Talk:Nonviolence

Czechoslovakia's non-violent defense against the Soviet occupation

(reported from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robynthehode )

Thank you for your reply. You are right that the article is a little too long. But, if I am not mistaken, the example of Czechoslovakia against the Soviet Union is the first, and so far only one, in history.

In general, it is believed that the Soviet Union won this war although many sources prove the contrary. Putting them together requires a little space ...

It seems useful to me to spread the idea that one state can defend itself against invasion by another, much more powerful, by non-violent means.

It cannot always work and certainly not the same way in Czechoslovakia in 1968, but it can make people think and seek other solutions.

Cordially --Ktokolvek5 (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

   Ktokolvek5 Thanks for the post but you should have posted on the article talk page not here. It may be the case that an article on non-violent resistance in Czechoslovakia should be written but there is already an article on the Prague Spring and a more general one on Nonviolent resistance. You will need to create the article but before doing that you should read the relevant help article on creating articles WP:AFC. You will also need to read about reliable sources WP:RS and get advice about the encyclopaedic style that is required as well as appropriate content. Some links are WP:5P, WP:V. You will need to be careful about WP:ADVOCACY. Your reverted text does not achieve the necessary standards for Wikipedia I believe. If you want help with aspects of Wikipedia you don't understand you can use the 'Help' link on the left menu or ask any editor. Robynthehode (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

   {{notifinv||Robynthehode]]

Hello. I read the articles you mention. Indeed, the Czechoslovak nonviolent defense against the Soviet army should be mentioned there. Strange that this is not the case. In general, the Russo-Czechoslovak War of 1968 is treated as a classical war not very important, in fact. It is believed that the 600,000 soldiers of the Soviet bloc crushed any resistance from the Czechs and Slovaks. However, the article that I am proposing for publication is a kaleidoscope of testimonies on these events, testimonies considered as reliable “secondary sources” (history books, important newspaper articles), but this kaleidoscope is reorganized differently. It offers a non-traditional look at this unique historical reality. On August 22, 1968, the state government invited its entire population to respond to the foreign invasion by non-violent means! It is unique. And he asked the army to stay in the barracks as the Czechoslovak army was considered the best in the Soviet bloc and the soldiers wanted to fight. This seems to me to largely justify the recounting of this story in an article on nonviolence. This article is published in French Wikipedia, article on nonviolence. It has been widely discussed by administrators. I added a personal opinion at the start which I can take away. In my opinion, the rest should be acceptable and be submitted to the readers. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, its users can enrich the articles. Censorship contradicts this fundamental principle. I intend to publish a reduced version of this text to about half. Cordially Ktokolvek5 (talk) 06:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

   Ktokolvek5 Again any post related to an article's content should be posted on the article's talk page rather than an editor's talk page such as mine here. This allows other editors to comment. Whether something is published on another Wikipedia site (French in this case) does not justify it being published on English Wikipedia. You can, of course, publish a changed version of your text but please note anything other than a very short mention may be seen as WP:UNDUE for a general article about nonviolence. This is why I suggested creating your own article or you can add to Prague Spring or another article. All additions must be encyclopaedic in content and style and include reliable sources WP:RS. I would suggest you post your re-worked text on the article talk page and ask for comments from other editors. Thanks. Robynthehode (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

{{notifinv||Robynthehode]] « Again any post related to an article's content should be posted on the article's talk page rather than an editor's talk page such as mine here. » OK. I copy it there.

: {{notifinv||Robynthehode]] 14 August 2020

Bonjour,

To answer your objections, it seems to me that this subject has its place in "a general article about nonviolence" because this article does not speak only of the philosophy of non-violence: "for example, Tolstoyan and Gandhian non violence is both a philosophy and strategy for social change that rejects the use of violence, but at the same time it sees nonviolent action (also called civil resistance ”) as an alternative to passive acceptance of oppression or armed struggle against it. The article also talks about revolution and, to my surprise, admits that a war can become "necessary and just".

Publishing it elsewhere would not be a good solution: it seems to me essential to demonstrate to people interested in non-violence that non-violence could be used successfully even against military occupation. It cannot always work and certainly not the same way in Czechoslovakia in 1968, but it can make people think and seek other solutions.

You argue: “the length and detail is undue for a general article on nonviolence. "

You deleted the first version of my text. I followed your request and reduced the article. However, since this is a unique subject in the history of non-violence, a “very short mention” cannot suffice to expose it.

Do you have a proposal how to get there?

