Talk:Nonviolence/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Undated comment

There seem to be a variety of entries describing nonviolence (or non-violence), some concerned with nonviolence as a personal philosophy or lifestyle, and others with nonviolence as a political technique.

It's been suggested that these pages be merged. Instead, hows about keeping the primary focus of Nonviolence on the method of social struggle, and edit Non-violence so that it has a broader perspective? This would be in accord with the distinction between the hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions of nonviolence generally accepted by nonviolent types.

A couple of points that I take exception to

As someone who is critical of nonviolence as a tactic for meaningful social change, there are a couple points that this article raises that I feel the need to respond to. The first is this comment:

"The critics falsely characterise nonviolence as passivity and tend to ignore the historical success of nonviolence against dictators and repressive governments, they say."

Now, I cannot speak for all critics of nonviolence, but I do not simply equate it with passivity. I realize that nonviolence is proactive in many ways. However, my position is simply that nonviolence doesn't go far enough. It is easy to talk about "historical success" when you don't elaborate on what goals people were trying to attain in their exercise of nonviolence. Perhaps the goals were modest enough in certain situations that purely nonviolent action was all that was necessary. Perhaps the opponent against whom people were nonviolently struggling did not feel that their interests were being sufficiently threatened so as to warrant a violent offensive attack. The fact of the matter is that there is no way to predict how every single opponent is going to react to people nonviolently struggling against them. If every single person on the face of the planet who is engaged in some sort of social struggle suddenly pre-decided to remain nonviolent in all possible situations, a situation would eventually arize where someone somewhere would hit a glass ceiling and have to decide between violent self-defence or being trampled. In short, I do not dispute that nonviolence and passivity are not one and the same thing. However, in the event where there is a choice to be made between violently fighting back and being trampled, nonviolence stops short of being effective. In essence, it becomes passive, though only in given situations.

Second, when discussing Ward Churchill, the article suggests that critics of nonviolence base their arguments purely on "pragmatic grounds". The fact of the matter is that the arguments against nonviolence are both moral and pragmatic; and in an interconnected manner, no less. Granted, critics of nonviolence maintain that the privleged middle-class types who typically advocate nonviolence ignore the fact that there are people living in more subjugated areas of the world who cannot afford to be nonviolent. This certainly is a pragmatic argument. However, it is also a moral one. In the words of Malcolm X, "it is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks." It is, in fact, an act of violence to do so. In fact, it is an even worse act of violence than violently resisting an oppressor. Instead, you are perpetrating an act of violence against the oppressed by telling them to simply turn the other cheek when they no doubt will be brutalized and possibly slaughtered if they don't fight back.

You seem to misunderstand the nature of nonviolence. Nonviolence does fight back. Nonviolence does not avoid the protective use of force where necessary (for example in imprisoning people who are likely to kill people, for as long as it takes them to become safe members of the community). But it does not countenance the use of violence as a means of getting one's needs met. The case you put forward of being either trampled or violently fighting back is an artificial one, as there are never only two alternatives, there is always a third alternative and that is to fight back nonviolently.

Concerning the so-called critics of nonviolence you mention. Nonviolence is not just a movement of the privileged middle-class. Even people living in subjugated areas of the world can afford to be nonviolent, especially since in many cases advocating violence will lead to a swift retribution and their own death. Non violence does not involve not teaching people to defend themselves. Nonviolence training requires that people be taught defense, but in defending themselves, nonviolence requires that people defend themselves nonviolently. Violently resisting an oppressor does not free people from the cycle of violent oppression. It perpetuates a violent system by institutionalising the myth of retributive violence. When you say "simply turning the other cheek" you do not understand this as an act of nonviolence. I would advocate you read the work of Walter Wink, and then you will see exactly how "turning the other cheek" was really an act of nonviolence.John D. Croft 10:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Diversity of tactics

"none of these tactics, it should be noted, were injurious to human beings, only to property" This may well be true, but its impossible to substantiate. A section on "controversy" or "debate" would be a good place to cover the property damage question. Dirtbiscuit 13:10, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Other forms of nonviolence

What do you folks think about a section on other forms of nonviolence? For example, the Veg*an lifestyle as nonviolence. I know that would be covered under some of the other topics listed in the main article, but it would be interesting to talk about nonviolence as a practical lifestyle choice that people can apply. Any ideas, here? --Viriditas 11:05, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I say, put it in print and let's have a look at it. --Gary D 18:25, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps vegetarianism and/or veganism would fit better in Ahimsa. Dirtbiscuit 09:13, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right, but what about a mention regarding a veg*an diet in the Living nonviolence section? Wouldn't that make sense, too? --Viriditas 09:33, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Criticism

One of the possible reasons that such criticisms are levelled against nonviolence is that it tends to be a slow, gradual means of achieving political change, and thus the connection between action and effect is less apparent than for violence.

That nonviolence is too slow is a criticism frequently levelled at nonviolence, but one that can certainly be disputed. Dramatic, nonviolent political change can and does happen quickly - see EDSA Revolution for example. Dirtbiscuit 14:41, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell's views

I removed Bertrand Russell from the list of critics in the opening sentence. Russell was an outspoken pacifist and it seems unlikely to me that he belongs on the list. I could be wrong (I frequently am) but in light of his pacifism his inclusion should be supported by a source of some sort.

Willi5willi5 (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Non-reactionary nonviolent change?

From what I read, nonviolence seems to be about reacting to existing regimes. I'm interested in past ideas about people nonviolently beginning new power structures (instead of fighting existing ones). An example might be oppressed employees who begin a worker's cooperative. Are there any examples of non-reactionary nonviolent change on a broad scale? Or schools of thought about this issue? -Chira

I don't think the issue of force or violence comes up until there is a dispute between parties, hence until the parties find themselves in a reactionary situation. I would imagine it extremely rare for people to agree in advance they won't ever employ force or violence if and when a dispute should arise in the future (depending in large part on whether you include legal/court enforcement within "force or violence"). --Gary D 00:34, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my confusing choice of terms ("non-reactionary" may be a poor choice).

For example, when nonviolence is used in a social struggle, a "reactionary" reaction would be to oppose the other party in a non-violent way. A "non-reactionary" reaction would change the paradigm-- e.g. finding another way to meet your needs without involving the other party, or changing the realm of conflict into an area with greater strengths. Etoy.com's war with etoys.com is an example of this of the latter strategy.

A common viewpoint is that we achieve change by causing the leaders or institutions to change. For example, the Agape Foundation wants people to confront the root causes of social problems by challenging the responsible systems and institutions. I'm trying to find schools of political or social thought that take the opposite approach of taking personal responsibility instead of blaming or waiting-- similar to Mother Teresa's aphorism, "Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person."

Perhaps what I'm looking for is existing philosophies which proscribe becoming the new authority peacefully, rather than wasting attention on an oppressive authority. Some areas of economics already works this way, what is the political/social equivalent? Thanks. -Chira 10:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what there is that is precisely on-point for the system or philosophy you describe above; I can suggest some Wikipedia articles perhaps approximating it:

• non-resistance - taking nonviolence to the next level, going beyond opposition
• The Kingdom of God is Within You - Tolstoy's thinking in this area (the Wikipedia article itself is poor and incomplete, but click on the translation link and peruse the online book)
• Responsibility assumption - positing the change/power point as being totally within the individual self

If you do find something that precisely fits your description, perhaps you may want to come back and write a Wikipedia article about it. Good hunting. --Gary D 19:14, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the excellent suggestions. I'll see where this takes me. --Chira 19:24, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is possible to build nonviolence into any project, and to practice nonviolent communication in any situation (for example, in families, workplaces, business enterprises, non government organisations, government programs, and elsewghere. Gandhi used it as the organising principles for his Ashrams in India and South Africa. John D. Croft 12:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The recent addition to the "Criticism" section

is rather wordy, and its English needs some help. It also tends a bit toward POV. I think it is not quite appropriately encyclopedic, but could become so, so I'm moving it here for the time being:

According to Trotsky that right to self-defense included military invasion on entire Europe, which actually started in 1920 (with the initial goal to unite the revolutionaries of Russia with those in Germany), and almost succeeded, but the Red Army was defeated by joint armies of Poles, "White" Russians and Ukrainians.

