuses for such justification. The ideology of nonviolent revolution requires those seeking change to produce results under "do no harm" motto, not simply claim that the movement does no harm as a strategy. It requires a group to substitute hate and anger with civility and acceptance. As long as we stand up to make excuses for failed nonviolent revolutions, we disallow ourselves an option to improve the outcome, or worse, take the attention away from those who "quietly" seek change nonviolently. Litesand (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Litesand Yes of course we are assessing the Black Lives Matter movement but the context of all stated non-violent movements is relevant. You define non-violence too narrowly. There is, of course, those movements that profess a philosophy of non-violence that informs their actions - e.g. Gandhi and those inspired by him. There are also those movements that use non-violence as a strategy/tactic - a notable example was the anti-logging protests led by Chico Mendes in the Amazon. So there are two things here: how is nonviolent resistance defined for this article and secondly does the Black Lives Matter movement fulfill this definition. Starting place like you mentioned above may be to find sources for Black Lives Matter saying it is a nonviolent resistance movement. If there are no sources stating this (however non-violent resistance is defined) then, as we have to follow what sources say, the Black Lives Matter movement should not be included. Here's two article links as a starting point https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/01/dont-criticize-black-lives-matter-for-provoking-violence-the-civil-rights-movement-did-too/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/a-year-inside-the-black-lives-matter-movement-204982/ We can leave the bigger question of the definition of nonviolent resistance and other entries till later. Robynthehode (talk) 07:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Robynthehode Nonviolence has to be radical to succeed. Obviously, no group will ever admit that it willingly promotes violence, BUT, and this is the point I am trying to make - BLM movement has not embraced nonviolence as means to deliver change. For example, in this article https://www.wpri.com/news/local-news/providence/black-lives-matter-ri-on-overnight-violence-we-had-no-part-in-that/ a person who associates itself with the movement made the following statement “They’re not part of our protest, they’re separate and they’re rouge but what happens is a lot of people get caught up in it, the emotion. But if the race relations were better, it would’ve prevented a lot of what we saw last night." This comment admits that violence is "what happens when people are angry." Of course, it does, but the entire premise of nonviolence is to go a step above that. For example, if the group had made a stand to clearly state that anyone who has engaged in violence automatically precluded from being considered as part of the movement because nonviolence is the core of the movement, then sure, it can be considered as an example. The argument that "If the change we want were to happen, the violence would stop" is not the same thing as being "committed to nonviolence." BLM does not radically change the conversation from police violence to civility, but rather admits that response to police violence can lead to riots. Please note that this article is committed to nonviolence as a concept, or a higher calling for non-violence, if you will. This is not an article dedicated to MLM movement, and the change is to simply remove BLM as an example. I am not attempting to call MLM a movement that endorses violence, but pointing out the fact that it has not committed itself to nonviolence as an example. If we were to propose examples of nonviolent movements, I'd say March for Our Lives and Million Mom March are far more appropriate. These movements embrace nonviolence with statements such as: "From so many heartbreaks comes forth a united commitment to go into the streets of our cities and towns and promote a way of peace and well-being for all people. With compassion sown from the threads of sadness and terror, we will mend a nation tattered by gun violence and weave a new cloth of hope and peace." This is acceptance and civility in a face of violence, it embraces nonviolence as the only means of change. Do you see the difference? Litesand (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Litesand I do understand the differences (having studied non-violence movements as part of my degree). I can't look at the linked article because it is restricted for EU readers. However a single quote from an associated person of BLM is not enough to conclude BLM is not committed to non-violence, at least in principle. We need more sources to support (or deny) whether BLM is either following principled or strategic non-violence. Of course if we decided to include BLM its entry can be qualified in some way. Disqualifying it without careful assessment of sources would be premature. We must be lead by the sources. I'll look for more but let's allow some time to research this before changing anything about the article. Robynthehode (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Robynthehode It appears that more input is required for consensus. Ideally, another Wiki user can comment. Perhaps this source best identifies the dilemma https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/kings-message-of-nonviolence-has-been-distorted/557021/ I will continue to hold a position that radical nonviolence is sustainable, it should not be dismissed as an Utopian illusion, nor should the bar be lowered as means to an end. There is clearly a big rift of ideas between Black Lives Matter and Million Mom March movements and I cannot possibly see riots and/or curfews being associated with the latter. Litesand (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Litesand I understand your view on non-violence and belief in it. However editor's personal beliefs, while informing our work as editors, are not relevant to Wikipedia content. We have to follow what sources say. Having read the article you linked to it seems to support the argument that BLM is a non-violent resistant movement, unfortunately not the kind of non-violent resistant movement you want it to be. From the article, here is just one quote: 'Although Black Lives Matter practices nonviolence as a matter of strategy, love for the oppressor does not find its way into their ethos.' So the point here goes back to my post above. I don't think we can define non-violent resistance too narrowly (and please do not take that as support for looting or similar) and from the list of entries in this article there are many examples of movements that do not conform to your stricter 'MLK' version of non-violence. It looks like we will have to address the issue as to what is meant by non-violent resistance for this article. Robynthehode (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Robynthehode It is not my intention to impose my personal opinion on the article, but rather solidify the definition with examples. The assumption of non-violent movement is acceptance of radical nonviolence. The premise, as I understand it, is "radical acceptance of non-violence" rather than a mere "blanket condemnation of violence" https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/introduction Perhaps the article needs to be changed entirely to identify focal point of this idea as radical. “True pacifism,” or “nonviolent resistance,” King wrote, is “a courageous confrontation of evil by the power of love” (King, Stride, 80). Perhaps this definition holds the key - it requires the party seeking impact to posses courage to withstand the temptation to lash out. Courage fights fear, uncertainty, and intimidation with a backbone, instead of a wishbone. Litesand (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Litesand I don't think you are trying to impose your personal opinion, just that it is sometimes difficult to separate what we as editors believe and what the sources say. We all suffer from confirmation bias to some extent! But again to press my point - the Atlantic article you linked to states that MLK possessed firearms for self defence and that he was not a pacifist. Similarly Gandhi stated that resistance to evil is the key and if you do not have the skills of non-violence then violence may be justifiable in performing this resistance. I don't think the article needs to be changed entirely to fit your specific version of non-violent resistance rather it can be clarified that there are differences in non-violent resistance that is practised. This is the real world situation. MLK non-violent resistance is different to that of Chico Mendes and other examples can be stated. As editors we cannot