Talk:Civil disobedience/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Change of image

I feel that the image is not suitable....could it be possibly changed to one of Gandhi's demonstrations as he is mentioned?

I concure the picture currently occupying that space does not make much sense. A picture of Gandhi would better suit that position.

are you referring to the Potts picture? I think a picture demonstrating civil disobedience would be better. Perhaps Gandhi making salt, or some one in an earlier stage of arrest for civil disobedience. As it is it is just someone being arrested. Rds865 (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Gandhi's and Thoreau's ideas of civil disobedience

The distinction between Gandhi's and Thoreau's ideas of civil disobedience may be worth mentioning. Gandhi focused very much on that resistance should be active, whereas Thoreau, although he had great faith that C.D could change the world, primarily did it for reasons of conscience, it was the right thing to do, the changing the world part was just a bonus. Chaining yourself to something can not be supported by the book C.D. The difference is that Thoreau advocates resistance from a duty ethic, while Gandhi primarily advocates it from a consequence ethic - although his belief in karma complicates things a bit.

Vintermann

Thoreau refused to pay taxes that were going to pay for drilling of soldiers for the war. His aunt(?) paid the taxes against his will. There is a famous story of Ralph Waldo Emerson asking at the jail, "Henry, why are you here?" The response, "The more important Question is: why you aren't?"

I changed the link to Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" to the text from WikiSource to help increase use of and interest in that project. biggins 06:27, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Thoreau's influence on Gandhi, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_David_Thoreau#Influence seems to be in direct conflict with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience#Usage_of_the_term —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrostl (talk • contribs) 21:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thoreau

Citation needed: Thoreau died in 1862; and civil disobedience was coined in the second version of the essay. Holger Terp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.91.184.25 (talk) 07:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Civil Disobediance was an essay, not a book. I corrected this error.

Odd reference

see the article by Christian Bay on this subject in the Encyclopaedia of social sciences

I'm unsure how to make this into a complete reference. -- Beland 11:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ya

yes indeed my friend

Merge

• support merge of civil and social disobedience. No distinguishing features between the two.

--Pfafrich 23:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support for above reasons.

--Scaife 06:06, 03 February 2006 (UTC)

• Sound idea to me. Support. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Do not support: Civil disobedience as propagated by Thoreau and (differently) by Gandhi is a chapter unto itself. "Civil and Social disobedience" is may derived from these ideas but presents itself as a modern movement which deserves a separate article. I am grateful for the cross-reference, though.
• Do not support: Civil and Social Disobedience, as the poster above me noted, practices ideas derived from the philosophy of civil disobedience. However, so did the US Civil Rights Movement, the 1960s Student Movement, etc. I would not want to merge articles like that into this one. They ALL deserve to be cross-referenced at the bottom of this article under "See Also" -- That is the extent of merging I find appropriate. takethemud 03:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)takethemud
• Do not support because it lacks distinctive elements of non-violence. However, I do support either merging "Civil and Social disobedience" with "Disobbedienti" or renaming it under the Itialian terminology for the movement around the "Disobbedienti" to reduce confusion. Dennis 15:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support I think that the articles are close enough so that they can be merged. I at least think that the civil and social article should be mentioned in the civil article. 205.155.146.74 01:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I added a quote

I added in a quote from Gandhi

Delete Civil and social disobedience!

I think that the Civil and social disobedience should be deleated, and just mentioned in the Civil disobedience article, because there is not enough in the article to make it its' own article, and I think that it only deserves a quick mentin in the Civil disobedience article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swat671 (talk • contribs)

Gandhi's campaigns

I have deleted "Gandhi believed in forceful disobedience until realizing civil disobedience was more sensible due to the fact his people didn't have the weapons or technology to win against the oppressive Indian army acting for the British Army"

Citations are needed for these assertions. Who has claimed that Gandhi ever considered "forceful disobedience"? Gandhi was trying to speed up a process of independence to which Britain had already agreed in principle before the second world war, not fight some war. The Indian army is highly respected within India, and is not considered a formerly repressive army. Gandhi served in the British armed forces in the Boer War, long before he started his independence campaogns, but even then was pacifist (he worked with the ambulance corps). Gandhi started politics in South Africa, where he was already pacifist, so why would he have ever supported "forceful disobedience" when he returned to India. It seems to me this is sentence which i have deleted is just incorrect weasel-worded anglophobe speculation.

