Talk:Protest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Protest, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Methods of activism and Forms of protest 2 “protest is ... sometimes in favor, though more often opposed“ 3 Pardon my prudishness... 4 Explanation of revision from 00:15, 7 February 2006 5 The Status of Protest on Wikipedia 6 Highly POV

[edit] Methods of activism and Forms of protest

Many of the methods listed under Protest#Forms_of_protest might also be categorized in Activism#Methods of activism. I would like to hear what other WPs think about merging them. What belongs in which article? Should there be a hierarchical list?

Please respond on Talk:Activism. Dforest 08:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Schuminweb removed all secondary subcategories made by me but kept the order. I had put many of the categories as subcategories of “direct action”, or “public demonstration”, but not everything fit well. So now I tried to sort the list so that similar categories are near each other, but I still think more of those should go back under direct action, at least.

Some merging would be good. Many forms of protest I think would fit more accurately in direct action or demonstration with a link to those lists in the protest article. I posted more about merging on Talk:Activism Edno 05:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] “protest is ... sometimes in favor, though more often opposed“

Isn't a protest, necessarily protesting something it is opposed to? What would be an example of a “protest” in favor of something?

I would think a protest is always in favor of something and opposed to something else, but what makes it a protest is that it is opposed to something.

I think the statement “sometimes in favor, though more often opposed” would better apply to a public demonstration. Many public demonstrations are at the same time protests and celebrations or rallies. Edno 05:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pardon my prudishness...

Pardon my prudishness, but I really think two of the images on this page - the top one and the one about baring breasts - are unnecessary and gratuitous. The issue of protesting can be discussed without either rude language or exposure. Judging from the discussion, the article as it stands is offending some. Yet without those two photos it would be acceptable to everyone. El T 13:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I tend to disagree with you on this, and I believe that these photos do fit the article, and are not unnecessary and gratuitous.

In the first one, I presume that you're referring to the large neon-colored sign that says "Imperial Mother [profanity]". The guy carrying that sign is actually a regular attendee at protests in DC, and all of his signs are of that style. Large, neon-colored, with both sides carrying the "f-bomb" on them. Additionally, many people's signs do carry some sort of profane language (though many more do not). I chose that image for the top of the page because it's a nice cross-section of what you've got at a typical protest, all marching in the street. You have people carrying huge signs, pre-printed signs, small handmade posters, banners (two visible in the background), props (the hand), people wearing costumes (the girl in the hard-hat), masked demonstrators (to the right of the image), and just plain marchers.

The second photo is not one that I chose myself, but it is a sight that you do see at protests during warm-weather months. I've seen it in the format presented here, where people carry the sign and actually do bear their breasts, and I've also seen a more "sanitized" version of the message, where the breasts are drawn on the sign and the person carrying it is fully clothed. [1] Again, I didn't choose this photo for the article, but I will defend its placement in the article, since many do use shock value at protests, and that's one form of it (and a mild form at that compared to other stuff I've seen).

SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Is the guy with the neon sign chuck(O) munson? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.142.228.62 (talk • contribs).

I do not know the name of the gentleman holding the neon sign. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Chuck Munson runs infoshop.org, one of the most well known anarchist websites and he used to live in DC and did a lot of activism there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.143.18.52 (talk • contribs).

Oh, I know who Chuck Munson is, but I don't think that the neon-sign-carrying gentleman is Chuck Munson (faces don't match). SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It was hard to tell cause the guy was turning to the side and the pic on his page is fuzzy. I've never actually met him, it just sounded like something he might do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.143.58.188 (talk • contribs).

I totally agree about the first image being offensive. Protest is not characterized by slurs such as "Mother Fucker." The photo should be replaced with a more indicative image.

LegCircus 19:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Many demonstrators do use profanity on their signage. As this image was selected to represent a cross-section of what you will find at a typical protest, containing large signs, black bloc, props, costumes, etc., it is accurate, and contributes positively to the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem I have is that those things could be demonstrated very well without a highly offensive word. I think you should be able to read a Wikipedia article on protesting without being affronted by that. If there's a way to present material that conveys the same depth of information but is less offensive, then we should go for it. Using crude language is not so fundamental a part of protesting that it must be not merely discussed but also demonstrated. El T 01:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, these four photo are NOT a cross section of protest. All four photos are of young, white, english speaking folks protesting on international issues. LegCircus 04:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Criticism regarding the white-and-international-issues accepted. I managed to dig up an image from the Million Worker March which shows a number of non-white individuals in the crowd for a domestic issue, and will be swapping out the bottom image for it (since the breasts one is fairuse, and not free license). SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Because there are a (very) few people who do this (protest naked), does that make it sufficient enough to make is representative of the word "protest"? Also, is protest really a recent phenomenon? Where are the 1950s civil rights marches? The pictures are all very recent examples. And why are all the pictures depicting traditional left-side causes? Is protest only a tool of the left? Don't pro-life people protest? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.107.179.90 (talk • contribs).