manipulate the article to reflect what we think, in this case, non-violent resistance should be. Rather we have to see what the sources say about the varieties of non-violent resistance in theory and practice and leave it up to the reader to decide what is reasonable. As there are different versions of non-violent resistance in theory and practice we cannot limit the article to the one version we may prefer. As I said above it may be the case that we clarify the notion of non-violent resistance and add caveats to the entries in the list to show the practices reflected by those movements. Robynthehode (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Robynthehode Nonviolent revolution is a revolution against fatalism. We cannot expect nonviolent approach to be impossible, or predetermined to fail, therefore we must embrace it's extreme version. To inspire effective nonviolent resistance is beyond circumstances. Gatherings and protest activities must be organized to build support peace, justice, or social reform. A movement must refuse to participate in activities of or cooperate with individuals that result in violence or injustice. Source: https://thekingcenter.org/glossary-of-nonviolence/ The theory of nonviolent resistance is refusal to accept the "easy path" of protest. "Nonviolent action refers to those methods of protest, resistance, and intervention without physical violence in which the members of the nonviolent group do, or refuse to do, certain things. They may commit acts of omission – refuse to perform acts which they usually perform, are expected by custom to perform, or are required by law or regulation to perform; or acts of commission – perform acts which they usually do not perform, are not expected by custom to perform, or are forbidden by law or regulation from performing; or a combination of both." Source: https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/nonviolent-action-defined In this sense, a movement must show a determined refusal to accept violence, not a mere blanket condemnation. Without this required element, the movement is subject to reality of human imperfection, a collapse of values, and violence of select members that is "assigned" to the movement as a whole. Million Mom March movement requires their participants to refuse protections offered to them by the Second Amendment, a civil right, as a way to promote their greater goal of imposing stricter gun control. That same way Black Lives Matter movement is required to refuse participation in activities that result in violence, if it wants to become an example for nonviolent revolution. If we were to accept all forms of resistance under the definition, we are belittling the definition and the courage associated with "turning the other cheek." We may as well merge this article with Social movement Subversion and Rebellion Litesand (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Litesand Thanks for your response. We have to be careful that is discussion doesn't just turn into a debate about what non-violence is. For example your first four sentences read as a personal advocacy of a certain type of non-violence. As per talk page guidelines talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article. What are your suggestions? Additionally you seem to be ignoring what I have said about the varieties of non-violent resistance. Here's another example - Nelson Mandela is included in this article as an example of an advocate/practitioner of non-violent resistance. Did you know that the ANC and most likely Mandela himself engaged in acts of sabotage? Some people define non-violence as violence only against people and not property. You cannot simply ignore historical realities or what practitioners of non-violent resistance say about their own acts (again going back to the Chico Mendes case stating his non-violence was strategic/tactical). I am not advocating all acts of resistance be encompassed by the term non-violent resistance but instead acknowledging the complexities of the people and movements that are very broadly non-violent in philosophy and practice. As I said before if we adhere to your idealised view of non-violence then most of the entries in the history section would have to be removed. I believe my suggestion to acknowledge the complexities and varieties of non-violent resistance and accurately describing the ethos and practices of each movement in the article with appropriate sources in this article will be the way forward. Robynthehode (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Robynthehode We need a third opinion and I do not mean to ignore your research, but I simply think it should not apply to this article. It can easily apply to Social Movement etc. I think the best way forward is for you to add a rererence that claims Black Lives Matter is a nonviolent opposition movement. This way your edit revert has a clear reference. I cannot find such reference, and therefore deleted it from the article. The rules of Wikipedia will save us, so lets follow them and seek others to contribute. Litesand (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Litesand The Atlantic article you linked to says that BLM follows non-violence as a strategy. I think this is good enough but extra sources would help. They don't have to specifically state it is a non-violent resistant movement to count. Non-violent resistant movements are a subset of social movements anyway so that doesn't help. You have not addressed any of the issues I have brought up regarding the definition of non-violence/non-violent resistance despite me providing historical examples nor suggested ways to improve the article except for the removal of BLM. It seems we are at an impasse. Please do not remove BLM from the article again until consensus on this matter is reached here. By the same token I will leave any additions or clarifications I might have made to the article, subject to my suggestions already, until this is resolved. If you want to you can instigate an RfC and I am happy to discuss this further with you or any other editors. Robynthehode (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Robynthehode I won't remove the BLM statement unless there is a consensus. The Atlantic article does not support the statement, as written, IMHO. You can add it as a reference if you want, but I think it actually proves the fact that BLM doesn't belong here. The article's author saw the writing on the wall, without even realizing it. He clearly identified the fact that BLM movement does not support the teachings of MLK, and that the current movement believes that “exhortations in favor of love and nonviolence have made little or no contribution to ending war and major political violence.” "One-sided love was never enough" the article claims, yet here we are in exactly the position where the violence has actually silenced the movement. The BLM movement is now effectively gagged by the Democratic government in the interest of public safety - there is no possibility of an organized protest, therefore, there is no clear voice. Provided that the movement had embraced the idea of "radical nonviolence" it would have been able to defend itself against this sort of thing. I respect your opinion, but we don't have to convince each other - we simply need more input from more users. No need for RfC, lets just see if anyone else pitches in organically Litesand (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Litesand Thanks for your response. The Atlantic article does state BLM follows non-violence as a strategy. It also states, as you rightly point out, that the author thinks BLM doesn't follow MLK non-violence philosophy / practice. But that is precisely the point I have been arguing. MLK non-violence and your support of it is just one variety of non-violence. You simply won't consider that there are other varieties and want to define anything that doesn't agree with your preferred version - some other form of resistance. We are at a definitional / philosophical impasse. I think history says otherwise and supports my view in both what accepted non-violent activists have said and done. Yes of course we don't have to convince each other just follow the sources. Let's carry on searching and resolve this following Wikipedia policy. Thanks for your time. Robynthehode (talk) 07:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Here is another link that supports the notion that BLM engages in non-violent resistance. This seems to be from an established organisation that promotes and reports on non-violent resistance across the world. It also quotes from MLK and Gandhi but doesn't seem to limit groups where some violence occurs. https://paceebene.org/blog/2020/6/1/nonviolence-news-giant-murals-banner-blockades-restg Comments? Robynthehode (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