As for the remarks on the WP form of my text “However your edit is not written in an encyclopaedic style”, I have already had to answer them in France. My version, often rewritten, ended up being accepted and approved as supported by reliable sources. Of course, they are French and Slovak, but that does not make them less credible.

Please restore my item. I admit being surprised by the brutality of your interventions, quite paradoxical in an article on non-violence -:) You delete my text instead of leaving it to the appreciation of the users, even if it means asking them with a banner s' they don't think he's out of place here.

Thanks.

--Ktokolvek5 (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Ktokolvek5. I have posted on your user talk page helpful ways forward. To reiterate I think your edit is undue. Please read WP:UNDUE to understand my objection. The length and style of your text is not suitable for the Nonviolence article. As I have objected to its inclusion the process in Wikipedia is to discuss WP:BRD, bringing in other editors via WP:3O or WP:RFC if necessary. The way forward, I think, is to create a new article and then write a summary sentence for the Nonviolence article with the link to the new article. This process will have to be achieved through consensus but I don't have any initial objections to a new article as I have already stated. Again as I posted on your talk page you can find advice in creating a new article at WP:YFA. If you don't want to create a new article then you will have to follow any consensus decision about the inclusion of your text in the Nonviolence article but you shouldn't restore the text without first having achieved consensus WP:CONSENSUS. Following Wikipedia policy is not being brutal it is making sure that articles are edited or created that are of high quality and accord with the Wikipedia encyclopaedic mission. As I said on your user talk page please do not include your text again otherwise are may fall foul of WP:WAR and/or WP:3RR. You may also like to read more widely on Wikipedia policy by going to WP:5P

{{notifinv||Robynthehode]]

Robynthehode, you deleted my article again. This article discusses the possibility of using nonviolence against a military invasion. You want to take it from the article on nonviolence to another article where hardly anyone would read it. The pretext of disproportion does not hold water. I shortened my text but, on the Internet, the length of a chapter does not matter. If you don't want to read it, you can skip it with a single click. It's not like a book printed on paper. Now, you've just deleted a summary of my text so quickly that you probably haven't bothered to read it. What is your motivation? In countries that called themselves communists - where I lived until I was 28 - censorship was pervasive, vigilant and severe. But its rules were clear, almost immutable, so we could get around them. Wikipedia is a formidable project, founded on democracy but, curiously, I come up against multiple censors, sometimes fierce, whose motivations are diverse and not always decipherable. With total disregard for freedom of opinion. Where did the First Amendment to the US Constitution go? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktokolvek5 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Ktokolvek5 To take your points in turn: 1. Whether anyone reads an article on Wikipedia or not is irrelevant to the policies of Wikipedia. 2. Whether readers want to read your contribution or not is irrelevant to Wikipedia policy. 3. My motivation for reverting your edits are clear. I am (attempting) to follow Wikipedia policies about inclusion of material. You are not. Your efforts seem to be about WP:NOTADVOCACY. 4. Wikipedia is not censored WP:CENSORED. I have given you options for the inclusion of your material and you seem to want to ignore these. I am not against the subject of your contributions and think you should create an article. Wikipedia may not be censored but it does have rules to allow the encyclopaedia to be edited in a way that follows the core policies WP:5P. 6. Wikipedia is not an excercise in democracy WP:NOTDEM. 7. Wikipedia is not about free speech WP:NOTFREESPEECH, it is an encyclopaedia. It is not a forum for discussing ideas nor for expressing ones personal opinions WP:NPOV. I have added links to all my previous communications with you but you seem to have failed to read them and understand them. I have also given you options to challenge my views on your contribution and my understanding of Wikipedia policy - WP:3O, WP:RFC. You can even go to WP:DRN. What you cannot do is keep adding your contribution (whether re-edited by yourself or not) without achieving consensus WP:CONSENSUS. If you can't follow Wikipedia rules then maybe Wikipedia is not the place for you or this specific information you want to include. Write a blog or create a website. I ask you again (and I am giving you lots of chances here) please read all the relevant Wikipedia policy articles to understand why I have reverted your edits and why you must follow the accepted process to resolve the dispute between us. Adding your text or a variation of it again will lead me to report you to admins because of WP:3RR and WP:WAR Thanks Robynthehode (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

{{notifinv||Robynthehode]]

I translated from French an article that I had published on WP, after much discussion about its content, its form and its "reliable sources". Your French colleagues ended up accepting it. They follow the same WP rules that you you say to follow.

You immediately deleted this text claiming that it did not match WP rules and, most importantly, was too long for the article on non-violence.

So I reduced it in half and reposted it.

