Talk:Direct action

message: Added a globalize tag to the article, as I feel it is presently too focused upon the minor scale antics of mainly US-focused leftwing political groups. I've updated the article with some thumbnail pics alluding to major historical events, such as Tienanmen Square and the Berlin Wall, but the text of the article needs wholesale rewriting.--Froglich (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: , have any other source suggestions? Looks like the article has picked up more non-US content over the years and I just ordered an overview chapter from which I can add, but do you have sources that cover more of the area you wanted to see represented? czar 16:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalize 

message: I moved blockades from the list of types of violent direct actions to nonviolent direct actions. There of course can be violence during blockades—just like there can be violence during sit-ins, strikes, and occupations—but it's not an integral part of the action, and they are usually nonviolent. The relevant part of the linked blockade page reflects this. With emphasis added:
I really don't see any reason why blockades would be considered violent. 
Warm Worm (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  blockades  

message: The opening explanation states that direct action originated as an anarchist term for economic and political acts.
However, that oversimplifies the history.  Direct Action was, and continues to be, used by political and religious groups from one end of the spectrum to the other, including those who believe in order, but who believe in taking action to bring about change.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.21.160 (talk) 12:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this, and I would add that since this article deals with a concept in political theory, it might be best to offer multiple definitions and opening up a "controversies" or "debates" section of the article to delineate how these different definitions contend with one another. This I think will also help clear up some of the confusion about whether including left wing versus right wing versus non-politically-aligned behavior is the right course of action. I think to do this effectively would be to start with an overview of a far narrower definition of direct action, and then to expand upon that with various sections devoted to right-wing, left-wing, and politically unaligned actions that could be described as direct action. BigHeadPhilippe (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Limited to Anarchist Groups 

message: I've made Call to action a redirect to this article, so we might want to mention it somewhere here. Unless someone has covered it elsewhere? - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never seen that phrase used that way. Do you have sourcing for it? czar 00:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick google search showed that it seems to be used a bit more often in marketing these days. Or perhaps they're just engineering higher google placement? Older usage was more usually political, and it's still in use in grassroots groups online. Here's just a few of the prominent google results:
*A Call to Action on Climate and Health - Global Climate and Health Forum
*Call to action - "something such as a speech, piece of writing, or act that encourages people to take action about a problem" dicdef at Cambridge English Dictionary
*Call to Action on Protection from Gender-Based Violence in Emergencies
*Call to Action social justice movements in the Catholic Church
Many of the other results are things like guidelines that cover any type of CTA - marketing as well as political. Best, - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 16:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

text: I don't think this is an appropriate redirect. An NGO calling for government to take action (by listing calls to action) is not calling for "direct action" in the sense of this article. For instance, a change in government policy is not an example of direction, unless all governments should be listed at List of direct action groups. I don't see anything suitable to link to, but I don't think a link here is helpful at all. - 129.242.129.238 (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call to action / CTA 

message: That's one of the most abstract and obtuse lead paragraphs I have read in Wikipedia. Needs a re-write. The first sentence should make clear to the reader what "direct action" is; the reader should NOT have to read the article in order to get "the gist" of it. First off, it should describe "what it is", not how it originated. THIS doesn't help a reader:  Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Normal Op (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead needs rewrite, especially first sentence 

message: Your sentence  is the odd one. First, it included "to due to" which makes no sense, but I'll assume for a moment that maybe you meant "due to". I'm pretty sure you're describing leaderless resistance, not direct action, when you speak of decentralization and fluidity. And the use of leaderless resistance doesn't "cause" direct action, which is how your sentence is constructed. And that's why I called it odd. Since both of your citations require subscriptions to read them, I couldn't even figure out how to fix your wording. Please fix this. Normal Op (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a little better because the sentence at least makes sense. () But the concept... hmm. Are you saying that anarchists turn to direct action when they believe that diplomacy doesn't work? Or are you saying that direct action is only used by the fringe of an anarchist movement because they don't like working within groups? You see, the sentence is still sort of hanging out there in the air and doesn't really paint the scenario, like its context is missing. Maybe weave it into the "History" section with more sentences, then it makes sense to put something in the lead section about anarchism. Normal Op (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anarchists use whatever is needed, certain anarchist ideologies have different views as what it needed. Some anarchists are absolute pacifists, not hitting a person even if they are being completely beat up. Other anarchists are completely militant, taking constant violent action. Some anarchists are Syndicalists, some Communists, some Mutualists, and Collectivists. Anarchism as an ideology is actually extremely ideology identical, simply onto how anarchism is organized, communists want to abolish money and create communism, Mutualist want to maintain some currency and some businesses, while maintaining worker control over mass property, Syndicalists want mass union participation and labor organizations, Collectivists are somewhere in between them all. The universal thing uniting Anarchism is dissolution of unjustified hierarchy, and complete decentralization of society, as well as absolute pluralism and a form of direct participatory democracy whatever form that may be. Anarchists will always use direct action however, whatever they are as Anarchists don't organize in a parties hierarchical organizations. Anarchists as an ideology core principle is forming of collective groups, no anarchists form groups, like unions, communities etc... Anarchist don't create parties and they don't send anyone to congress. Anarchists use diplomacy if its needed, but they won't organize it through bureaucracy. Vallee01 (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direct action or leaderless resistance 

message: Direct action is action that directly impedes that carrying out of an (at least perceived) injustice.  Spiking trees impedes logging where that is perceived as an environmental injustice.  Rescuing monkeys from a research lab, or interfering with a whaling ship, impedes operations that are perceived as an animal injustice.
Actions that draw attention to a cause that do not actually impede anything are not direct actions.  e.g. trespassing to put up a large sign promoting your cause is not direct action. It is an attempt to influence others rather than acting directly.
The article reads as though the author is struggling to put together a sense of what direct action is, which is fine as a mental exercise, not so great for a wikipedia article.
The violent vs. nonviolent discussion may be off topic entirely.
The section titled "History" does reference some primary sources that put together, define what direct action is.  These sources could be used for properly-referenced introductory paragraphs.
Spope3 (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article defines direct action much too broadly, and does so without sources