Again we appreciate the discussion, because it does end up rounding out the photo coverage. Your point makes a good point - I have seen right-wing protests before, and went through my archives and found a photo from this past February 1 of a right-wing group at the Supreme Court that I'm going to add to the article shortly. The topless protest photo, however, as well as the large photo from A16, are staying. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

As someone who has attended a large number of protests on a wide range of issues, and in a wide variety of forms, I fully agree that the pictures depicting profantiy and nudity are not in any way a representative depiction of the topic, and serve to distract from the broader subject rather than illustrate it. An encyclopedic topic is not well served by focusing illustrations on perceived extremes associated with it, rather than illustrations that address the focus of the article.

Additionally, the focus on demonstrations and marches fails to illustrate the very wide range of forms of protest. Finally, the selection of photos are all from just the past few years, and set only Canada and the U.S.—which is not reflective of a world–wide viewpoint on the topic.

I'll try to see what I can do about finding a more representative range (temporally, geographically and topically) of images. —GrantNeufeld 00:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Additionally the pictures currently used appear to be very recent examples and not geographically diverse... possibly all taken by the same photographer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.56.139.45 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Explanation of revision from 00:15, 7 February 2006

So as to better explain my rationale for this revision...

The biggest change on this revision was removal of Image:Protest.jpg. The reason for removal has nothing to do with the content of the photo, but with the licensing of the photo - it's a fair-use image. According to Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, we should always use a free alternative to a fair use image if one is available. Image:Breasts-not-bombs.jpg is a free alternative to Image:Protest.jpg, as Image:Breasts-not-bombs.jpg is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 license.

I'm just glad we finally have a similar free-license alternative to that fair-use image. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Status of Protest on Wikipedia

Wikipedia it seems does not delineate between freedom of expression and the right to protest and vandalism. Let me be frank, since perhaps some of the WPs and contributors to this article might be a bit more open minded. Wikipedia is supposed to be a viable source of information. In my mind it must also be an "appropriate" source of information. But if we can't conduct peaceful, nonviolent protests on the texts of actual articles which people find disturbing (i.e. queef) what kind of message are we sending across to people who wish to protest but find themselves being blocked as a result of what editors consider "vandalism". I agree with the sentiments expressed by some that a template that has been termed as "nonsense" (Wiki-Protest) should be allowed in order for editors, WPs, and contributors to protest what they consider as harsh, racist, or inappropriate wikipedia articles in a manner outside of the normal spectrum for wikipedia. What do you all think about this? A friend of mine was blocked recently for participating in this kind of protest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dominick Turner (talk • contribs).

I think that this really has nothing to do with the subject at hand and should be discussed elsewhere, like perhaps the other talk pages that you cross-posted this to. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Highly POV

This article is astoundingly POV. There are 8 photos used. 3 are profane and objectionable, and worse are not indicative of protesters. I was at the 9-24-06 march in DC. I walked the whole route of the march, and saw about 12 people engaged in "Breasts, not bombs." Using a conservative estimate of 240,000 participants, that would make them .005% of the participants. Same figures for the guy with the f-bomb sign (who I have seen in DC twice). This is not "many." We can either believe my anecdote, or we can believe yours Ben Schumin, or we can rely on scientific studies on the use of profanity during protest. Failing such a scientific study, the topic should be relegated to a subsection, merely noting that some folks use such profanity, without photos.

5 photos are from the U.S. And many of the issues reflected are issues on the U.S. agenda right now (primarily the war and abortion). Photo of South Africans defying water privitization? Riots in France? Autonomy protests in Oaxaca?

7 of the photos are from the last 4 years. The second-oldest photo is from the March 03 global war protests. Civil rights marches of the 50s and 60s? The Flint sit-in in the 30s? Even Martin Luther's act should have mention.

All 8 of the photos are from public demonstrations (for which there is already an article). Vandalism of draft boards in the 60s? Bombings of U.S. facilities in the 70s? Soldiers refusing to deploy? Ballot initiatives? Squatting in public spaces? Filibusters? Protest takes many forms. This article should be a supercategory for demonstrations, including them and others.

This article needs a lot of work, something I would be happy to work on if I have time in the future. I'd be happy to work with you Ben, but I'm concerned, judging by this talk page, that you have taken an undue ownership of the article, telling people the objectionable photos will stay despite repeated criticisms of their inclusion.WallyCuddeford 00:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism of draft boards in the 60s? Bombings of U.S. facilities in the 70s? Soldiers refusing to deploy? Ballot initiatives? Squatting in public spaces? Filibusters? If you can find some good public domain or free-license images for such things, then let's add some more images.

Also, I have no problem in removing the "Breasts not bombs" image from the article, as it's also in three other articles, so it's already quite well-loved. Plus I don't particularly like being locked into a specific caption, which that image requires.

As for the other two that you consider objectionable, take in mind that Wikipedia is not censored, but I have seen a LOT of protest signs that use profanity, and the "fucking for virginity" sign it seems is in there more for historical reasons, being Vietnam-era. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)