You deleted it again immediately, before any other Wikipedians commented on it. However, the "Talk" function is intended for discussing new texts.

This time you claimed that this article should not be in the article on non-violence, but rather in the one on the Prague Spring, Czechoslovakia, or elsewhere. Yet, it deals with nonviolent defense in a unique historical context which is worth mentioning.

If the editors of French and German military journals thought that it seems useful to spread the idea that one state can defend itself against invasion by another, much more powerful, by non-violent means, why think that the WP article on non-violence should miss this topic?

In response to your comments on "disproportion", I reduced my article to a simple summary of a few lines. You deleted it again immediately and started threatening to report me to the administrators.

You want to get rid of this topic (and me) by pushing me to post it somewhere else or go discuss it on a more general forum.

Contrary to what you think, I read the texts on WP that you indicated to me and even others. You don't always respect them, for example:

( Wikipedia: Consensus)  : "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view) or the laws of the United States (where Wikipedia is hosted)." You cannot claim that my article deserves to be deleted for any of these reasons.

“Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus, which is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals, i.e., the five pillars. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ”

“When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus. "

But you do not allow any discussion on the associated "talk pages".

Finally, you claim that "Wikipedia is not an excercise in democracy WP: NOTDEM". I did not written that WP was a "democratic state". But it is based on democratic principles, ie the equality of stakeholders and their freedom of expression. Now, when you write "I am giving you lots of chances here", you seem to think you are superior to me.

Please reconsider your position and publish my last summary, even if it means proposing a modification or asking for additional sources. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, this article has its place in the chapter on non-violence:

Czechoslovakia's non-violent defense against the Soviet occupation

A small central European state of 15 million people was able to counter the military occupation of an empire of 250,000,000 people without violence.

Most observers believe that the Czechs and Slovaks lost the war, waged against them in August 1968 by the Soviet Union and its forced allies, but is it so sure? In reality, the bloodless defense prevented the occupier from achieving their objectives (ref>Pauline Joris, "The invasion of Czechoslovakia by Warsaw Pact troops - August 20-21, 1968", New Europe Wednesday, August 20, 2008, http://www.nouvelle-europe.eu/node/500.</ref>

It seems useful to spread the idea that one state can defend itself against invasion by another, much more powerful, by non-violent means.

It cannot always work and certainly not the same way in Czechoslovakia in 1968, but it can make people think and seek other solutions.

The decomposition of the USSR may have started with the attack on Czechoslovakia by the Russian army and those of its vassals in August 1968. The aggression of the most sincere ally of the Soviet Union has raised doubts and unprecedented protests in Moscow and throughout the Eastern Bloc that no repression has been able to mitigate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktokolvek5 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment on Czechoslovakia's non-violent defense against the Soviet occupation

The dispute is whether the text Ktokolvek5 wants to include about the 'Czechoslovakia's non-violent defense against the Soviet occupation' is undue according to WP:UNDUE. My argument is that this article is about the religious and philosophical theories of nonviolence and adding a section about a specific nonviolent campaign as suggested is undue. There are other articles that cover some of the information suggested for inclusion such as Non-violent resistance and Prague Spring but I have suggested creating a new article as the best option. Ktokolvek5 has reiterated numerous times that it is too important a subject to be included elsewhere. This is I think also against WP:NOTADVOCACY. I have also commented that the text for inclusion is not up to Wikipedia style standard for an encyclopaedia. Robynthehode (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

{{notifinv||Robynthehode]]

The article we are discussing:

Czechoslovakia's non-violent defense against the Soviet occupation

A small central European state of 15 million people was able to counter the military occupation of an empire of 250,000,000 people without violence.

Most observers believe that the Czechs and Slovaks lost the war, waged against them in August 1968 by the Soviet Union and its forced allies, but is it so sure? In reality, the bloodless defense prevented the occupier from achieving their objectives (ref>Pauline Joris, "The invasion of Czechoslovakia by Warsaw Pact troops - August 20-21, 1968", New Europe Wednesday, August 20, 2008, http://www.nouvelle-europe.eu/node/500.</ref>

It seems useful to spread the idea that one state can defend itself against invasion by another, much more powerful, by non-violent means.

It cannot always work and certainly not the same way in Czechoslovakia in 1968, but it can make people think and seek other solutions[1].

The decomposition of the USSR may have started with the attack on Czechoslovakia by the Russian army and those of its vassals in August 1968. The aggression of the most sincere ally of the Soviet Union has raised doubts and unprecedented protests in Moscow and throughout the Eastern Bloc that no repression has been able to mitigate[2].

