Talk:Civil disorder

Are "civil unrest" and "civil strife" really synonyms of "civil disorder"?
These terms are somewhat elastic, but I think "civil disorder" is "disorderly conduct" (indeed a law-enforcement term), usually by a group of civil activists, and usually in the course of a planned and locally conducted protest action. In contrast, to me "civil unrest" and "civil strife" are like precursors to civil war, as in "The Peace Monitoring Group (PMG) on Bougainville in Papua New Guinea was brought about by the civil unrest on the island in the 1990s" (History of Bougainville), "The following thirty years of civil strife came to be known as the Troubles" (History of Northern Ireland), and "Tensions finally reaching the boiling point on 21 October 1993 when President Ndadaye was assassinated, throwing the country into a period of civil strife " (Burundi genocide). Civil unrest and strife are not planned, they may involve a whole country, and the people involved wouldn't think of themselves as "activists". --Lambiam 17:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

""
The usage of is under discussion, see talk:Public Disturbance (band) -- 65.92.181.39 (talk) 03:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Last sentence
We didn't have any elections in October 2008 (either October 2007 or 2011) --Kantischüler (talk) 11:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You'r right, it was 2007. I fixed it and added a ref. WikiWisePowder (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Over-reliance upon one source.
The article is based almost entirely on what is written about crowds in the US Army's Field Manuals. There are social psychologists, such as colleagues Dr John Drury of the University of Sussex and Dr Chris Cocking of the University of Brighton, who have quite different characterisations of the feelings, motivations and behaviours of those in crowds. Broadly, they present them as being substantially more rational and consciously-directed than this article describes. Perhaps this article should be revised to give this account of crowd psychology, as well as other creditable opinions that can be found. 82.6.123.105 (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

18 U.S. Code § 232.Definitions Civil Disorder
For purposes of this chapter: (1)The term “civil disorder” means any public disturbance involving acts of violence by assemblages of three or more persons, which causes an immediate danger of or results in damage or injury to the property or person of any other individual. Moralcompassion (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Ambiguous and biased wordage
Civil disorder, also known as civil disturbance or civil unrest, is    "an activity"     arising from a mass act of civil disobedience

"An activity" does not clarify what activity would constitute a civil disorder. It could encompass any range of motion. Needs clarification as per US Code. (Ie an activity of violence, vandalism or destruction of property or harm of persons) Moralcompassion (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

"hostile" is also not clarification enough. Must be more specific. Moralcompassion (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

"demonstration"
Is not an act of civil unrest in and of itself. Moralcompassion (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Demonstration is not an act of "civil disobedience". Overly broad definition and lacking neutrality in wordage. Moralcompassion (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Grammar and Punctuation
There are a number of grammar issues that concern me here. Easily rectified, but I wanted to bring it to everyone's attention. Here's an example. Errors that I have noticed I have put in italics for ease of the reader:

What is a "vengeful?" is this correct?

Additionally, another quote concerns me:

There are others in the article, but I won't quote them here; if you're interested, you can find them yourself. Obviously, these are all easily rectified (something I will probably do soon if that's alright), but I'm concerned over who put them there in the first place.

Issues with Neutrality
This is undoubtedly an issue that has been covered already. However, a number of quotes – one quote in particular – have me concerned over the neutrality of the article:

This quote is extremely prejudiced in that it casts all civil unrest in a negative light. It also implies that civil unrest is unnecessary and detrimental to "civilized" society, which isn't true in the slightest, but I'm not going to rant about my political views right now. The wording in this phrase also concerns me very much, particularly the "in any form" the author decided to nudge in there. And sure, the quote is cited, but I'm worried it was cited from a potentially biased source. I can't check where they got it from as the url isn't shown in the references section. Chordle (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Misinfo
Rtw:murder this acticule is just pure misinformation protestors are not enganging in unlawful,terroist, acts we have a right to protest.cop willingly paticpate in violence they decided to be a cop and decided to put themselves in danger.protestors are not manipulatedwhite people do not get to decide what are acceptiable ways someone should grieve and the protestors are targeting buisnessis that do what theft why do we let some instances of rioting like after a football game but not when black lives are being murdered?. Thefirstoneonwiki (talk) 07:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Crowd?
Anyone else think this section and its subsections are really poorly inserted here? It's a third of this article and it's entirely from a single random army manual from 1985? That seems pretty sloppy and smacks a little of original research of a primary source. It's especially concerning considering this is written from an adversarial combative perspective, not an academic, and seems to have only found its way into this article fairly recently. I'd recommend pulling it out or finding a better source. Let me know what you think. --2600:1700:ABB0:ED90:1813:B656:EF6F:CB61 (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

2008 Republican National Convention Protests
So in this wikipedia article massive violent unrests are called "protests"?? Are you kidding me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.119.18.147 (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

This article is extremely biased and also only deals with the US
Wikipedia is supposed to be a place of free knowledge a universal source of knowledge its supposed to tell universal unrest and be a place to learn about that knowledge.

This article breaks much of these rules. For starters it deals completely with the US, treats US government sources as the bees knees of sources of scholarly citations, uses POV pushing words and phrases and has an entire section dedicated to giving the US government definition of a worldview. We need to clean up this article to be more neutral and also stop United States Government definitions of civil uprising, instead we should use scholarly definitions those are reliable citations. We stop referring to those who engage in civil uprising "agitators" or other nonsense.

In a nutshell we need to get this article to be more neutral, use scholarly academic citations, and stop using the US governments definitions of civil unrest as a source. Vallee01 (talk) 07:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Mahsa Amini Protest In Saqqez.jpg

Social unrest is not civil disorder
Noting here, that social unrest currently redirects to 'Civil disorder', the article of this talk page, but these are two different terms: China (PRC) and perhaps a few other countries in South-East Asia use the phrase 'social unrest' as a euphemism for any kind of protest involving a number of people that is not tiny or small. - Mardus /talk 03:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)