129.12.200.49 21:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

it is totally wrong, not only was Gandhi pacifist, but the Indians had the total means to defeat the British by arms, that is if the Indians could unite against them. after all the British forces in Indian, was the Indian Army made up of Indians. That is why it is said, that the British ruled Indian, only because the Indians allowed it.Rds865 (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Clean Up

This doesn't read like an encyclopedia article. Even though the info is sound, I think the wording needs to be edited.Denis Diderot II 01:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Civil Disobedience

I know that Emerson pioneered the modern philosophy behind civil disobedience, and he wrote an essay entitled "Civil Disobedience", but did he actually coin the term "civil disobedience"? If so, I think that fact should be added...don't know if it's true or not though, or I would. 66.32.217.17 (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Other views of Civil Disobedience

Perhaps there should be added views of civil disobedience than the traditional ones expressed here. For example well Gandhi prohibits swearing and destroying flags, some consider civil disobedience to be everything short of physically harming a person. also, different strategies, such as violating laws that are unjust, or violating laws to protest an unrelated government act(ie. blocking traffic to protest a war) Rds865 (talk) 02:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"Operation Rescue"

I'm not sure if I agree with the inclusion of this as part of the article. Generally, the religious examples seem ok, but protesting abortion by blocking access to clinics isn't necessarily civil disobedience. Rather than protesting a law, the protesters are forcibly hindering legal behavior of other citizens in order to argue for new laws. Further, the incident cited in the example seems a bit obscure. Why not include a more clear-cut example like a protest against the death penalty? In such a case, the citizens involved are clearly acting to change an 'unjust law' rather than trying to curb other individuals' behavior.

Opinions? ArchetypeRyan (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

To me both mentions of Abortion seem tacked on, probably by a pro-lifer. I have never heard of civil disobedience as proscribed by Gandhi being used by pro-lifers, but thats just me. WookMuff (talk) 09:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thailand

The passage on Thailand, and its more than dubious syntax, seems to have been added more as a partisan stance than as a 'real' contribution to Wikipedia.
— Oxag

Socrates

Isn't Socrates in Crito an important early model? --Gargletheape (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Greek philosophy and history. However, according to Yoram Hazony, "The Jewish Origins of the Western Disobedience Tradition", Azure No. 4 Summer 5758 / 1998, ">here:

In Plato’s Crito, Socrates explains his reasons for obeying the unjust command of the Athenian state, by envisioning the accusation that the laws themselves would level against him, should he choose to harm them by escaping execution. In a discourse which constitutes one of the classic rejections of disobedience on record, the laws of Athens tell Socrates:

Could you, in the first place, deny that you are our offspring and servant, both you and your forefathers? ... Do you think you have [a] right of retaliation against your country and its laws? That if we [i.e., the laws] undertake to destroy you and think it right to do so, you can undertake to destroy us, as far as you can, in return? ... Is your wisdom such as not to realize that your country is to be honored more than your mother, your father, and all your ancestors, that it is more to be revered and more sacred, and that it counts for more among the gods and sensible men, that you must worship it, yield to it and placate its anger more than your father’s? You must either persuade it or obey its orders, and endure in silence whatever it instructs you to endure, whether blows or bonds, and if it leads you into war to be wounded or killed, you must obey. To do so is right.... Both in war and in courts and everywhere else, one must obey the commands of one’s city and country, or persuade it as to the nature of justice.

Far from being a disobedience theorist, Socrates was in fact an unflinching supporter of the pagan idea that man is the “offspring and servant” of the state, and therefore must give up his life at the state’s request, even if the request be unjust.

... [T]he source of the myth that Aristotle supported the concept of disobedience is in his Rhetoric, in which he advises lawyers that if they have “no case according to the law of the land,” they may nevertheless be able to win their case by arguing that the law is unjust — a utilitarian piece of wisdom which offers nothing in terms of an a priori right to disobey the law. The same can be said for the Roman Stoic thinker Cicero, who in the first century BCE—five centuries after the great Jewish prophets—actually did go so far as to argue that an unjust law did not properly deserve to be regarded as law; he therefore supports empowering the courts to sidestep the written rule in such cases. But regarding an individual right of disobedience before state injustice, Cicero too is silent.