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktokolvek5 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The article « Nonviolence» defines non-violence like “the personal practice (which) may be based on moral, religious or spiritual principles, or the reasons for it may be purely strategic or pragmatic”. « Nonviolence has "active" or "activist" elements, in that believers generally accept the need for nonviolence as a means to achieve political and social change. »

The introduction of the article "non-violence" continues: “Fuller surveys may be found in the entries on civil resistance, nonviolent resistance and nonviolent revolution.”

This is exactly what happened in Czechoslovakia during the Soviet occupation of 1968. Use of active non-violence, “purely strategic or pragmatic, for political ends”, “as an alternative to passive acceptance of oppression or armed struggle against it”.

All concepts evolve and the introduction of this article on non-violence shows very well how it passes from philosophy to religion then to social and political struggles. Czechoslovak nonviolent defense against the USSR is a logical next step. Why hide it?

If you can make nonviolent revolutions why not admit a description of “nonviolent war”?

I really don't understand why my brief description of non-vionent defense against Soviet occupation should not be part of this article. This mode of defense was the logical continuation of the Prague Spring. The Czechs and Slovaks did not want a return to the totalitarian Stalinist regime. They chose non-violence “as a means to achieve political and social change”.

--Ktokolvek5 (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Ktokolvek5 Comments on your 'argument' and why including your text is undue. Some of these points I have made before but to summarise them for other editors to view: Firstly there are numerous articles that mention the subject of your edit: Nonviolent resistance, Prague Spring, Protests of 1968, 1968 Red Square demonstration. So the issue is substantially covered. Secondly, including your edit in the Nonviolence article is undue precisely because no other campaigns of nonviolent resistance are given a separate section. If your favoured one was included then all major ones should be for balance. This is why your edit inclusion is undue in this specific article. There is an article called Nonviolent resistance to cover these actions and campaigns whereas the Nonviolence article although mentioning 'active' nonviolence does not list any except for a limited number of in sentence examples. Thirdly, by not including your favoured campaign in the Nonviolence article (this one) does not mean the subject is trying to be suppressed or hidden as it is mentioned in all the articles already listed. To claim that I am trying to hide the Czechoslovakia resistance information is unfounded. Fourthly, I have suggested a perfectly reasonable option of creating a new article with a short link from the Nonviolence article so any reader can go to the new article for the in depth information. Having in depth articles as separate articles is perfectly normal in Wikipedia and prevents articles being too long and detailed. Not everyone wants to read about all aspects of a subject in one article; that is why articles are linked. Fifthly, your sources are problematic. The Peter Bu one is not linked so I (and other editors) cannot check whether it supports your text (and I was unable to find it with an internet search - so please provide a link). The NYT one is a report about the 40th anniversary protest of 1968 done by activists in Moscow in 2008. It has no in-depth details or an analysis about the 1968 protests so is little more than a report about the 1968 event. So this one cannot be used to support your various claims about the effectiveness of nonviolent resistance or 'nonviolent war' (which is a term I've not seen before please state your source). Because of these reasons I believe your text is undue for this specific article (and to reiterate I do not object to the inclusion of properly sourced text added to the other articles mentioned or to a new article. However any new text added in other articles or in a new one is still subject to consensus. I will leave it for other editors to make comments. Robynthehode (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Robynthehode

Hello,

I consider some of your objections admissible and will take them into account.

However, you wrote to me: ”You can, of course, publish a changed version of your text but please note anything other than a very short mention may be seen as WP: UNDUE for a general article about nonviolence.”

I wrote a “very short mention” but now you object to any reminder of the 1968 Soviet-Czechoslovak war. My first version of the article was marked as “vandalism” and deleted by the “bot” 08:44, 12 August 2020 ClueBot NG (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ClueBot_NG#Team) which I think is dangerous, but that's another debate. You admitted that I acted in good faith but you still refused the publication of this text by saying that it was too long.

I halved it, but you still refused it.

Now my article is just a summary of the first text which is only a few lines long.

You always refuse it. What is the reason for your stubbornness?

Why should the possibility of defending against military occupation by non-violent means not be mentioned in the article on non-violence which lists other cases of use of this form of action?

The article on non-violence even asserts that some wars can be “just”. Doesn't that shock you? The war against Hitler seems to me to have been a “just war” but is it up to an article on non-violence to defend this idea?

Obviously, I still do not see why the Soviet-Czechoslovak war of 1968, where the attacked country defended itself by non-violent means, should not be recalled in the article on non-violence.