The history disproves this, since the civil rights, equal in America for all races, were brought by the action of US President John F. Kennedy, who acted of the sense of justice, whereas his firm resistance to the extreme and immediate military treat by USSR during the Cuban Crisis shows that if the protesters had acted violently, the resulting atrocities would have turned most of the American society and the US Government against the protesters, That case is just one of numerous example of the past experiences of human societies, where violence proved counterproductive from the viewpoints of their proponents, that is, while the situation before the acts of violence was bad, it became much worse in the result of the violence. Since the assumed goal of protests of any kind is an improvement, then violence (which always escalates) does not bring the adversaries closer to one another, but, in contrary, brings ruthless extremists to power in both conflicting groups. The result is more suffering, mainly in the protesting group. Peace, social cooperation, and physical well-being become worse, which is welcome by the extremists, who say (or believe without saying this) in the notion: "The worse, the better!" As a rule in all violent protests and revolutions, the moderate people and factions are considered more harmful for their cause than the enemy side, which in their opinion must be "destroyed, not befriended". This clearly illustrates that extremists in most or all of movements, value mutual destruction, with disregard to well-being of their own people. In other words, for extremists of any kind, the priority is their doctrine, and not the people that the doctrine claims to be fighting for.

--Erauch 23:22, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Global Green Charter?

Seems to me nonviolence is not purely a party-political green concept. I am thinking the article should be merged with Global Green Charter, or should have Global Green Charter in its title. Laurel Bush 12:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC).

That would be inappropriate. This article is much more general. --Erauch 17:29, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Which is why I decided to delete the Greens box. Laurel Bush 10:12, 12 May 2005 (UTC).

first sentence

Nonviolence (or non-violence) is a set of assumptions

I can't get my mind around nonviolence being defined as a set of assumptions. Nonviolence is a tactic, it's also a philosophy, doesn't seem like "set of assumptions" is accurate.

Tedernst 18:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Many scholars and nonviolence advocates would say nonviolence is a strategy more than it is a tactic, and I wouldn't call it a philosophy, either. Although pacifism could be said to be a philosophy, nonviolence and pacifism while often associated with each other are different things entirely. Either way, I agree with you that calling it a set of assumptions seems inappropriate. ebr (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Improvement Drive

Meditation is currently a nominee on WP:IDRIVE. If you would like to see this article improved vote for it on WP:IDRIVE.--Fenice 15:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Facts and Examples

The article says

In 1989, thirteen nations comprising 1,695,000,000 people experienced nonviolent revolutions that succeeded beyond anyone's wildest expectations ... If we add all the countries touched by major nonviolent actions in our century (the Philippines, South Africa ... the independence movement in India ...) the figure reaches 3,337,400,000, a staggering 65% of humanity! All this in the teeth of the assertion, endlessly repeated, that nonviolence doesn't work in the 'real' world.

But I am looking fo more examples. Does anyone know where these numbers were taken?

I was wondering about that too, especially the "thirteen nations comprising 1,695,000,000 people" part, I really would like to know what those nations might be. Given that it's almost 1.7 billion you'd think India or PRC has to be one of them, but India is mentioned separately and PRC is not really free by western standards and it certainly wasn't non-violent in 1989 of all times. In any case, without actual list of those countries it sounds very suspicious to me... Maxim K 09:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think these are the countries referred to: Poland, the Soviet Union, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Lithuania, etc. In addition, Iran had a nonviolent revolution in 1979. Plus recently there have been nonviolent revolutions in various eastern European countries.

A 2005 study by Freedom House found that in the 67 cases since 1972 in which dictatorial systems fell or new states arose from the disintegration of multinational states, civic resistance was a key factor in driving 50 of those transitions -- over 70%. In 32 of the 67 countries (nearly 48%), strong, broad-based nonviolent civic coalitions were highly active, and in many cases central to steering the process of change. Only one transition to freedom was brought about by an outside military force.

Randy Schutt 19:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I sort of suspected that too, but it seems like there are two problems here, first of all I don't have the numbers handy right now, but I really doubt that the combined population of the Soviet block reaches 1.6 billion, USSR had a ~160 million population and it was the largest in Eastern Europe (maybe if you add Iran, still, I'd like to see that reference). Moreover, hundreds of people were killed in Moscow alone in the turmoil, and who knows how many in conflicts between Armenia and Azerbaidjan, Prednestrovie, Georgia, Chechnia, and so on. Of course none of that was caused directly by the anti-communist movements, which probably were largely non-violent, but in my humble opinion, if the end result is going to be genocide and civil wars why choose non-violence to get there? Or put another way, if dissolution of Soviet block is due to non-violent resisance, it is a definite proof that non-violent methods do not lead to non-violent outcomes, which appears to be more "in the teeth" of many non-violence doctrines ^_^ Also I don't think I've heard anyone argue that non-violence never works, people seem to usually argue that a forceful solution is better (faster) in their specific situation. All organizations and states solve at least some of their problems without usuing violence, even mafia and terrorists, so obviously it works sometimes. But according to this article, non-violence regects any use of force, so to argue that "non-violence doesn't work in real life", all you have to do is show that it doesn't always work, not that it never works, for if there is one situation where it is necessary to use force, then non-violence is not a viable option for you, as it regects all use of force. Maxim K (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The Demographics_of_the_Soviet_Union Wiki article says the population in 1991 was 293,047,571. Still, it is hard to imagine that all of the Soviet bloc is 1.6 billion. I wonder about that quotation too.

Regarding nonviolence: The point is not that your opponents are nonviolent, it is that you are nonviolent. When you are nonviolent it usually means that your opponents will also be less violent, but not always. They may still be very violent. But if you are nonviolent, then you are not hurting anyone (better ethically) and they look horrible (which gives you the strategic high-ground and may undercut their support (and their soldier's support) and lead to victory).

Also: Nonviolent action doesn't always work just as violent action doesn't always work. The point is that nonviolent action works quite well in many situations. And it is much less destructive to the civilian population and the infrastructure needed to create a decent society. A violent revolution often devastates a country and emotionally scars everyone, so the "victory" is hollow at best. These are the points that need to be made clearly in this article. Randy Schutt (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, my bad, about USSR population, still a far cry from one and a half bilion, I just wonder if they counted PRC, and the pragmatic changes during Deng Xiaping. Anyway, my point regarding the ex-USSR wasn't so much to blame the ensuing violence on the resisters, but to... um examine the success of that resistance. If you sit in the West it is easy to say, "hey, they are free now, yay for them", but in a lot of republics and for many people in former USSR life got a lot worse: instability, rampant poverty and crime, governmental corruption got even worse, businesses get racketeered all the time and many women are sold to be prostitutes in the West; I'm not sure that's the freedom they bargained for. And in some places, like Turkmenistan and Belarus, they actually have less political freedom now then they had under the totallitarian yoke of the Soviets. Moreover, there are those who believe that the Eastern Block collapsed due to internal economic inefficiences, and resisters were a simptom of those problems rather then contributing cause of the collapse.

So the bottom line is, I wouldn't chalk up the collapse of Communism as a success of non-violence, since it isn't clear it was them, and more importantly, it is not clear that it was a success, given how it turned out. The changes were brought about, alright, but they often weren't the changes people wanted. Maxim K (talk) 09:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The collapse of the Soviet bloc was clearly not a very good success. But this is not usually the criteria used to judge whether a revolution was successful or not. The American Revolution didn't end slavery, the plight of blacks after the Civil War was still miserable for 100 more years, the current invasion and occupation of Iraq has devastated that country and caused millions to flee to other countries. Do these examples prove that violence doesn't work? No, they just prove that violence doesn't always work and that it causes other problems. Nonviolent revolutions are like that too, though they have the advantage of at least not destroying the country's infrastructure and traumatizing the population.