... Typically Greek, too, is the fact that Antigone disobeys the king in order to obey the law of the state. Indeed, Athenian thought was so immersed in the belief that the just life consists of participating in the life of the city-state that even a radical work such as Antigone found the question of disobedience to the laws themselves untouchable. Only in cases where the ruler was himself in clear violation of the customary laws of the city could the question treated in Antigone even arise.

But as for the question of whether an individual may defy the state and its laws on the grounds of conscience—whether, for example, Antigone would have been right to go about freeing the slaves of Athens when the laws clearly forbade such an action—this issue was never raised by Greek thought. Justice was, for the Greeks, not determined by any conception of right independent of the state, but was itself possible only within the state. The result was that, as in the rest of the ancient world, disobedience to the Athenian state was held to be the ultimate ingratitude, and could hardly merit the name “justice.” In the absence of a separation of the sphere of right from that of worldly power, which was achieved in Israel through the independent “constitutional” standing of the prophet, the Greek moral sense remained stunted, unable to break free of the smothering gratitude each citizen felt towards his parent and creator, the city-state.

Sevendust62 (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed references and quotes. I am not convinced the picture given there (Greek thought stunted by worshipful reverence toward state, confines not broken out of till Jewish thought shows the way forward) is entirely unpolemical however. The SEP has a somewhat differently emphasized story -

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socrates/

Basically, at his trial Socrates refuses outright (Apology) to stop teaching and discussing philosophy using his methods, no matter *what* the assembly decides about the legality of so doing. Simultaneously, he gives himself up to their coercive authority, which he refuses to flee from (Crito). Whether or not this is Civil Disobedience in the modern sense, it seems more than a bit tendentious to call him unequivocally opposed to the concept. --Gargletheape (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Civil disobedience and the 343

I do not see why the 343 is listed in this article. Theirs is not an act of civil disobedience insofar as the controversial act (the womens' abortions) was not a *politically motivated* act.

Federico, 14:38, 23rd of March, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.18.242.171 (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable sources and POV edits by User Luis Napoles

The sources:

http://www.directorio.org/mediacoverage/note.php?

http://www.nocooperacion.org/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uI4X

Youtube videos and lobby groups are not reliable sources to support the claims made on the subsection of Cuba.

User luis napoles has also tweaked the article’s lead in such a way that more than an article about civil disobedience it looks like an article on the evils of communism.

I will revert these edits and allow Luis to explain how such a highly politicized edits don’t give any undue weight to that point of view. Likeminas (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Administrators already blocked you of disruptive editing. You have not explained any reason to delete references to the Orange Revolution, the Velvet Revolution, the Singing Revolution, fall of Berlin Wall, etc. Civil disobedience movements are reliable sources for articles about civil disobedience.Luis Napoles (talk) 07:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Luis seems to 'conveniently' forget that he was blocked yesterday as well. Luis, the onus is on you to use the talk page to explain your insertions if they are disputed - not for Likeminas to explain his removal of your highly WP:Pov edits - which reflect your unfortunate deep rooted WP:Bias on everything you edit here on wikipedia. You are the quintessential advocate, on a site that has a WP:NOTADVOCATE policy. I believe that you will find your editing experience more enjoyable if you actually sought Wp:Consensus from other editors, instead of always butting heads and creating conflict in your attempt to massively 'revise' and censor every article you touch - to conform to your (highly unambiguous & non-nuanced) political point of view.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 19:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

