Talk:Direct action/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
POV reversions
RE: the POV reversions and vandalism by ThereIsNoSteve and SEWilco: user:SEWilco has repeatedly POV vandalized this page, starting with "What society wants is not relevant to activists" in edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Direct_action&oldid=1338204 . The latest instance is the linking of this page to the "end justifies the means" page, a trite and overused smear tactic, as discussed on the page itself as follows: "Few people will use the ends justify the means to describe their own views; instead, the phrase is often used to cast suspicion on the actions or motivations of others."
user:ThereisNoSteve has contributed to SEWilco's failure of NPOV by engaging in anti-reversions that merely removed SEWilco's POV vandalism. (commented by user:Bangarang 2003-10-15T12:12:09)
Direct action = illegal?
Is direct action necessarily illegal action?
- Not necessarily. One form of low-level direct action is when workers are (illegally or not) told to stay at work to perform unpaid overtime, and choose to go home on time instead, or when workers take a break when one is not given to them. This is in contrast to "indirect action," such as pleading with the boss, going to a union official, making a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, etc. -Danspalding 17:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Dan is correct with his example. A lot of what is describe in this article can constitute crimes that are felonies in many U.S. states, but worker disobedience is a good example of direct action that is not illegal. Equinox137 (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
All the direct action I have witnessed and recorded have required the willingness to violate the orders of some authority if needed. In common use today direct action = are you willing to get arrested if needed. If the actor is willing to stop the action if ordered to do so by a licit authority, it would not be considered direct action to many.
No where in the social activism community I know of is a legal strike or other lawful action refereed to as direct action. The term direct action refers to taking direct action against and errant authority and intentionally violating the will of that (deemed to be) illicit authority. The Sovereign Nation of the Antarctic Seas declares its self the only licit authority on the antarctic waters so all they do is legal. Their direct action requires the willingness to spend life in a Japanese prison in spite of no law being broken. Direct action is also refereed to as risk action. are you willing to risk arrest. (This may only be in my universe and other universes may exist with differing meanings.) Most direct action is done without the use of violence against human persons, otherwise some word other than direct would be used ie police or military action. destructive action against buildings, ships and other vehicles can be considered violence by many but violence against humans only is disallowed in direct action 208.91.11.214 (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)- Thanks for the personal observation but it is useless for our purposes here. What are needed are citations to reliable sources, not "I have witnessed". Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Violence
From above: Is stealing and breaking an entering not a form of violence...LOL!?
From the article: The ALF have largely abandoned their commitment to nonviolence in more recent years, primarily turning to arson, intimidation and destruction of private property.
- If arson and destruction of private property is violent, then breaking into labs and farms and liberating animals is also violent. But that is an if. I think including ALF in the NVDA is inherently POV--if you say they are non violent that is obviously pov, but saying they are violent is also pov. It comes down to a defintion of violence as Millerc says below.
Just wondering, what do others think that the word "violence" means. The concept of "violence against property" has always seemed a bit contrived to me, and the ALF, as far as I know, has not physically harmed anyone. So it might be a bit POV to claim that the ALF has turned away from non-violence; I doubt they would agree with that phrase. millerc 21:23, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Was the property destruction of Kristallnacht violence? I think so.
- How do ya'll work the Night of the Broken Glass into your "property destruction is not violence" ethos.
- "PROPERTY DESTRUCTION IS NOT VIOLENCE!" This mantra of the contemporary anarchist community, is also one of its defining statements. Moped45 (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the last sentence about ALF should be dropped. It is about ALF not about direct action - violent or non-violent - and adds little or nothing to the subject. Actually, dropping the whole ALF paragraph would be fine.
- I also have a problem with the use of the word violence to describe property damage. Just because the Nazis did it doesn't make it automatically violent. Wikipedia's definition (see violence) is also ambiguous on this issue. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Me too. Damage or destruction of property may be illegal but is not violence. The "references" do not mention any law that explictly mentions attack against property being "violence". It may be a crime but there are many other things that are crimes and are not violence (for example blocking a road or, in my country, growing your own tobacco).