And you are right that many factors led to the collapse of the Soviet bloc, but I think most historians would agree that the Solidarity movement in Poland and other resistance efforts were a major contributor. Randy Schutt (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, my original beef was with the quote which says: "In 1989, thirteen nations comprising 1,695,000,000 people experienced nonviolent revolutions that succeeded beyond anyone's wildest expectations ..." (my emphathis), if the author indeed meant Eastern Block, then I would definitely disagree with "success beyond anyone's wildest expectations", people's expectations in regards to democratization of USSR were much higher then what actually occured. But I do agree with your last point, violence doesn't always work, and it is not always better. I do disagree with an absolutist non-violence, that one must never resort to force no matter what, though. There are some situations where non-violent approach is clearly better, like when one wants to bring about affordable day-care to single working mothers, it isn't something that can be achieved by force in any realistic situation I can think of. But when it comes, to, say, Darfur, sinse Janjaweed raid and pillage peaceful villages, how would one even try to use non-violence to stop them, how would it be different from what has already beed happening (protests, petitions, pressure on Sudan and PRC that does business with it, etc)? The UN refrained from using violence when a similar situation was occuring in Rwanda, and we all how that turned out. Maxim K (talk) 06:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

An example of weasel words

From the Criticism Section: "Advocates of nonviolence have argued that many critics of nonviolence focus their critique on the moral justifications for nonviolence while neglecting to examine the practical political advantages of nonviolence as a technique for social struggle. Some critics falsely tend to ignore the historical success of nonviolence against dictators and repressive governments, they say." There are several other examples on this page of claims of fact made on behalf of "them", "non-violent activists" or "critics of nonviolence" without references or statistics.

not only does the section rely heavily on "weasel words", it also seems unseemly for responses to criticism to be included in that section. perhaps another section, "Nonviolent Activist Responses to Critics" or some such, could be added, and the weasel language removed. either nonviolence advocates stand by their words or they don't. Whateley23 11:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Green Politics Template

The green politics template was removed without explanation. It is only logical that a template on which a page is mentioned, is included in the page. I'm reverting it. --C mon 07:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, could we agree this page is about nonviolence globally, not just in Europe? Is there any connection between European Green parties and Indian nonviolence? What about the struggle in the US for racial equality? Could you explain why the Geen Party has relevance? Addhoc 16:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what a hostile tone, I'm sorry if my proposal rattled you, but please relax. Green parties are not limited to Europe, the template provides links to the global greens, african, american, asian-pacific green party federations. Green parties are not limited to Europe. There are green elected officials in the US, Australia and New Zealand, a green politician form Kenya has recently gotten the nobel peace prize. I also included the anti-war template, to not 'demand' this issue for the greens. But I think that if a page is mentioned on a template, it is only logical that the template is included on that page. --C mon 18:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the phrase Eurocentrism usually refers to Western European culture, which includes US, Australia and New Zealand and I guess that I meant European in that sense. I acknowledge this does not apply to Nobel prize winner Wangari Maathai, who founded the Green Belt Movement in Kenya. I think including the antiwar template is a good idea. Your argument about templates is ok, but the content of a template could be modified in some circumstances. Also democracy is listed in the template, but you are not presumably suggesting the template should be included in the Democracy article? My concern is that green politics have no meaningful connection to the principle exponents of nonviolence such as Martin Luther King or Mohandas Gandhi. I personally consider that adding a green portal would be as inappropriate as including portals regarding Buddhism, Hinduism or Anarchism, all of which are mentioned in the article more frequently than green politics. Addhoc 21:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If a separate section would be created on "green politics and non-violence" could the template be added then, like it was done on the participatory democracy? BTW I'm not saying that the text there is very good, but the principle (separate section with template) is. --C mon 21:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds very reasonable. Addhoc 09:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this article could be made clearer by removing the section on the Green Politics. My objections to this section are...

• The information is redundant to the information found in Four Pillars of the Green Party.
  • The third and fourth sentences of the first paragraph are almost identical to the information found on the Four Pillars page.
  • The fourth sentence seems to be an explanation of how nonviolence ties into the pillar of ecological wisdom.
• The information included in this section would be better suited to the history of Green Politics rather than Nonviolence.
  • The second and third paragraphs both speak specifically about how nonviolence has become included in Green Politics.

It just does not seem to fit with what this article should be. Salinecjr (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The Victims of Nonviolence

Generally, nonviolence doesn't work if the "enemy" doesn't actively support the movement, like in India, which had the support of the British government as early as 1919 and the Civil Rights movement the the US, where you had the Federal government activly involved as early as the 1940s.

I was wondering if we could have a mention of the victims of Nonviolence, like the autogenocide in Cambodia, the boat people in Vietnam, all victims of the Antiwar movement, the million and a half who died during the partition of India [The Mahatma was instromental in that], or the protesters in Tienamen square, who got mowed down by the Chinese. Nonviolence doesn't work, unless you redefine burning down houses and blowing up SUV's nonviolent, as some do.

Victims of novnviolence? I think that nonviolence, by definition, has no victim. Victims of autogenocide are just that. The boat people were victims of their oppressors. There have been no victims of the anti-war movement, to my knowledge, but please supply a reference if you disagree. The protesters of Tiananmen square who "got mowed down by the Chinese [military]" were victims of the same. What exactly do you mean by victims of nonviolence?--Orgullomoore 10:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The idea that the "enemy" needs to cooperate with non-violence for it to work is a myth that is often trotted out. People say that "non violence" could have worked with the British in India but not with Hitler for example. But they forget or are not aware of the many non-violent actions conducted against Hitler during the war, both by occupied people (eg the Danes) and in Germany (by the German wives of Jewish husbands in Berlin), that proved nonviolence can work even in the most oppressive circumstances. See "A Force More Powerful" which presents these and many other cases. Regards John D. Croft 03:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hitler's regime wasn't brought down with non-violence, though. So even though one may be aware of some non-violent resistance to Hitler, one can still make the argument that non-violence was insufficient to deter Hitler, and only physical destruction of his forces could (and did, in fact) bring an end to death camps and the war in general. There is a big difference between "resistance" and "successful resistance" so even if some people manage to defy a repressive regime and survive, and maybe even help a few people, while extreamly valuable on a personal level it often does little or nothing to address the overall problem. Maxim K (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Manifesto

There should be included an external link to the international "Manifesto against conscription and the military system" (with a list of all signatories between 1993 and 2007), official website: http://home.snafu.de/mkgandhi/manifest.htm. Chrbartolf 13:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Chrbartolf

Christian pacifism

Article have been started called Christian pacifism and Christian vegetarianism, plus a new category Category:Christian pacifists. Editor inputs are welcome. nirvana2013 17:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Info that could be helpful if re-written

While this is obviously an important topic, this editor's attempt to introduce draft information (below) doesn't belong in main article. (Actually the whole article is pretty messy, but I haven't had time to clean it up myself, like I did with pacifism.) So I would add this kind of sourced information if I got around to it, but if someone else wants to do so meanwhile, go for it.

TOPIC - VIOLENCE AND BIOLOGY:

One of the arguments for violence is that it is fated. Research on violence in primates, for example, may be cited.

At least one group of scholars disagreed, and wrote something called the "Seville Statement on Violence", which rejects this view.

Also known in "PACS 164A" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IYos-E3xT4 as the "Seville Declaration on Violence".