And another link https://www.vox.com/2016/4/18/11450126/nonviolence-2016-elections Robynthehode (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Robynthehode The debate must be supported by a third party. "But beneath this storm of arguing over property destruction, the reality of the protests across the United States is that most protesters are using nonviolent tactics." To me this is not a reality of nonviolence, but rather an excuse made up by a movement that is unable to control itself. "Contrary to images of passivity the word “nonviolence” may conjure, nonviolence is an active response that directly addresses the threat and has the power to transform opponents into allies." Source: https://www.marquette.edu/peacemaking/nonviolence.php#active-nonviolence-a-third-way As long as the damage to property is dismissed as opposed to being accepted as a problem with the way the movement reacts in a difficult situation, there will be no progress and no real allies. Litesand (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Litesand I don't quite know what you mean by the debate must be supported by a third party. Please clarify. I understand you don't agree with property damage as part of non-violence but you haven't accounted for such actions being part of other movements which are more high profile - the ANC as already mentioned, various instances of property damage and physical violence that occured during the civil rights movement in America and in the various campaigns 'lead' by Gandhi. You will also have to account for more 'extreme' versions of non-violence such as Jainism and the harm caused by various religious doctrines that are part of the proponents of non-violence. Non-violence and non-violent resistance is a journey to be on rather than a destination prescribed. Being inspired and encouraging those toward a better goal is better than cutting them off and denying their specific context. Again I suggest we clarify the lead of this article to include varieties of non-violent action and the criticisms of the same allowing a range of movements to be included in the rest of the article. This would mean including your references and mine and others yet to be found by us and other editors. This would mean that much of what you have been saying would be included and also what I have said. Wikipedia is not about WP:Truth but what can be supported by reliable sources with various viewpoints being represented without undue support for one view or another as long as they are represented by the sources. What do you think? Robynthehode (talk) 11:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Robynthehode Id like to see input from third parties because we radically disagree on what non-violence is. The sources you offer claim that nonviolence is a spectrum that must account for the imperfection of reality. I firmly beleive that nonviolence must be held to a pure standard and, be that as it may, 97% of all Social movement does not utilize these principles