--Ktokolvek5 (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Ktokolvek5 I have added a link to the Prague Spring article based on the sentence 'Czechoslovakia's non-violent defense against the Soviet occupation' which was already in this article. The objection for undue is based on what seems to be your insistence that a titled section is created for this movement. Secondly you also don't seem to understand some fundamental things about Wikipedia. 'Assuming good faith' means an editor believes another editor has made an edit with good intentions, it doesn't mean that editor was correct in their edit. Read WP:GOODFAITH. In addition talk pages are not a place to debate the subject of the article. Asking questions such as 'The article on non-violence even asserts that some wars can be “just”. Doesn't that shock you? The war against Hitler seems to me to have been a “just war” but is it up to an article on non-violence to defend this idea?' seems to be an example of wishing to do this. Read WP:TALK. Thirdly, editors. in discussion. can refine their view. This is what I have done and believe the link I have done is sufficient (unless you want to write a more detailed article specifically about the nonviolent opposition to Soviet occupation as I have already suggested). I also said that any changes should be achieved by consensus. There has been no consensus on including your text as a separate section or in great detail. You say 'What is the reason for your stubbornness?' I can equally ask 'What is the reason for your stubbornness for not compromising and accepting my reasonable compromise for you to create a new article and link to it from this one?' You seem to want clear mention of the nonviolent movement against Soviet occupation but don't want to put the work in to create a new article. The movement is already mentioned in this article, I have linked it to Prague Spring. For now that's as good as it gets unless other editors comment here and a different consensus is reached. You can, of course, go to WP:DRN if you want after the RFC has run out. Thanks. Robynthehode (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Robynthehode

Thank you for your explanations.

You have submitted our debate to the other editors. So far, none has intervened. I don't think that authorizes you to conclude that they agree with you.

Thanks to you I read a lot of documents on Czechoslovak nonviolent defense against the Soviet occupation that I did not know until now. I may try to publish a specific article on this subject as you advise me.

This does not change my conviction that the concept of non-violence has evolved over time and that today this subject must also be mentioned in the article dedicated to it. Mentioned briefly as you say, but brought up all the same. WP users, motivated by non-violence, should be able to know this new form, experienced on August 21, 1968.

“Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions.”

--Ktokolvek5 (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Ktokolvek5 I have every justification for saying the article should remain as it is. Read WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD. I have not concluded other editors agree with me. If you think that please quote the text where I say this. No I have just said that the status quo should remain until consensus between other editors says otherwise. Quote mining from Wikipedia doesn't help (especially without a link to where you got it from) because to change policies and guidelines you still need CONSENSUS to change these. So consensus to change policies and then consensus to change the content you want??? To move this forward you should read WP:RFC. It suggests there ways to inform other editors of this dispute to see if they want to comment. An RFC lasts for 30 days. But I am sure if you wanted to take this to Dispute Resolution Noticeboard you could cancel the RFC and open a post there WP:DRN. You may also like to read WP:SPA and WP:ADVOCACY. And finally I am not against the subject of the dispute being known as widely as possible but in the context of Wikipedia the material must be added to articles according to policy and be written in an encyclopaedic way. Robynthehode (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Ktokolvek5, Robynthehode As much as I greatly admire the principled stance of the Czech people against Soviet aggression, and feel that it is highly notable, Robynthehode is clearly correct here. An article about a general phenomenon cannot include detailed descriptions of specific examples without losing focus on its topic. Imagine an article on any general topic: cake baking, heart surgery or swimming, for example. How would it be if people started adding specific examples - "On July 14, 2011, Julie Burns of Westover, Connecticut baked an orange bundt cake." Or, "Joe Franks went in for heart surgery, and came out largely incapacitated." Or "Frank Sims went swimming yesterday." There are countless examples of people engaging in nonviolence and nonviolent resistance. We cannot include them all. If a brief synopsis of one were necessary to illustrate the concept, that is as much as should go in. And I do say "if" because a specific example may not be necessary. I admire your desire to gain recognition for the Czechs, but it should be in the correct spot.Truth Is King 24 (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Somewhat off base example.

The following sentence is not quite right. "For example, if a house is burning down with mice or insects in it, the most harmless appropriate action is to put the fire out, not to sit by and passively let the fire burn.”

Mice and insects can generally escape on their own as easily as being rescued by humans extinguishing a fire. Non-violence does not require such reverence for animal and insect life. Fccjr (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Insects can escape a burning house? Not the ones I've come across. And nonviolence concerns all life, not only life you can talk to or who are large enough to easily become aware of. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)