- Violence is aggresion against people or animals, maybe even nature in general but not against mere inanimate objects. --Sugaar (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Military uses
Should we mention that the military also uses the term "Direct action"? Usually meaning when special forces actively seeks out and engages the enemy or destroys a target, as opposed to simple recon. No idea if they got the terminology from the same source as the radicals. References: [1], [2] --Identity0 07:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Anti abortion activists are mostly considered radicals(right wing radicals), and they describe their clinic bombings as direct action. Its direct action the only distinction is who is taking action. Its like describing enemy violence as terrorism. Language we use to obscure our behavioral connections/similairities to our enemies only further perpetuates our conflicts with them. This prevents communication, understanding, and therfore resolution. Moped45 (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- That may be worth starting an entirely new page for, as in Direct Action (Military). That's pretty different from the activist tradition, and not that different from what the military does anyway (dropping bombs, etc). I do not think that's a good fit for this page. Other thoughts? -Danspalding 17:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, military 'direct action' has nothing to do with the 'Direct Action' described on this page. They are 2 different and separate concepts - so yes, we'd be wrong not to shift it to a new 'Direct action (military)' page, and set up a disambiguation page....
Tartanperil 15:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I found this page searching for military DA operations. I even seem to recall a wiki page on it before. --Joffeloff 14:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Direct action (military) is alive and well, under the Military History Project. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
While the two terms are similar, they derive from entirely different sources. Military direct action has a history and etymology that is not related in any way to political direct action. The military does not view it's direct actions to be extra-legal or outside the normal and legitimate course of government action (some may, but they don't). HOWEVER, that is not to say that the military could not engage in or be used in a political direct action. There are examples of where rogue regimes have used elements of their military in what are clearly political direct actions. So, political direct action does not automatically EXCLUDE all things military. It is just not all that common, and certainly not the first thing that pops into the mind.76.27.193.128 (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Definition
I think the definition in the first section might be a little broad. Some mention of political motivation might be good, as it stands getting a drink because I'm thirsty is a direct action. Maybe that's the intention though. - cohesion★talk 07:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. My edits make it clear in the lead that politically motivated direct action is the topic. Also, there appears to be a trend - intentional or not - to limit the term to those actions which are "good." Direct action is neither good not bad. It simply is. History will judge whether specific direct actions are "good" or "bad." 76.27.193.128 (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
bias?
I'm getting a pretty strong "indirect action sucks; direct action is the only way to go" vibe from the second paragraph of the "Overview" section. (The part after the bulleted list) Could this be rewritten to be more neutral? ejstheman 02:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge?
No way! Other than the word "direct" there is no major similarity. Although some supporters of direct action might support direct democracy (and vice versa) they are not the same and need seperate articles. The Ungovernable Force 21:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with The Ungovernable Force - direct action and direct democracy are two very different things. Many people who take direct action don't want democracy, government, laws, elections, trials etc... full stop. NickW 08:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm removing this merge proposal--there was no reason given and I cannot see any conceivable reason why the two should be merged. If anyone thinks it should be merged, re-add the template and discuss here, but I don't see any remote similarity. This page doesn't even mention direct democracy, and the direct democracy page only mentions direact action in the see also section and in a discussion on the talk page (saying that what someone is describing isn't direct democracy but direact action). The Ungovernable Force 08:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
anarchism
"As a principle, direct action is central to many strands of anarchist theory, including anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, insurrectionary anarchism, green anarchism and anarcho-pacifism."