https://www.fhrcuba.org/2016/01/in-honor-of-dr-martin-luther-king-jr-the-six-principles-of-nonviolence/ Why does the article choose to ignore this is beyond me. Why aren't examples of the true peaceful protests (for example, against gun violence, protests against War in Iraq, etc.) are entirely excluded while the protests that place the blame on the individuals, rather than the system are included? The BLM movement is enegized by the specific violence against specific individuals, by specific individuals. If it were to utilize true nonviolent strategy, the protest would focus on the racism and police violence as a whole. It is much easier to resort to half-measures. Eventually, yes, the argument really stands between two ideologies: one says nonviolence must be taken to an extreme, another says no it doesn't. This is why third party input is needed. Litesand (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Litesand Yes we do radically disagree but that is irrelevant here. What is allowed to be content in Wikipedia articles is what is supported by reliable verifiable sources. I believe I have supplied enough sources and information to support the view that non-violence and non-violent resistance (and that BLM should be included) has variations from 'your' point of view to the examples I have given. In my previous post I suggested a way forward (reiterating earlier suggestions) and you have not engaged with this at all. It seems you do want to impose your view of non-violence on this article. You ignore every historical variation I have noted and not attempted to account for the fact that there simply is a variety of voices and practices in the history of non-violence and non-violent resistance. As a further note to the complexities of non-violence philosophy your link quotes six principles of the non-violence you agree with, one of which brings God into the equation. A Christian God I believe: this God has a holy book that support slavery, genocide and homophobia as well as the psychologically damaging idea of hell. Not very non-violent! I only bring up this point to add to the argument that this subject is complex and is not as black and white nor fundamental as you wish it to be. Any third party looking at this discussion and making any NPOV assessment of the evidence will support my suggestion in my last post: provide information to the Wikipedia reader about the variations in non-violent ideas and practices and the criticisms of the same and leave it up to the reader to decide. Editors should not impose their personal views about the subject of the article nor give undue weight to any specific version of a complex subject. This is an encyclopaedia that is a reference point for further reading and research. To break this impasse (because I don't believe you want to compromise) I think it is best we ask for an RfC or similar. Robynthehode (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Robynthehode Your assumptions are incorrect. My sources clearly outline the definition of nonviolence and also the fact that BLM does not fit these defitions. I am actually guarding this article from misinformation deliberately. In the age of information ideas such as cryptocurrency, gig economy, ecommerce, Internet, antitrust, social media, wikipedia, etc. all suffer from the "sitting on the fence" factor. This article is one such example. At some point, someone like myself begins to draw lines that require information to posess more delibirate definitions. Please do not mistaken my effors for clarifications as personal opinions, but rather kicking things down from the fence and see what happens when they land. Typically, truth does come out. Litesand (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Litesand I applaud your efforts to try to make this article respect what non-violence is. However as I have said numerous times we have to follow the sources. The sources say there are variations in what people think non-violence / non-violent resistance is in theory and practice. Therefore we must follow the sources (as per my suggestion above in how to improve the article). Again Wikipedia is not about truth WP:Truth. And again you have not come up with concrete suggestions of how to improve the article other than the POV idea that the article must follow your version of non-violence. I will leave it for a few days and then request an RfC or similar to try to resolve our obvious differences. Robynthehode (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Robynthehode I think all sources identify nonviolence as a deliberate effort, and the article does not fully support this notion. My concrete recommendation is to remove BLM on this basis because it tends to become ignited by selective acts of racial violence, rather than racial violence as a concept, it is therefore falters itself into acts of violence and revenge instead of acceptance and civility. BLM methodology does not support the notion behind how nonviolence sources promote and define. If the WIKI community does not agree with this position to structure the article on the grounds of "radical nonviolence," so be it, but thus far its been just you and I exchanging sources. We see the same information differently, which is interesting, but it also may indicate a third option entirely that neither of us are aware of. Please request an RfC and lets see where it takes this conversation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litesand (talk • contribs) 19:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Litesand, Robynthehode: Hi there. I don’t really have the time to write a long and detailed response, but here’s a quick extra insight: What do you consider “Black Lives Matter”? Is it the people who started the movement? Is it the people that march and protest? Is it the people who support the movement? Is it anyone who’s against racism in general? When you say that the movement is violent, who are you referring to? My thinking is that the movement itself is nonviolent, but rather some aspects of protests related to it are not. The goal of Black Lives Matter is to end discrimination and unfair treatment of African-Americans in many aspects of life, most likely not to use violence to further an interest. Black Lives Matter protests only so often turned violent on this level before the killing of George Floyd. This goes to show that the movement itself and its goals are not violent; there are simply some people who support it that turn to violence. Therefore, it should remain in the article.

