Talk:Diversity of tactics

Bung it in mainspace
Thanks for the link, I made a couple of edits. It would best just to bung it in main space, in my view.Leutha (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Körner?
Do you think that Theodor Körner's contribution to the debate about the Schutzbund in teh twenties and thirties? Leutha (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow
Wow, this is a superb article. Now I see why: It's in sandbox. Haha. It's a beauty. I would like to follow it when it goes main space.
 * I wonder if most protesters who have discussed diversity of tactics have the same definition as provided here? I always understood the term, in practice, to mean "trying to convince the majority pacifist protesters not to attack and reject the more active smaller-numbers protesters"... In that sense, I argued against wasted efforts trying to convince pacifist or low-risk protesters: Against diversity of tactics, in support of direct action. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Development of Concept
I would question this position: "The first clear articulation of diversity of tactics appears to have emerged from Malcolm X and other radical leaders in the African-American Civil Rights Movement of the early 1960s."
 * In his 1962 book, Robert F. Williams writes: "The tactics of non-violence will continue and should continue. We too believe in non-violent tactics in Monroe. We've used these tactics; we've used all tactics. But we also believe that any struggle for liberation should be a flexible struggle. We shouldn't take the attitude that one method alone is the way to liberation. This is to become dogmatic. This is to fall into the same sort of dogmatism practiced by some of the religious fanatics. We can't afford to develop this type of attitude." (p. 120-121 of the 128-page paper edition I have)
 * Thus, please consider adjusting the "Development of Concept" section.
 * Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a long-standing communist tactic, going back before WWII. Not sure what's right, but I do know that what is written here is wrong. Infocidal (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Diversity of tactics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140819084923/http://www.historyinperspective.org/sites/historyinperspective.org/files/teaching_civil_rights.pdf to http://www.historyinperspective.org/sites/historyinperspective.org/files/teaching_civil_rights.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130708140451/http://investigatinghistory.ashp.cuny.edu/m11d.html to http://investigatinghistory.ashp.cuny.edu/m11d.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221130129/http://www.vanneman.umd.edu/socy428/McAdam83.pdf to http://www.vanneman.umd.edu/socy428/McAdam83.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130708140451/http://investigatinghistory.ashp.cuny.edu/m11d.html to http://investigatinghistory.ashp.cuny.edu/m11d.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent writing
I have removed the conspiracy theorist' website again that mostly contains false information. See WP:RSN, also I tagged the quote for citation because it is not found anywhere else. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I actually think you may have it confused with a right-wing site with a similar name. This is a left-wing site that's been rated with high factual credibility.GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The RSN discussion I liked mentioned countercurrents.org, also the website that copies articles from off-guardian.org cannot be trusted. Raymond3023 (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The discussion you linked also concluded that countercurrents.org was reliable under some circumstances. Here we have a transcript of a talk by a world famous writer, based in the same country, which has been posted for five years with no objection.GPRamirez5 (talk) 03:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

In recent years, Indian activist-author Arundhati Roy has criticized left-wing activists’ demands for uniform nonviolence, contrasting this with the diverse resistance by adivasis to multinational companies in Odisha; the adivasis have employed both nonviolent tactics and armed resistance. "I think that no one form of resistance is going to succeed," Roy stated. "Like you cannot have a monoculture forest, you need a diversity of resistance…you need a bandwidth of resistance in order to succeed."


 * Points of source reliability aside, what is the purpose of a primary source quote vaguely related to the topic? If this was a notable example of "diversity of tactics", a secondary source to the matter would cite it as such. All similar primary source examples should be pruned from the article in favor of reliable, secondary source literature. czar  06:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with you. We should consider finding secondary source and if there are not any available then we can leave this. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)