is there any strand of anarchism that doesnt embrace DA? if so, ive never heard of it. why not just leave it at As a principle, direct action is central to anarchist theory
- Because anarcho-capitalists will get upset, since the (falsely) consider themselves anarchists, and since they don't do any action at all except talk about wanting a free market economy and maybe voting for libertarians. The Ungovernable Force 20:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
anarcho-christians may also be another example of a strand of anarchism that is against any type of direct action.Maziotis 15:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Minor cleanup
Just been doing some minor rewording and making the article a little easier to read whilst preserving the original meaning Stui 11:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
accidentally saved too early
I couldn't finish my last edit summary because I accidentaly hit enter while typing. Anyways, I took out demonstrations because they are not direct actions unless combined with something like blockades or property destruction. I changed "most" to "some" since you have not given a source to show that is true (I wouldn't object too much to "many" though, and I accidentaly said "many" in my incomplete edit summary). I removed Direct action tactics are popular choices for anarchists, grass roots unions, neo-Nazis and some ordinary working class people as it seems unencyclopedic and not incredibly informative--just about every political cause participates in direct action. I added squatting. I also did some minor grammatical things and such. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 08:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Animal Liberation Front
I think it would be appropriate to mention that groups like ALF argue that the term "violence" should be applied only to attacks on living organisms or those that can feel pain, and that therefore they're not committing acts of violence.
"Animal rights groups such as the Animal Liberation Front have also used the tactics of NVDA, such as breaking into laboratories where animal experiments are carried out and physically removing ('liberating') the animals from the premises"
Is stealing and breaking an entering not a form of violence...LOL!?
- No. Theft and breaking & entering are property crimes. Equinox137 (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism is a form of violence. Violence is not predicated upon a living victim - it is the act of force committed against persons or property. Picketing an abortion clinic is not violence. Bombing an abortion clinic is. Making a scene in front of a window is not violence. Breaking the window is. Holding a sign saying "SUVs SUCK" is not violence. Keying an SUV is. Yelling in someone's face is not violence. Slapping someone in the face is..... It's not rocket science. 76.27.193.128 (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
According to the definitions on Wikipedia's own page on violence, shouting in sommeones face IS violence 'Violence is the expression of physical or verbal force against self or other'. However the only way property damage could be included as 'violence' would be if it was seen as some kind of existential attack on the owner of the property, however if this is valid then so too should the ALF argument that they are acting in 'existential self defence for those who cannot defend themselves'.
AdditionallyFormer New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who wanted to crack down on vanadalism and other antisocial crimes considered it to be nonviolent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.34.250 (talk) 08:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Abortion protesting
I find it rather unusual that the definitions of direct action are decidedly left-wing. Clearly, using the criteria listed for what qualifies as direct action, abortion protesting would also be considered direct action. So much NPV, once again showing the left-wing bias of Wiki and further diminishing its value as an intellectual reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.229.155 (talk) 06:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- In my opinion, picketing is NOT direct action (although picketing might be used in conjunction with direct action). Direct action is OUTSIDE of normal social and political channels and behaviors. Picketing by itself is fairly mundane and normal form of political speech. Let's use an example: Animal rights activists picket a lot, but that of itself is not direct action. When, while picketing, they block a fur coat store's entrance so the store can't do business, THAT is direct action. 76.27.193.128 (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Still, one could argue some of the more radical manifestations of the anti-abortion movement are akin to methods employed by direct action activists. For instance, anti-abortion violence usually involves more than picketing and actually implies a kind of terrorist insurgency against abortion providers and pro-choice leaders. ADM (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
"Direct Action" - a 2004 action-movie starring Dolph Lundgren
"Direct Action" is also the title of a 2004 Canadian action-movie starring Dolph Lundgren (IMDb). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.109.22.148 (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Need a definition
This article could really do with a workable, agreed, clear and sourced definition of Direct Action. Some of the stuff in there is contradictory (i.e. the stuff about it being do-able by Governments)
I'll have a look round (maybe in the de Cleyre article) but has anyone got good sources?
Chaikney (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment about this article
This article appears to be riddled with unsourced conjecture and original research.
Consider these two sentences:
Examples of nonviolent direct action include strikes, workplace occupations, sit-ins, and graffiti. Violent direct actions include sabotage, vandalism, assault, and murder.
