Talk:Activism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Activism article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject on Sociology 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 Activism, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
To-do: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
    Priority 1 (top) 

    Contents

    [edit] Social activism?

    Wow, first person to write here.

    Shouldn't there be a Social Activism - as in activism conducted by groups of people to affect a change by getting the public support for a cause. This differs from political activism where you wish to dialogue with politicians to get governments to take action.

    An example could be Clean up Australia Day which started in 1990.

    I bring this up because I would like to write an article on "West Papuan Social Activism" -- to:

    • list such groups from around the world;
    • discuss possible reasons why there seems to be a lack of any such group in the US (and its not apathy from the American people; I'm thinking more like the vested interests of Freeport, Indonesia, and the Ford Foundation);
    • and itemize what constructive actions such groups could work towards.

    Daeron 18:06, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

    [edit] Watcher's comments

    People, I think that the following:

    Activism, in a general sense, can be described as involvement in action to bring about change, be it social, political, environmental, or other change. This action is in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial argument.

    is what the activists call what they are doing, but I do not think that this makes for a quality encyclopedia definition. Thing is, anything anybody is doing is causing some kind of change. What the CEO of KillingNature Inc is doing is "change" too, maybe just not exactly of the kind that activists would prefer, and to judge what is and is not change by someone's criteria is POV. Needless to say, we need to keep it as a self-description, but we should not have it as a basic definition. A better definition should be more specific to what 'activism' really entails, in opposition to other human activities. I think part of it entails something like participating in activities that would not be considered a "legitimate occupation" for an individual. Basically, there are some occupations, sometimes paid ones, that do not "qualify" as a real "job", sort of like protesting against Walmart, fighting against wishy-washy school curriculum, or training suicide bombers for Hamas. So if you cannot say that this guy has such and such job, you would say he is an "activist" for whatever it is that he is trying to accomplish. I am sure there are other symptoms, sort of like a "deviant" goal of the activity. Anyway, I will try working on it later, but I just wanted to open up the discussion about it. Let's make this article more analytical and less of a teach-in-truth-out kind of broadside. Watcher 09:14, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)


    Activism is about social and/or political change, and many acts of CEOs do not do this. If a CEO does (for example if (s)he orders his/her company to start offering same-sex partner benefits, or if (s)he orders his/her company to deny such benefits if they currently exist) then it would be activism. Activism is an act, not necessairly an occupation. There are activists whose primary jobs are activist related, but I don't see how this would be a "non-legitimate occupation" --- and such a statement would not be NPOV. Likewise, trying to define activism as supporting a "deviant" goal is not NPOV. Because activism generally involves advocating for change, it often does try to change or challenge the accepted standards of a society. However, "deviant" is a loaded term. --SecretAgent 02:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Removed content

    In contemporary use, "activism" tends to be a word associated with the actions and ideologies of those on the political left... An activist may be called a freedom fighter by some, and a terrorist by others, depending on which side of the political fence is making the observation...An activist may be called a freedom fighter by some, and a terrorist by others, depending on which side of the political fence is making the observation.

    Removed this content as it appears to be original, unsupported research. Activism comes in all flavors, from left to right, so claiming that the word is associated with the political left wing is absurd; and the comment about "freedom fighters" and "terrorists" seems highly POV. Perhaps there may be another way to phrase it, but one should cite sources in any case. Let's talk about what activism is or isn't, not about what it might be subjectively called by an unnamed party. --Viriditas | Talk 28 June 2005 13:30 (UTC)
    The first sentence is debatable, but it seems to have some truth to it, particularly in the United States. The second sentence doesn't seem to be particularly problematic. Certainly people use either positive and negative terms for activists depending on whether they are praising or condemning them. Though I suppose that example is relevant mainly to particular kinds of activists, like guerillas. Dforest 08:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Methods of activism and Forms of protest

    Many of the methods listed under Protest#Forms_of_protest are also Methods of activism. I added protests and strikes. I would like to hear what other WPs think about merging them. What belongs in which article? Should there be a hierarchical list? Dforest 08:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

    There are 4 articles where many forms of activism could be listed: activism, direct action, demonstration, and protest. I would say activism is the broadest category, so I would suggest putting actions that would fit in those other articles into those articles and putting links to those lists in the list in activism, to avoid repetition. I reorganized the list in protest but I think many of those should be in direct action or demonstration with a link to those lists in the protest article.
    As far as the sorting of the list, I think putting similar categories nearer to each other is better than listing them alphabetically. At the top of the list I would put that which is the most popular form of protest or whatever the article is about. Edno 05:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Sweden/Finland

    A famous mailing list for contributors to the Linux operating system is called "Linux activists". This is based not only on the general English meaning of the word, but is also a play on Finnish history, where those were called activists who started at the turn of the century 1900 to call for national independence (from Russia), if need be by armed revolution. Finland eventually declared itself independent in 1917 after the October Revolution. In Sweden the term "activist" surfaced during World War I, describing a fraction (including the Royal family) that wanted "a more active neutrality" in support of Germany. This movement was politically dead after 1915. Both meanings of "activists" are associated with the political right (German-friendly, anti-Czarist and anti-Bolshevik). --LA2 03:18, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] "Activist Issues"

    I believe this list should be removed. There are about a million different acitivst issues. What makes these so special? Unless the authors can state some criteria for putting names on this list, the list is pretty useless. --Griot

    [edit] Ethical Shopping

    I don't think ethical shopping can be considered a form of activism. It doesn't contribute to changing society. If this were true then going to live in the woods in a cabin could be considered activism. I think activism has to do with somehow seeing to change the rules, laws, or social norms of society. I think promoting ethical shopping would be a form of activism. But not engaging in ethical shopping by itself. A link to the forms of non-violent resistance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_resistance might be good to add at the end as well. -- Chris Williams, December 18, 2005, 3:46pm EST

    I think financially supporting companies, stores, etc. that agree with your values can definitely be an "intentional action to bring about social or political change" (as the article defines activism). I do agree that activism is often seen as being more confrontational than that, though. --SecretAgent 02:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

    --> Though a specific list may be non-conclusive it still servers a very valuable purpose of providing examples for understanding (just as seen in dictionary's where a word is demonstrated in a sentence..)