[ FIXME ] It took the author of this edit about ten minutes to find the following page in Google, so he thinks it deserves better exposure, and is linking it here for other's future reference. Please preserve something so that searches for the words "Seville Declaration on Violence" will continue to find this page.

http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=3247&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

Carol Moore 14:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

I wrote the section. I don't know how to make the indexing work, or what else needs to be re-written, for you to accept it. If there's a newbie guide, please refer me to it. (122.56.120.102 07:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC))

history needed

It seems to me this article would be strengthened and better grounded if it contained a section on the history of nonviolence as idea and movement (or a separate article on that if need be). Without that, claims of history proving or disproving its efficacy are hollow. I don't know the history well enough to write that, but I hope someone would. Franklin Dmitryev 01:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but wouldn't it overlap with History of Pacifism and other articles? —Viriditas | Talk 02:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Overlapping subject matter in different articles definitely is both a problem and a convenience, if you can figure out how to link to it. I re-wrote a lot of the history of pacifism myself - though hadn't quite finished when got sidetracked. Maybe say something like "The history of nonviolence theory and practice parallels that of pacifism."

Carol Moore 15:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

I agree that there should be some history in this page. I think there are some definite chronological landmarks in the history of nonviolence starting with Gandhi followed up by the Russian revolution and Dr. Martin Luther King and the Quakers fit in there somewhere. Would it be too much to create a history section and include how widespread nonviolence came to be? Salinecjr (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be difficult to write one single "history of nonviolence" without getting into original research. Non-violent methods to fight for certain goals have probably been around for as long as civilisation, or man (or even carbon-based life?). To claim that there is a thread of inspiration between all these manifestations would be bold and, probably, very original research. There is, for example, hardly any direct link between Gandhi and the successful overthrow of the Kapp Putsch, even if they were contemporary manifestations of non-violent resistance. A history section would necessarily have to list a lot of such independent events. To me, it makes more sense to group events into categories depending on type or source of inspiration. The historic aspect in itself does not seem vital. Mlewan (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from. While I do not think it is too far fetched to propose a connection of nonviolent movements considering many of the more modern nonviolent movements are based on previous ones, that may be getting into my own speculation. With that in mind, I am not sure that a section on history would be appropriate on this page. There are quite a few movements that have used nonviolence to achieve goals and I think it would be more appropriate to create a separate article that could be a list of events that used nonviolence. This list could use a categorical system that describes tactics and inspiration, like you said. It looks to me like nonviolent resistance is a start to this, but not in list form. I have suggested this idea on the talk page of that article as well. Salinecjr (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Rioting?

If things get really hairy, is not rioting another form of non-violence? Should there not be a mention of it in this article? Maybe a mention of a dispute about it's consideration for being non-violent? Many groups of people choose to let out their aggression non-violently through the proverbial "hitting of pillows" by being destructive to material structures; breaking shop windows, arson, the tipping over of cars, etc. This is not violent action, as it's not directed toward human beings, but instead: objects. So, is a mention in order? Possibly a mention of the dispute? 66.69.194.16 (talk) 07:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Nonviolence and Nonviolent Resistance

I write this as an invitation for discussion about the pages Nonviolence and Nonviolent resistance. I think the pages should be merged. My understanding is that nonviolence is a broad theory/strategy for creating change without the use of violence. Nonviolent resistance would fall under that theory/strategy. As far as I can see, the only differences in the initial statements is that nonviolent resistance specifically mentions socio-political change as the intent. This contrasts with the initial statement of nonviolence which only specifically mentions social goals (note: the last sentence in the initial statement of nonviolence mentions a political movement as 'one of the most important' nonviolent movements).

All in all, I propose to reorganize the Nonviolence article and to include the information on the Nonviolent resistance page.

Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salinecjr (talk • contribs) 19:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Policemen and flowers.jpg

Resolved

 – Image has already been commented out for at least 4 months

The image File:Policemen and flowers.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Resolved

Needs to be done and I'll do from 2004-2008, hearing no objections. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Inclusion of "Mental Violence"

Resolved

 – text 'physical and mental' has been removed from lead sentence.

I "undid" an edit to add "mental violence" to the opening sentence ("Nonviolence is a philosophy and strategy for social change that rejects the use of physical as well as mental violence." I did this because "mental violence" is vague and open to conflicting interpretations. Yes, certainly nonviolence rejects tactics of rage and hatred against an individual. But what about a boycott against a racist or unjust business or institution? The target of that boycott experiences what could be consider a form of mental violence. When anti-Vietnam War protesters chanted "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today," to some that would be a form of mental violence aimed at President Johnson. To a degree, this issue of "mental violence" reflects the difference between the two main poles of nonviolence -- Philosophical/Principaled vs Pragmatic/Tactical. A follower of Philosophical nonviolence is much more likely to perceive (and oppose) some action as a form of "mental violence" than a follower of Pragmatic nonviolence. By including the phrase "mental violence" in the opening sentence of the article, it tilts the discussion towards the Philosophical approach and against the Pragmatic approach. Perhaps a better way would be to raise the issue of mental violence in the context of discussing the differences between Philosophical and Pragmatic. Brucehartford (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting discussion! I agree that this merits its own place. However, I am not happy with the sentence as it stands now, because it a priori limits the scope of the article to physical violence. That excludes important practices, such as nonviolent communication, which rejects communication like "how many kids did you kill today". You're right pointing out the pitfalls of the term "mental violence", and it probably shouldn't be added without a reference. Maybe a better wording can be found for that sentence that allows for the broader definition without excluding the narrower one. How about just deleting the word "physical"? It's currently redundant anyway, as our article violence already limits that term to physical violence. And if we want to include mental violence, it should be discussed in that article, anyway. — Sebastian 17:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem if you want to delete the word "physical" from the opening sentence. The best place to address the issue of different kinds of violence is in the discussion of the two main poles of nonviolence (Philosophical vs Tactical). Brucehartford (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I just went ahead and implemented the change. I'm marking this section as resolved, because we don't have "mental violence" in the opening anymore, but I don't want to thwart your idea of raising the issue of mental violence in the context of discussing the differences between Philosophical and Pragmatic. Please don't hesitate to implement that in the article or to bring it up in a new section. — Sebastian 16:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes

User:Jrtayloriv recently made several changes to the article that I reverted on the merits that they were inaccurate. This editor removed the statement, "In modern times, nonviolence has been a powerful tool for social protest" and replaced it with "In modern times, nonviolence has been a commonly used form of social protest." I explained to the editor on their talk page that the description of nonviolence as a "powerful tool" can be found throughout the literature and I gave him a source. The editor then claimed that he could prove that it was wrong, yet has failed to do so or provide any source supporting his opinion. It is questionable if nonviolence is a "commonly used form" of social protest, but I can find reliable source after reliable source describing it as a powerful tool "for redressing social inequality".[1] Viriditas (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm adding the conversation we've been having on my talk page here for reference:

Hello. I've reverted your changes to Nonviolence because they introduced inaccurate information. You changed a passage about the powerful use of nonviolence in recent history and you introduced a statement about "numerous violent African American groups" working alongside Martin Luther King. Please take any outstanding concerns you might have to Talk:Nonviolence and start a discussion. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, was there something about "please take it to the talk page" that is troubling you. Per WP:BRD, you were bold, and I reverted your bold edit. Now, please take your concerns to the talk page for discussion. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that in modern times, nonviolence has not been a powerful tool for social protest? It most certainly has, according to every historian on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I am saying that. As have numerous reliable sources (Churchill's "Pacifism as Pathology" and Gederloos' "How Nonviolence Protects the State", George Jackson's "Blood in My Eye" and "Soledad Brother", for example). Whether or not it is powerful is an opinion. So I think it should be changed to something that is not. Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