The categorization of "sabotage" as (always) violent reveals an ignorance of the varied historical use of that term. Let us examine some actual sources on the subject. From Wikipedia,
Sabotage is an elusive phenomena and is difficult of accurate definition. Briefly described it is called "striking on the job." J. A. Estey, in his "Revolutionary Unionism," does well when he says: "In Syndicalist practice it [sabotage] is a comprehensive term, covering every process by which the laborer, while remaining at work, tries to damage the interests of his employer, whether by simple malingering, or by bad quality of work, or by doing actual damage to tools and machinery" (p. 96). This definition puts admirably the essential, underlying characteristics of sabotage, but in practice it ranges even beyond such limits. There are almost an indefinite number of ways of "putting the boots to the employer" which have come to properly be included under the general designation, and some of them have been employed by conservative unionists time out of mind. Ca' Canny or soldiering is one of them, which was a practice long before revolutionary unionism was known to the mass of workers. In essence it is practiced by every union that sets a limitation on output. Living strictly up to impossible safety rules enacted by the employers for their own protection is another method. Wasting materials, turning out goods of inferior quality or damaging them in the process, misdirecting shipments, telling the truth about the quality of products, changing price cards, sanding the bearings, salting the soup and the sheets, "throwing the monkey wrench into the machinery"—all are methods of practicing sabotage that have become familiar.
Source: Robert Franklin Hoxie, Lucy Bennett Hoxie, Nathan Fine, Trade Unionism in the United States, D. Appleton and Co., 1921, page 162-63.
And,
Unlike the other national federations such as the Knights of Labor, the American Federation of Labor, and the Congress of Industrial Organizations, the IWW advocated direct action and sabotage. These doctrines were never clearly defined, but did not include violence against isolated individuals. Pamphlets on sabotage by Andre Tridon, Walker C. Smith, and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn were published, but Haywood and the lawyers for the defense at the Federal trial for espionage in Chicago in 1918 denied that sabotage meant destruction of property. Instead Haywood claimed it meant slowing down on the job when the employer refused to make concessions.
Source: Philip Taft and Philip Ross, "American Labor Violence: Its Causes, Character, and Outcome," The History of Violence in America: A Report to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, ed. Hugh Davis Graham and Ted Robert Gurr, 1969.
I contend on this basis, categorizing sabotage as necessarily "violent" is an error.
Note that i have not even relied upon the argument made by some, that attacks against property (rather than against persons) do not constitute violence. The categorical statement in the article is refuted by straight-forward definition.
(see Industrial_Workers_of_the_World_philosophy_and_tactics).
Another example that causes me some concern:
Although it is possible to find articles describing "murder" as a form of "direct action," as in this link, [3], which describes the use of the term "Direct Action Against Drugs" as a ruse, the great majority of articles including these two terms that i've checked do not refer to murder as direct action, but rather advocate direct action as a response to murder, as in murder of a civilian by the police. Therefore, i also question the unsourced inclusion of murder as a form of direct action.
While i won't argue that murder is not direct action by someone's definition, i question it as an appropriate example on the basis of its unusual and uncommon usage.
Come on, folks, why is it so difficult to consult actual sources before contributing so much unfounded conjecture to Wikipedia articles? Richard Myers (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Why has this article been given an anarchism sidebar?