    [edit] controversial issue?

    I think that activism does not always have to be on one side of a controversial issue and I think it is not the core of activism. I will therefore remove that sentence some time soon if nobody strongly disagrees.

    [edit] controversial issue?

    I think that activism does not always have to be on one side of a controversial issue and I think it is not the core of activism. I will therefore remove that sentence some time soon if nobody strongly disagrees.

    [edit] Bias

    This page is heavily biased. Why is it that in the "mainstream" (liberal) press, people who vigorously pursue liberal causes are called "activists", while people who vigorously puruse conservative causes "extremists" or "fanatics" and the like? This should be discussed.--jrwilheim@yahoo.com

    [edit] Flaming Activists

    I found the reference to Flamingantisme on the French wikipedia. I have asked the person who posted this (Roby) for a citation. But also [1] and [2] look very interesting on this, but my dutch is quite limited. Harrypotter 21:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

    Belgian separatists are not the first thing which comes to mind when I see the phrase Flaming Activists. The English word is Fleming or Flemish; it's Vlaams (or variations thereon) in their own language. Incidentally, when I first saw the sentence about the Flamingant movement, my first thought was that it was related to Flamingoing. I guess I was wrong. Argyriou 20:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    I know it was very bad joke!Harrypotter 14:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Social Activist

    Can someone PLEASE delete the article social activist. It is subjective and useless. Bytebear 00:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Removing External Link to Wikia

    I am removing the External Link to Wikia with this guideline as cause. The Wikia area in question is a wiki with only 2 edits in the past 4 weeks. -- JossBuckle Swami 22:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Judicial activism?

    The section on judicial activism is incredibly POV--judicial activism is not ordinarily considered a type of activism; it's a recent invention to selectively characterize judicial decisionmaking. At most it should be a footnote to a separate article on judicial activism. --lquilter 22:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Activist categories?

    The Category:Activists are rather confused. If you're interested in working through sensible category schemes for activists & related people categories, please join discussion at Category talk:Activists.

    [edit] Merge of Youth voice into this article

    I have proposed a merge of Youth voice into this article. I'd even suggest a simple redirect. The Youth voice article openly states that it is a neologism. It also claims that it is a "fairly common" neologism, but provides no source or evidence for that assertion. The term is also used rather anachronistically through most of the article, applying it to things that would never have used the term in their day, whereas "activism" would have been. The article is simply about a narrow form of activism using a term that I suspect most people would not search for. Agent 86 22:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

    Opposed There are more than 370 google scholar hits[3] for the term "youth voice" - it is not a neologism. The article is poorly written, because the term embraces far more than simply involving youth in activism. It would be inappropriate to merge the youth voice into the activism article. - Freechild 22:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
    P.S. Agent 86, I can't help but think you nominated the article for a merger in order to circumnavigate the talkheader. - Freechild 17:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
    The talkheader on which talk page, this one or the "youth voice" one? How? And for what purpose? I completely fail to understand what you're accusing me of. If you think I have some ulterior motive, I take umbrage at the insuation. Agent 86 10:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    The talkheader on the discussion page, which clearly states that it is not for general discussion about the article's subject - which you have circumnavigated with your proposal, and creating a seperate discussion here. It doesn't matter now though - your comment clearly shows you didn't have anything else in mind. - Freechild 15:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, that header on the other talk page means that people aren't supposed to treat the talk page like a chat-room to discuss the issue of "youth voice". It is entirely appropriate to talk about the merits of the subject as an encyclopedic article or likewise. What I did is also in keeping with the directions at WP:MERGE. Agent 86 19:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, I rewrote the article, and your proposal is no longer valid. Would you consider removing it? - Freechild 13:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

    If no one has anything further to add to this conversation, I will remove the tag in one week. - Freechild 01:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] derogatory term

    "activism" is just another word for "democratic participation", that is, persons actively participating politically. I have found that it is often used in disgust by those speaking it as if to marginalize active participation. "Those activists causing trouble". As if they were abnormal for not sticking to merely voting. [[User:67.53.78.15 04:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)]] 22:45, 05 Mar 2007 (UTC)

    It is certainly considered a derogatory term, especially by people who shun group activity in favor of individualism. For people who value the individual as opposed to the community, activists pose a threat to individual freedom. To these people, activists believe that they are the ones who may dictate to others how life should be either citing absurd notions of "inherent" human rights (on the left) or "God given" dictates (on the right). Activists, on all political spectrum, distort Government to their own purposes, using it rob individuals of their freedoms. The result is a tragic tyranny of the majority, where a select few activists (read "self-appointed leaders of the community"), lead the more numerous and more gullible voters with a series of over-simplified political slogans down the path of serfdom to the will of "the community".