"In the West, nonviolence is well recognized for its tactical, strategic, or political aspects. It is seen as a powerful tool for redressing social inequality." (Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace, and Conflict. Lester R. Kurtz, Jennifer E. Turpin. 1999. p.557[1]) There are literally dozens to hundreds of sources for this statement in the literature. I'm sorry, but you are seriously misinformed. It would help immensely if you would do the most basic research on this subject before editing the article. Viriditas (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That's wonderful -- but there are also dozens of sources which say that it is ineffective. It's an opinion. It should be changed to something that is not. I have never seen a single source anywhere that would disagree with the statement "nonviolence is a commonly used form of social protest". I have seen numerous sources that would disagree with the statement "nonviolence is a powerful form of social protest". The former is a fact, the latter an opinion. And please drop the condescending tone and sarcasm -- it makes you look silly. Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I can provide source after reliable source showing that you are wrong. Now, please show me a current reliable source that disputes it. The ball is in your court. Please show it to me. No more talk. Talk is cheap. Show me a current source and page number or quoted passage that I can check. Because, quite frankly, I do not believe you. Viriditas (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, please drop the condescending tone and sarcasm. It doesn't make you look tough or intelligent to be aggressive to a stranger on the internet. Just sticking to logical argument will suffice -- I promise I'll listen. Now, I think what you meant was that you could find "source after source showing that the author agrees with your opinion". I don't doubt that you could, since your POV is a mainstream opinion. I can also find you source after source from authors who do not hold this opinion. I've given you several already. Two of the books I mentioned (and which are already cited in the article's "Criticism" section are entirely about the ineffectiveness of non-violent protest as a means of social change -- namely, "Pacifism as Pathology" and "How Nonviolence Protects the State". Please see the other references cited in that section as well. I don't want to put either opinion in the lead though. I'd like to just stick to what is factual, which is that it is a common form of protest. Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked you specifically for a page number and a passage. Please provide these two things or admit that you cannot substantiate your claims with evidence. This means providing a quoted passage that supports your claim, and a page number or link where I can find it. This is the essence of WP:V and I request that you follow it. Viriditas (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned several times to Viriditas already, the sources are already cited in the Criticism section of this article, which already have everything he/she requested -- sources, page numbers, and quoted passages. Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

As I have already explained to you, per WP:V, you need to provide me with a page number and a quoted passage where I can verify your changes. I've already given you one of literally dozens to hundreds of references that support the idea that nonviolence is a powerful tool. You are promoting an alternative view, that nonviolence is a "tool" of the state, and while you are welcome to your fringe POV, it is not acceptable for you to edit this or any other article with that POV unless you can show current, authoritative, and reliable sources that support your POV. Please do so, now. This means providing a direct link to a page number or URL that contains an exact quoted passage that supports your claim. Repeatedly saying "the sources are somewhere over there, go find them" is not acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• "In the twentieth century, nonviolence proved to be a powerful tool for political change." (Ronald Brian Adler, Neil Towne. (1999). Looking Out/Looking In: Interpersonal Communication. 9th ed. Harcourt Brace College Publishers. ISBN 0155057871. p.416)
• "In the West, nonviolence is well recognized for its tactical, strategic, or political aspects. It is seen as a powerful tool for redressing social inequality." (Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace, and Conflict. Lester R. Kurtz, Jennifer E. Turpin. 1999. p.557)

I already stated above that I know that there are thousands of reliable sources that will support your point of view. You don't need to keep explaining to me that there are sources that support it. It is a mainstream viewpoint, and I know it is very often stated as fact (as this article did). However, there are also numerous WP:RELIABLE sources that do not support that POV. I do not have any of the books that I cited for you in front of me at the moment, but next time I go to the library I'll be glad to pick them up and give you page numbers and quoted passages. For now, revert my edits if you wish. I will point out however that the view that non-violence is not effective is not a "fringe" view. It's certainly not the view of the wealthy upper/middle class authors who wrote the works that you cited, nor of the corporate media. But it is the view of the millions of people throughout history who have used violent resistance when peaceful methods didn't work for them (Russian Revolution, Cuban Revolution, American Revolution, French Revolution, Chiapas Conflict, Vietnam War, Black Civil Rights Movement, Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, etc). I would agree with calling something a "fringe view" if it is only believed by a few hundred people, but not when it is believed by millions of people. Anyhow, I've got to other things to do now. Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I put back powerful tool with refs. If there are different opinions from reliable sources, they should be expressed, but only in the lead if they are high profile dissenters. And refs must always be proficed, if requested. Please see Wikipedia:PROVEIT#cite_note-1. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources supporting change

Here are some sources (thanks to Tiamut for providing many of them) ((EDIT: I've broken them up into separate comments so that Viridatas can respond to them individually)):

• "Force is the only language the imperialists can hear, and no country became free without some sort of violence." Gandhi himself never ruled out violence absolutely and unreservedly. He conceded the necessity of arms in certain situations. He said, "Where choice is set between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence... I prefer to use arms in defense of honor rather than remain the vile witness of dishonor ..." Violence and nonviolence are not mutually exclusive; it is the predominance of the one or the other that labels a struggle.

  — Nelson Mandela, writing about Mahatma Gandhi [2]

  Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• The Ghandian concept, in our view, couldn't work in South Africa. In India, the British colonial administration could pack up and go home. But that would not happen in South Africa. There were, at the time, two or three million whites who were part of South Africa; they had been here so long. These people were not going home. So in the ANC we set about creating an underground, illegal fighting force to make sure that South Africans, and the world, would know what's going on. -- Denis GoldbergJrtayloriv (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• There are many people who feel that it is useless and futile for us to continue talking peace and non-violence — against a government whose only reply is savage attacks on an unarmed and defenceless people. And I think the time has come for us to consider, in the light of our experiences at this day at home, whether the methods which we have applied so far are adequate. -- Nelson MandelaJrtayloriv (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have already mentioned that I was one of the persons who helped to form Umkhonto. I, and the others who started the organization, did so for two reasons. Firstly, we believed that as a result of Government policy, violence by the African people had become inevitable, and that unless responsible leadership was given to canalize and control the feelings of our people, there would be outbreaks of terrorism which would produce an intensity of bitterness and hostility between the various races of this country which is not produced even by war. Secondly, we felt that without violence there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy. All lawful modes of expressing opposition to this principle had been closed by legislation, and we were placed in a position in which we had either to accept a permanent state of inferiority, or to defy the Government. We chose to defy the law. We first broke the law in a way which avoided any recourse to violence; when this form was legislated against, and then the Government resorted to a show of force to crush opposition to its policies, only then did we decide to answer violence with violence. -- Nelson Mandela]Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• "[...] no gentleness can efface the mark of violence; only violence itself can destroy them. The native cures himself of colonial neuroses by thrusting out the settler through force of arms." (p.23) Preface to The Wretched of the Earth by Jean-Paul SartreJrtayloriv (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Terrorism: The second or anti-colonial wave -- see especially page 101 where he says: "Ghandi too recognized that sometimes nonviolence may be ineffective in eradicating an injustice and required a painful choice between perpetuating it and resorting to violence" and the quote and paragraph that follow. Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• "The naked truth of decolonization evokes for us the searing bullets and bloodstained knives which emanate from it. For if the last shall be first, this will only come to pass after a murderous and decisive struggle between the two protaganists. That affirmed intention to place the last at the head of things, and to make them climb at a pace (too quickly, some say) the well-known steps which characterize an organized society, can only triumph if we use all means to turn the scale, including, of course, that of violence. You do not turn any society, however primitive it may be, upside down with such a program if you have not decided from the very beginning, that is to say from the actual formation of that program to overcome all the obstacles that you will come across in so doing. The native who decide to put the program into practice, and to become its moving force, is ready for violence at all times. From birth it is clear to him that this narrow world, strewn with prohibitions, can only be called in question by absolute violence."

  — Frantz Fanon in The Wretched of the Earth, p. 37.

  Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Race, class, & power: ideology and revolutionary change in plural societiesJrtayloriv (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• "It is evident that whatever the attributes of pacifist doctrine, "revolutionary nonviolence" is a complete misnomer, that pacifism itself offers no coherent praxis for liberatory social transformation [...] The all but unquestioned legitimacy accruing to the principles of pacifist practice must be continuously and comprehensively subjected to the test of whether they, in themselves, are capable of delivering the bottom-line transformation of state-dominated social relations which alone constitutes the revolutionary/liberatory process. Where they are found to be incapable of such delivery, the principles must be broadened or transcended altogether as a means of achieving an adequate praxis." (pp. 89-90) Ward Churchill's, Pacifism as Pathology.Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I will add more sources as I find them.