Also, on a separate note, I completely respect and understand this discussion and respect all viewpoints, but I would recommend that you consider WP:Letting it go, as it may not be the best use of your time to debate to this extent the inclusion of a singular term nested in a paragraph of an article. You could improve other parts of the encyclopedia as well! Many thanks, MrSwagger21 (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

MrSwagger21 Thanks for engaging and I appreciate your input. The difficulty in this disucussion has been two strong opinions about what nonviolence is - a strict definition/view and a more pragmatic one. I think your post reflects what I was saying the sources said. I appreciate your comment re WP:LETITGO but this is not one of those cases (although a break away from the discussion may have helped both of us to reflect). It is ironic that in the 'Let It Go' essay this sentence appears Sure we're creating an encyclopedia here, and that is, indeed, serious business, but it's not life or death. The articles about Nonviolent resistance, Nonviolence and Black Lives Matter are incredibly important compared to any articles about video games (I'm a gamer), celebrities (I enjoy talk shows) and the like so I don't think 'Let it go' applies here. Rather a break from the discussion and requesting other editor input is more productive and valuable. I value Litesand input and our discussion although sometimes we veered toward a general debate rather than specifics about article improvements. I hope he contributes further to improving these important articles. Again thanks for your input. Robynthehode (talk) 08:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Litesand, Robynthehode: Hello, As such one opinion you have already received. Since I am a student of South Asian studies I will try to put following brief points for self assessment.