As usual, your message did not contain anything related to the article, only attacks on other editors instead of even just trying pretend that you would have anything of substance related to encyclopedia.Luis Napoles (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Luis, editors can't even get to the content of an article until you stop your personal crusade to make every article on wikipedia somehow either: (1) advertise the "evils" of the current Cuban regime or Communism (2) advertise those dissidents against the Cuban regime or Communism -or- (3) whitewash/censor/erase the crimes of right-wing despots who opposed the Cuban regime or Communism. Your Raison d'être for advocacy is beyond transparent - in fact I think it is the most blatant and clear cut case I have ever come across on wikipedia (you don't even pretend to hide it). You act as if Wikipedia is your very own Anti-Castro blog rather than an Encyclopedia with a commitment to objectivity and WP:NPOV. You have tried here to co opt an article about the general and global idea of "civil disobedience" into an advertisement for Cuban dissidents and promoted an obscure Cuban movement Yo No Coopero Con La Dictadura to the level of Dr Martin Luther King Jr & Gandhi. Moreover, as always, not one single addition you have made has ever received any sort of editor WP:Consensus (nor have you sought any), if anything most of your edits usually draw strong complaints from an array of editors who realize your behavior violates wiki decorum.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Again you made no argument for anything in the article, only attacked other editors. You should think twice whether you are improving the article, or attempting to advance your personal agenda which is very clear from your edits.Luis Napoles (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yo No Coopero con la Dictadura (Picture)

Is this picture really necessary? What exactly does it convey other than propaganda? The other pictures in the article demonstrate either massive civil movements or famous people from such movements. This picture of "Yo No Coopero..." is the only one that stands out the most as propaganda. I believe that this image should be deleted from this article for the sake of neutrality and WP:NOTADVOCATE.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 01:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a good example how civil disobedient movements call for action.Luis Napoles (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Marshal, It's a good example of direct advocacy (propaganda) and should be removed.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It also cannot pass WP:NFCC on this article. Grsz¹¹ 04:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Civil Disobedience in South Africa

I feel it is severely lacking.

CD started much earlier, arguably with Gandhi's time in South Africa. The South African statesman Jan Smuts even wrote an essay titled something like "The Political Method of Mahatma Gandhi."

Even before Mandela, there were the ANC's CD campaigns in the 1950's. In the 1960's there was also the Sharpeville Massacre, which was caused by a group of black citizens burning their mandatory passbooks in public.

I am not knowledgeable enough on this history to feel comfortable editing the article, but it is clear to me that it is lacking, if not totally wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.180.72 (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Rawlsian conception

Would anyone mind if I add Rawls idea of civil disobedience in the theory section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.112 (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this would be a great addition, for example his observation that where the basic structure of society is well-formed, the fact of a law's injustice wouldn't automatically (or even typically) suffice to make breaking it acceptable. --Gargletheape (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Another Relevant Example

I suggest that the "Saffron Revolution" in Burma in September 2007 be linked internally in Wikipedia to civil disobedience under examples or where otherwise appropraite —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.233.234.11 (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Soviet dissident's list of ten easy steps?

I wonder if anyone here knows anything about a possible discussion of civil disobediance by a notable Soviet dissident. I have a very faded memory of reading a discussion by – well, I think it was Sakharov, but perhaps it was Solzhenitsyn? – on possible use of civil disobedience in the Soviet Union. I believe this sometime in the 1970's, but it was not Solzhenitsyn's 1974 essay "Live not by lies". This was a discussion (likely in some main-line magazine), and on the question of civil disobedience my recollection is that the response was that Soviet citizens were not yet competent enough (strong enough?) to do this, but he had a list of ten(?) easier steps that they might use to develop their political skill(?). Does anyone know anything about this? - J. Johnson (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

One Sided Article

This article stinks of POV and isnt neutral or fair. For example in the Israel section, off the top of my head, they only offer one persspective, and in describing it uses very emotive language, which doesnt fit the style we are trying to go for. There is a dissidence movement of Israeli's against their state's actions against the palestinians, which needs to be included to balance it up a bit. If anyone has any suggestions I would like to hear them. I will find a few good sources of those other movements within israel and include them. Another example is the talking about eastern bloc and communist governments, it speaks alot about their break up caused by civil disobediance, but some of them were formed by peaceful protests that might be able to come under this label. Please discuss. ValenShephard 21:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

Paper terrorism

I guess paper terrorism isn't really a form of civil disobedience, since these guys think that it's legal per the common law.

Some "paper warriors" fight the government by filing false liens, frivolous lawsuits, and bogus letters of credit against public officials. This method has been particular popular among anti-government organizations such as the Posse Comitatus. It is sometimes used in retaliation against tax liens placed on individuals' property.

Tisane ^talk/_stalk 00:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Other example of civil disobedience

Who are Canada's 'freemen'?. I found this very interesting article about civil disobedience. But I don't know how to apply this to the article. Komitsuki (talk) 07:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)