![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Nonviolence ( inactive) | |||
|
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)
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 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)
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)
Do you think Henry Thoreau should be listed in this article? - Babygrand1 ( talk) 00:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Good? Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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
Should we put examples of bad non violent resistance? For example:
Otherwise this article fails the Socratic method by assuming that all nonviolent resistance is good. -- Pepsi Lite ( talk) 13:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
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 [1]. [2] 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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
What is the real reason it happened? Killereater23 ( talk) 15:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Nonviolence ( inactive) | |||
|
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)
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 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)
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)
Do you think Henry Thoreau should be listed in this article? - Babygrand1 ( talk) 00:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Good? Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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
Should we put examples of bad non violent resistance? For example:
Otherwise this article fails the Socratic method by assuming that all nonviolent resistance is good. -- Pepsi Lite ( talk) 13:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
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 [1]. [2] 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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
What is the real reason it happened? Killereater23 ( talk) 15:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)