The sentence in question currently reads In modern times, nonviolence has been a powerful tool for of social protest.

Would anyone have a problem with changing it to read In modern times, nonviolence has been a commonly used and often powerful form of social protest, although at times it has proven ineffective and other means have been used. Jrtayloriv (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would have a problem with changing it, as none of what you have provided above supports a change of the current wording. It's just a quote flood. What is it that you have posted above that specifically addresses the point about the philosophy of nonviolence being a "powerful tool" and "commonly used"? Nothing as far as I can see. You're putting together a bunch of quotes that do not address the topic and you're attempting to critique the philosophy of nonviolence without actually addressing it at all. All I see from you is outdated, Marxist criticism about South Africa and Algeria. Please find me a source that says the philosophy of nonviolence was not a powerful tool for social change in the 20th century in relation to the examples used in the lead section, namely Gandhi, King, Chavez, Czechoslovakia, and Liberia. Viriditas (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• none of what you have provided above supports a change of the current wording. -- I don't understand. How do a bunch of reliable sources saying that nonviolent resistance is sometimes ineffective not support a change that says that nonviolence is sometimes ineffective?
• It's just a quote flood.' -- More angry, empty rheotoric.
• You're putting together a bunch of quotes that do not address the topic -- Give me a single example of this please.
• What is it that you have posted above that specifically addresses the point about the philosophy of nonviolence being a "powerful tool" and "commonly used"?' -- Please actually read the quotes. Regarding "powerful tool", I've bolded several sections to make it easier for you. You are correct about "commonly used" -- I didn't source that -- I would be fine with removing that. How about: In modern times, nonviolence has often been a powerful form of social protest, although at times it has proven ineffective and other means have been used.?
• 'All I see from you is outdated ... -- They are all quotes from the late 20th century.
• Marxist -- First of all, this is not at all true -- were Nelson Mandela and Gandhi Marxists? And, even if it were true, all of yours were written by capitalists from developed nations. But that really has nothing more to do with the change I'm talking about, than whether one of the authors quoted above is a Marxist.
• criticism about South Africa and Algeria. -- Really? Where in Algeria and South Africa did Gandhi and Ward Churchill live?
• Please find me a source that says the philosophy of nonviolence was not a powerful tool for social change in the 20th century in relation to the examples used in the lead section -- I'm not trying to change the examples in the lead section. If I do, I'll provide you sources for the changes.
• namely Gandhi -- see the quotes above related to Gandhi. Jrtayloriv (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything from you supporting your change. Let's try again: You disagree with the mainstream statement, "In modern times, nonviolence has been a powerful tool for social protest." So, please choose one of the best sources you have that directly challenges this statement and provides support for your change. If you would like to pick more than one, then that's fine, but make it short and sweet and place it below my comment here so I can address your proposal. In case this isn't clear, let's pretend our roles were reversed, except our positions were the same. In addition to the two sources I've given you above, I would take another source out of about 100 I have in front of me, and write, "In the twentieth century, nonviolence became more of a deliberate tool for social change...Dajani (Souad Dajani) does acknowledge that nonviolent action can be a powerful and effective means of overcoming oppression..." (Zunes, Stephen. (Jun., 2000) "Nonviolent Action and Human Rights". Political Science and Politics, Vol. 33, No. 2 , pp. 181-187) Do you see how easy that was? Simply find a quote that supports your change. No amount of bold or italics will change a simple quote. That's all you need to do. Viriditas (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll note that you didn't respond to anything I said above with the exception of my suggestion. You've done this on my talk page as well. You ignore questions that you can't answer, never admit when you've made a mistake, and change the subject whenever it's convenient for you. It seems like you have a very strong opinion on this and are not willing to discuss it calmly and rationally. I'd suggest you go to a political forum to have angry, heated debates about your political opinions. I've been doing you the courtesy of responding not only to your somewhat logical points, but also to your angry, condescending, and sarcastic rhetoric. I'll continue to do so here:

• You disagree with the mainstream statement, "In modern times, nonviolence has been a powerful tool for social protest." -- I Think you should take a look at the change that I most recently recommended. I don't think you read it clearly, if at all (I'm fairly convinced that you're not reading anything I'm writing and are just blindly disagreeing with me at this point), so here it is again: In modern times, nonviolence has often been a powerful form of social protest, although at times it has proven ineffective and other means have been used. You saying that I 'disagree' with the statement in the article is not true. My problem with the statement in the article is that it leaves out important information that changes the meaning of the statement, and should be in the article -- namely that nonviolent resistance sometimes hasn't been effective in modern times.
• So, please choose one of the best sources you have that directly challenges this statement and provides support for your change. -- I didn't just provide one, I provided several. Maybe you're confused because you didn't read the change I suggested, or didn't read the quotes I posted for you, or both. I've already asked these questions above, and you didn't answer, but: Which of the quotes don't support my change? And why not? You keep saying "the things you quoted don't support the change you're trying to make", but you haven't explained why. To me, several reliable sources (this is another thing you didn't respond to by the way...) claiming that nonviolent resistance has, at times, not been effective in modern times supports putting that nonviolent resistance has, at times, not been effective in modern times. How is this not the case?
• Do you see how easy that was? -- Yes, I found it very easy when I did it above.
• No amount of bold or italics will change a simple quote. -- No, of course it wouldn't. They do make things stand out though. And since you obviously weren't reading the quotes above (claiming for instance that they didn't relate to Gandhi, or the issue at hand), I figured that I'd make the most relevant parts easier for you to notice. Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv, I don't see how you have challenged the statement, "In modern times, nonviolence has been a powerful tool for social protest" with any of the sources you have provided so far. Would you be so kind as to pick just one (preferably the best one you have) and place it directly below this comment so that I can address it by itself? It's easier to keep talk page comments short and to the point and address sources one at a time in a neat and orderly fashion. This makes it easier for everybody and allows us to move from point A to point B with the minimum of fuss and fret. Thanks for your understanding, and I look forward to reviewing your first proposal consisting of one source directly below this comment. Viriditas (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see how you have challenged the statement, "In modern times, nonviolence has been a powerful tool for social protest" with any of the sources you have provided so far. -- As I said above, I'm not trying to challenge it -- I'm trying to add something to it. Please read my responses before you try to rebut them.
• It's easier to keep talk page comments short and to the point and address sources one at a time in a neat and orderly fashion. -- Feel free to respond to any of the sources above (just place your response directly below the bullet points there) and explain to me how that source does not provide an example of how nonviolence has sometimes not been effective in modern times.
• It's easier to keep talk page comments short -- I'd love to spend less time writing lengthy responses to you, but unfortunately you're throwing in several seperate statements into each of your posts, and I'm making sure I respond to each of them. If you say one thing at a time, I'll respond with one thing at a time.
• Thanks for your understanding -- No problem, but I'd ask that you exhibit a bit more understanding of differing viewpoints besides your own.
• and I look forward to reviewing your first proposal consisting of one source directly below this comment. -- I look forward -- as I mentioned above -- to your responses directly below any of the numerous sources above, explaining why it doesn't support my change (note that I mean how it doesn't support my change -- namely In modern times, nonviolence has often been a powerful form of social protest, although at times it has proven ineffective and other means have been used., rather than your misinterpretation of my change "nonviolence has not been a powerful form of social protest") Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv, Wikipedia talk page conventions discourage editing between comments. I thought you knew that. Let's try this another way. If you had to choose one of the best quotes that supports your proposed change, which would it be? No need to give me an answer filled with bolded and italicized indents. Just a simple question: Which quote would you choose? On a talk page, it is much easier to discuss one thing at a time, so let's start there. Pick your favorite quote and I'll address it. You may also be interested in reviewing Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Your continued use of long responses, bolded quoting, and italicized passages is not best practice. Keep things short and to the point so we can attract the most number of participants. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk page conventions discourage editing between comments. I thought you knew that. -- No, I didn't know that. Thank you for pointing that out. In that case, what we'll do is I'll go above and break up each of them into seperate comments, so that you are not editing between comments. Then you can respond to each of them, and explain why it doesn't support my change. — Jrtayloriv 14:45, 26 October 2009 — continues after insertion below