1)Means and Goals each and both (emphasis added) be non-violent) - 'Ultimate goal is peace but means/methods can be violent' should not be the way. 2)Leadership and organization should not be believing anarchist 3)Protesting Leadership of the movement should be believing in non-violence 3) Organization/organizers should have been believing in non-violence 4) Leadership and Organization/organizers should have clearly communicated to the followers that their participation ought to remain non-violent 5) If for some reason movement or section of it turns violent midway then leadership and orgnizantion should privately and publicly should distance itself from the violence or violent ones in clear terms

If each of above points (emphasis added to 'each of') is implemented faithfully by leadership and organization / organizers and followers the part of movement which did turn violent can be termed non-violent; if any followers or part of movement turned violent then should be mentioned clearly with whether leadership orgnizers and majority followers openly privately and publicly distanced themselves unambiguously from violence with proper references.

Let me offer an example : Mahatma Gandhi's Khilafat movement' was over all non-violent but part of followers in Moplah Islamist rebellion clearly behave violent- and many were dissatisfied with Mahatma Gandhi's explanation. So both things need to be mentioned clearly.

Bookku (talk) 06:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@MrSwagger21: Most times most non-violence protesters can plead for WP:LETITGO to not to respond violence with violence, Still while distancing themselves from violence they can not say WP:LETITGO but they have to clearly distance from any form of violence otherwise line between non-violence and violence blurs and that is a slippery slope. Extreme non violence is good strategy or not is different matter but while categorizing some thing as non-violence it can not be and should not be compromised to include/condone/overlook violence.

I suppose I am clear in pointing out specific nuances Bookku (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bookku: When I mentioned WP:LETITGO, I was referring to this discussion on the talk page, not the protests or any aspect thereof. I also was not saying that the “Ultimate goal is peace but means/methods can be violent”. I was saying that the ultimate goal is peace, however, the means/methods are inadvertently and unintentionally violent because of the actions of a few independent individuals. Sorry for the confusion. MrSwagger21 (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@MrSwagger21: I gave my opinion for self assessment purposes and not to judge your or respective editor's opinion or comments.

@AntiCompositeNumber:, In this discussion main opposing editors are two only, My perception has been third opinion means uninvolved user's opinion. So I also shared my opinion as third opinion only.

I am not clear about official culture of Wikipedia:Third opinion support group, how many uninvolved users can express opinion. Please keep me informed so next time I will take more care before expressing my opinion. Thanks

Bookku (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:3O is for requesting a third opinion in a dispute with only 2 editors. There are 4 editors in this discussion, so 3O does not apply. For other options to resolve this discussion, see WP:Dispute resolution. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Study if nonviolent resistance works as compared to violent ones

In short, non-violence is more effective than violence:

https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-54142487

Other interesting statistics and observations:

Erica Chenoweth has come up with a very precise figure for how large a demonstration has to be before its success is almost inevitable. The figure is 3.5% of the population.

non-violent resistance has become by far the most common method of struggle worldwide, much more so than armed insurrection or armed struggle. Indeed, between 2010 and 2019 there were more non-violent uprisings in the world than in any other decade in recorded history.

The success rate of protest has declined. It has declined drastically with violent movements - around nine out of 10 violent movements now fail, Chenoweth says.  But non-violent protest also succeeds less often than it used to. Before, around one in two non-violent campaigns succeeded - now it's around one in three.

Let us use it here.

Zezen (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Objective language

Subjectivity in this article surrounding inclusion of BLM as non-violent. Some consider it to be non violent but it includes violent action. Therefore language must be changed or exclude BLM Wrsutton (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to the talk page. Please leave the article as is while the discussion takes place. I would suggest you read the section above 'Black Lives Matter'. The primary point is that reliable sources WP:RS need to state what this movements / campaigns are not what you or I think they are. Provide sources and the discussion can proceed. Thanks. Robynthehode (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Nonviolence, grad course

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2022 and 6 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Felixboye (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Crunchwrap.

— Assignment last updated by Crunchwrap (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)