Why has this article been given an Anarchism sidebar? Yes Anarchist might participate in Direct Action but many people who use direct action are not Anarchists so this seems wrong to me. I propose that it shouldbe removed. --Allie Cabab (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- If you drop the "Theory · Practice" section, you'll see that Direct action is included in the bar. This is because, although it is a concept and practice utilized by non-anarchists, it is an important element of anarchist philosophy stemming from its foundations in the 19th century. --Cast (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- It seems misleading though as it makes it look like Direct Action is only part of Anarchist Philosophy when its not. If you have an Anarchist side bar then shouldn't you also have a Black rights sidebar, a votes for women side bar, a climate change activists sidebar?--Allie Cabab (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- To my knowledge, none of those social movements have direct action rooted in their philosophical foundations. Direct action would be a tool utilized by those groups at times, but those same groups also utilize tools not related to direct action, such as lobbying, symbolic protest, and taking part in electoral politics. Anarchism carries direct action as one of its core principals, as recognized by such classic anarchist theorists as Mikhail Bakunin, and such contemporary theorists as Lawrence Jarach. Removing direct action as a tool for social change from any of the groups you mention would not fundamentally change their nature. Voting is inherently not direct action, placing it in the realm of electoral politics. Women's suffrage is not direct action, and anarchists such as Emma Goldman championed against it due to their principled stance in favor of women's liberation through direct action. Civil rights are freedoms protected by government, and as that means individuals must appeal to an institution to protect those rights, securing them is not a form of direct action. Anarchists have at times found themselves in protest to protect civil rights, but only as a temporary measure to protect individuals from encroaching government, fully recognizing that said governments may easily break their social contract by disregarding civil rights. Anarchists therefore have historically favored direct action over lobbying. Activism is a nebulous term and we may both recognize that activists may utilize direct action, but by your other examples, I would imagine you are referring to climate change activists which lobby the government. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but until you do I will assume you are referring to lobbyists, and so that is also not a form of direct action. Anarchism, with its indelible rejection of political professionals, and its call to individuals and communities to act upon their own behalf to secure social harmony, carries a greater weight to have its side panel placed prominently on this article. If this article is at all misleading in its current form, then it must be rewritten to better express this context, utilizing verifiable sources wherever possible. The sidebar needn't be fully removed when this topic is so deeply connected to this subject. I would suggest a compromise: perhaps a sub-section under the History section may be created to discuss the very specific and deeply rooted relationship direct action has with anarchism. --Cast (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I am not an anarchist, but i have friends who are anarchists, and i am sympathetic to a number of anarchist ideas. I can see both sides of this issue. I feel that a compromise would be very appropriate -- the addition of the suggested section, and move the sidebar to that section? Richard Myers (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah i agree a subsection on the link between anarchism and direct action would be a good idea. i'll have a look at how to do it. --Allie Cabab (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
San Francisco's Mission Yuppie Eradication Project
The anti-gentrification effort called the 'Mission Yuppie Eradication Project' has been added to the list of groups practicing direct action.
Miasnikov —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miasnikov (talk • contribs) 00:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- The link was red. Richard Myers (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
violent direct action - wrong examples - NPOV?
Violence is always directed against living beings. Otherwise it is no violence but material damage. Material damage can be violence e.g. if someone destroys the house of people who need that to survive. It can also be violence, if a stalker destroys things the victim does not really need just to produce fear. Violent Direct action therefore is if someone is harrassing people by either harming or frightening them. This broad interpretation of violence is usually used to discredit forms of non violent direct action like the sabotage of military transport vehicles or triing to stop nuclear waste transportation. Therefore IMHO this is not according to NPOV.
lawsuits, boycotts
/me wonders if lawsuits or boycotts would be considered direct action.--Elvey (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Boycotts should right? It's an action taken by consumers directly to hurt the profit line of a company and influence change. Lawsuits probably not, they go through a political course although I'm not sure either. They'108.16.4.231 (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)re distinctly less representative than voting.
MLK and Gandhi calling for violent insurrection in Palestine and Vietnam
Has got to be a lie. I am removing "The rhetoric of both Martin Luther King and Mohandas Gandhi promoted non-violent revolutionary direct action as a means to social change in some circumstances, while supporting armed insurrection in circumstances where nonviolence was ineffective, such as in Palestine and Vietnam." 98.210.232.181 (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Direct action. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003230943/http://www.gonzotimes.com/2011/09/strategies-for-the-struggle-strategy-2-direct-action/ to http://www.gonzotimes.com/2011/09/strategies-for-the-struggle-strategy-2-direct-action/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110814162713/https://directactionde.ucrony.net/en to https://directactionde.ucrony.net/en/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060814054855/http://www.activistmagazine.com/ to http://www.activistmagazine.com/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041016020445/http://www.greenpeace.org.au/getactive/happen/nvda.html to http://www.greenpeace.org.au/getactive/happen/nvda.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928060857/http://www.back-of-beyond.org/downloads/da/english.html to http://www.back-of-beyond.org/downloads/da/english.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 18 January 2022).
- 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)