Talk:Direct action

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

violent direct action - wrong examples - NPOV?[edit]

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[edit]

/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' (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)re distinctly less representative than voting.

MLK and Gandhi calling for violent insurrection in Palestine and Vietnam[edit]

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." (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


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)


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:

There are a number of protest actions with the specific aim of cutting off material, people or communications from a particular area by non-violence, either in part or totally. The effectiveness of such blockades rely on the principles of nonviolent resistance especially the participation of people and lock-on techniques.

I really don't see any reason why blockades would be considered violent. Warm Worm (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)