  BTW, there is a template to keep it clear for other readers who wrote what: {{interrupted}} — Sebastian 15:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• You may also be interested in reviewing Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines -- Due to the above, I did review it. Thanks for the link. You might also wish to review it, namely: "Do not misrepresent other people", "Separate multiple points with whitespace", and "Communicate"
• bolded quoting, and italicized passages is not best practice. -- I see what you mean with bolded text, I'll replace it with italics, which the guidelines you posted say are OK to use for emphasis of important passages.
• On a talk page, it is much easier to discuss one thing at a time -- Don't be a hypocrite. The reason I'm having to do these bulleted responses to you is that you're saying several things at a time.
• Which quote would you choose? ... Pick your favorite quote and I'll address it. --- How about the one above beginning with The Ghandian concept...? Just respond to it above, along with the other quotes. Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've only been saying one thing, over and over and over again: If you had to choose one of the best quotes that supports your proposed change, which would it be? Please answer this question directly, without the long, indented, bolded, italicized replies which continue to ignore it. Again, in case you didn't see it before: Which quote would you choose to support your proposed modification? This question requires a simple answer, consisting of the actual quote, the name of the source, and any other information you feel is necessary to support it. So, to conclude this discussion, all I need from you is the best example of a source that supports your proposed addition. What is it? I will not be scrolling up to respond to anything, nor would I expect anyone to do such a thing. Please answer the question below this comment using a normal, threaded reply. If for some reason, none of this is making sense, please look at Wikipedia:Talk page formatting. Viriditas (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've only been saying one thing, over and over and over again: -- No you haven't. You've been saying several things each time, many of which are not true such as claiming that Gandhi was a Marxist. Each of the bulleted points in my responses are quoted from you, and they are each different statements. They are not all the same statement.

Again, in case you didn't see it before: Which quote would you choose to support your proposed modification? ... So, to conclude this discussion, all I need from you is the best example of a source that supports your proposed addition. What is it? -- Again, you are obviously not reading my responses. I am reading yours. That's how I'm able to respond to every part of them, unlike you who is responding to very little of what I'm saying. To try to appease you, so that you might be more reasonable, I already posted the quote that I would choose (although, I'd really choose all of them, which is why I posted all of them).

I will not be scrolling up to respond to anything -- I'm surprised to hear that you can't take the time to scroll up the page, considering the amount of time you've spent typing out responses. When you have built up enough energy to scroll up far enough to respond to the quotes above, go ahead. I won't be reposting each of them for you down here to save you the effort.

I'm going on a hike for the rest of the day, so I won't be responding for a while. You're clearly not trying to discuss this calmly, not responding to anything I'm saying, misrepresenting me, and being completely rude and uncivil. When I get back —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrtayloriv (talk • contribs) 15:10, October 26

I don't know who wrote this, but I have never at any time described Gandhi as a Marxist. Viriditas (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You said All I see from you is outdated, Marxist criticism about South Africa and Algeria. -- in reference to my sources which included quotes from Gandhi about the issue at hand. I've really got to go now -- be back in a bit. Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(The following is a reply to the message of 13:37. I haven’t read the remainder of the discussion yet.)

Viriditas, like you, I love nonviolence; and what Jrtayloriv writes pains me, too. But we can’t shoot the messenger; we need to address the message with reason and empathy – or nonviolent communication. If we want to honour Gandhi, then we need to, as he did, identify Truth as God. (Let’s not confuse this with identifying our belief as “the truth”, as so many zealots do!)

Jrtayloriv’s post is full of citations, such as the one by Mandela which comes undoubtedly from a reliable source - Time Magazine. We need to overcome our aversion and work together to include such references fairly in the article. Mandela’s sentence “Violence and nonviolence are not mutually exclusive” points to a resolution of this dispute; but unfortunately, the continuation of this sentence “it is the predominance of the one or the other that labels a struggle” does not square well with the task of an encyclopedia of putting information in order. How can we even begin to measure “predominance” between two principles whose power of dominance works so differently? — Sebastian 15:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any citations that directly address the topic. For example, Jrtayloriv asked me to address this quote from Denis Goldberg:

The Ghandian concept, in our view, couldn't work in South Africa. In India, the British colonial administration could pack up and go home. But that would not happen in South Africa. There were, at the time, two or three million whites who were part of South Africa; they had been here so long. These people were not going home. So in the ANC we set about creating an underground, illegal fighting force to make sure that South Africans, and the world, would know what's going on.

Jrtayloriv has chosen this quote to support his proposal to modify the lead section. I fail to see how an opinion from Goldberg about South Africa changes the statement that nonviolence is a powerful tool for social change. But more to the point, the current article quotes Susan Ives (quoting Walter Wink) who says that South Africa is among the nations "touched by major nonviolent actions in our century." The article does not say that nonviolence is a powerful tool for social change in every country, nor does it imply it. In any case, this source says the majority of the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa was spent as a nonviolent campaign. And, apartheid in South Africa did not come to an end because of violent opposition. I fail to see the point here, but perhaps, Sebastian, you will see something that I cannot, so please take over this discussion and try to work with Jrtayloriv in my place, as I am logging out for now. Perhaps you will come up with a solution that he will find favorable. Viriditas (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

To keep it short, allow me to reply only to your first sentence: "I don't see any citations that directly address the topic." I became, thanks to Jrtayloriv's citation, aware of Mandela's article, in which he writes "then there came a point in our struggle when the brute force of the oppressor could no longer be countered through passive resistance alone". That seems to me to directly address the topic. — Sebastian 15:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

See this source. The majority of time spent fighting apartheid was nonviolent, and eventually apartheid ended for reasons having nothing to do with violent opposition. I still don't see the point. The question is whether nonviolence is a powerful tool for social change, not whether it is a panacea. Which sources address this issue? I really am logging off this time. :) Viriditas (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

From Nelson Mandela's article, I understand that he felt it was necessary to deviate from NV in order to end apartheid. Even if not everyone agrees with that, it still is a valid point that we need to include, which is why Jrtayloriv proposed to add the wording "although at times it has proven ineffective and other means have been used." This is a valid proposal that needs to be taken seriously. — Sebastian 16:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC), amended 17:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggested wording

It seems to me that we can't deny that there are sources supporting some change. So far, we have the proposed wording "In modern times, nonviolence has often been a powerful form of social protest, although at times it has proven ineffective and other means have been used." Personally, the only thing that bothers me about that is the word "proven". That is a strong term that implies the precision of a legal court. Even Mandela doesn't use that word. How about this: ... although at times supporters gave up on it and resorted to violence."? (In this sentence, I also replaced the vague "other means" with "violence", which is backed up by Mandela's "Force is the only language the imperialists can hear, and no country became free without some sort of violence."[3].) — Sebastian 17:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

How about: "In modern times, nonviolence has often been a powerful form of social protest, although in some cases, the tactic of nonviolence has given way to other means that have included violence to bring about social change" since 'proven' does imply some sort of science, nonviolence is a tactic that has been used just as violence is a tactic, this suggested statement provides for "some cases" v. "gave up" which I think is more accurate. I appreciate the work you all are doing to improve this page. Peace, rkmlai (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I could live with that. But let's look at the individual changes:

1. "some cases" vs. "at times": I don't have an opinion on this one.
2. "tactic", "means": NV is not just a tactic or a means to an end, but for many people a religious or spiritual principle. However, there might be some benefit in treating nonviolence as just a tactic just to take some of the emotions out of this discussion. But I am optimistic that we will find a way to reconcile tactical considerations with respect for religious principles.
3. Spelling out "the tactic of nonviolence" vs. "it" seems unnecessarily wordy to me.
4. "has given way": Cutting the word "supporters" is an improvement over my proposal, because "supporters" poses the question "of what?". However, the reason I introduced a subject was that I wanted to follow the second principle of Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace, which recommends: "Use subjects to name the characters in your story." Any idea for a better subject name?
5. "gave up": That was based on the Mandela quote. But maybe it is too emotional. What I wanted to express was that some people actually tried it before they changed their stance, which I think is relevant if you regard it as a principle.
6. "other means that have included violence" vs. "violence". This seems unnecessarily wordy to me. The information that other tactics have been used seems only relevant to me when these other tactics conflict with or contradict NV. And the only one that does is violence. Or am I overlooking something?
7. "to bring about social change": I don't see a need for adding that. The purpose of NV is not the topic of this sentence. Indeed, some people probably give up NV for other reasons - such as fear for their own lives. One even may make the case that giving up NV hurts the chance to bring about social change: I can imagine that Gandhi might have said that people who give up NV do so because they let their emotions get the better of them. The article Viriditas posted above seems to claim that even Mandela hurt the cause by deviating from NV. — Sebastian 21:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sebastian -- I see where you are coming from with the word "proven" -- we should definitely change/remove that. I also agree that we don't need to include "to bring about social change", for the reasons you mentioned. As far as Gandhi saying why people might give up nonviolence, his stance was actually quite different than the one you imagined -- he even said that in certain circumstances he would give up nonviolence, if he felt like it would cause less harm to be violent (see this page (the quote on p.101 and the comments about the Polish Resistance on p. 102), for example. He was not dogmatic about his nonviolence -- he just saw it as the most effective strategy for resistance against the British in India. He realized that at times violence can be the most effective strategy, and will cause less harm than a non-violent strategy. — Jrtayloriv 23:59 — continues after insertion below

Interesting! I hadn't been aware of this. That seems to fit well to #Why people sometimes choose to use violence. — Sebastian 17:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't like "gave up", because I feel like that might be taken as "they just didn't have enough persistence to stick with it", whereas most of the people didn't "give up" as much as "chose to use other tactics that they thought would be more effective in their situation". I think Rkmlai's suggestion is very good, but I don't like "has given way to" -- I'd like something that emphasizes that it was a conscious choice by the people who chose to use violence, and that briefly summarizes their reasoning. "has given way to" makes it seems like it happened either randomly, or not rationally -- it doesn't imply a reasoned decision. What about In modern times, nonviolence has often been a powerful form of social protest, although in some cases, people have chosen to use violence when they felt that nonviolent resistance was not the right tactic. I still think that's too wordy, but I can't think of a way to change it. I also don't like "was not the right tactic", but I do think it sends the right message.

Thank you all for you great suggestions. I'm sorry I got caught up in the edit warring -- it's nice to have this discussion back on track. Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Or, instead of "...was not the right tactic" perhaps something along the lines of one of the following: "was not effective", "was not working", "was not successful in bringing about change". I'm sure there are numerous better ways to put this -- any suggestions? Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This version seems true to me. Actually, it even seems to be a truism: Some people don't use NV because they feel it isn't working. Apparently the sentence became that way because we all tried to stick only with what is undisputedly true. I think the real question that readers want to know is: How effective has NV been, and are there limitations to its effectiveness? That can't be answered in half a sentence. I will start a new section for that. — Sebastian 16:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessarily a truism. For instance, other reasons that were suggested are that people stop using NV tactics is because they "gave up", or because they "let their emotions get the best of them". But, as Carol suggested in the section below, I'd be fine with creating a separate paragraph at the end of the lead to talk about this. I agree that trying to explain this complex issue is going to be impossible to do well in half a sentence. Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to take away from your statement; just a clarification: I think our disagreement is only superficial; I didn't mean to make a distinction between these different wordings, which I feel only express different facets of the same fact. Someone can give up because they when they feel (=emotion) it was not working. — Sebastian 16:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Using article lead for POV purposes??

As User:Viriditas puts it: The question is whether nonviolence is a powerful tool for social change, not whether it is panacea. There is more than enough room for a sentence mentioning criticisms at the end of the rather long lead where there are some (WP:OR) musings in that regard. It is totally POV to try to attack nonviolence in the first sentence of the second paragraph. Please stop. Why not put you energy into referencing the section I just deleted because it's been unreferenced since I put up a tag 3 months ago. Do not put back unreferenced material. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• As User:Viriditas puts it: "The question is whether nonviolence is a powerful tool for social change, not whether it is panacea." -- As I've mentioned several times, I am not trying to remove "nonviolence is a powerful tool for social change". Viriditas has repeatedly misrepresented the change that I'm trying to make, so that other people like yourself would be swayed towards agreeing with his rebuttal of the misrepresentation of my suggestion. If he just keeps repeating that I'm trying to argue against "nonviolence is a powerful tool for social change", eventually someone will come along, and not wanting to read through this entire conversation, will just assume that's what the argument is actually about. I long ago realized that the consensus was that it "powerful form" should stay in there, and all of my recent suggestions have included it. Viriditas is deliberately misleading people, so that he can attack a suggestion that is not even being made. Please look at the most recent suggestions that have been made for changing the article.
• It is totally POV to try to attack nonviolence in the first sentence of the second paragraph. Please stop. -- Nobody is "attacking nonviolence". I personally support non-violence as a useful tactic. I just think that the current suggestions make the article less biased, and more informative.
• Why not put you energy into referencing the section I just deleted because it's been unreferenced since I put up a tag 3 months ago. -- Because I'm not really interested in doing so, at the moment. Maybe someone else (perhaps the author of that section), will come along and do so.
• Do not put back unreferenced material. -- I haven't. Please look at the sources above. Nor have I removed sourced material.

Please try to remain coolheaded, and discuss this -- the conversation has recently gotten back on track and people are talking rationally once again. What don't you like about the recent suggestions that myself, Sebastian, and Rkmlai have made? Do you have suggestions that would help improve them? Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if touchy. Working on truly irrational and POV editors on other articles can get one that way.

The bottom line is, there is plenty of room at end of lead for a sentence noting criticisms etc. Which current sections by the way are pretty weak even as referenced. Noting them right there up top is just too pov. So why not just propose language for the end? By the way that last paragraph is pretty weak. For one thing the first definition of pacifism is merely opposition to war, and then it goes along a spectrum to complete nonviolence. But this article isn't about pacifism anyway. So it's pretty much irrelevant. Feel free to replace that with a couple sentences noting actual, ref'd criticisms of nonviolence. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This section started on the wrong foot. How about if we just archive it, and start a new section for the good points Carol makes in the last paragraph? — Sebastian 15:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I would be fine with that archiving it, and restarting. I think Carol has some very good points in her most recent edit. I would be fine with adding a brief summary of reasons why people sometimes choose to use violence at the bottom of the lead, if that's what everyone wants. I do feel that it belongs in the lead somewhere, but if it bothers Carol to have it in the second paragraph, I'm fine with moving it down to the end.Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Carol, I totally understand -- I just got caught up in an edit war myself. It's very easy to fall into. No hard feelings. I agree that the section at the end of the lead is very poorly put together (and unsourced, etc), and should be rewritten, relocated, or even removed. But it doesn't really focus on the topic that I'm discussing -- i.e. why people choose to use violence instead of nonviolence in some situations. It focuses more on the difference between pacifism and nonviolence. Perhaps a new paragraph at the end of the lead (2-4 sentences, maybe) that would briefly summarize the most common reasons that people have chosen to use violence in some situations. The last sentence of the lead there could be rewritten and moved to that paragraph as well (and sourced, of course). Would this work for you? Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Carol -- I see that this is what you were saying you wanted. I misread your statement above, and thought you were saying to integrate this with the section on pacifism (which I also think is irrelevant, and should be removed). I will start working on a suggestion for the last paragraph. I'll put it up here, before adding it to the article, so that we can discuss it, before putting it in. Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Why people sometimes choose to use violence

Arguably, that question could be discussed in the Criticism section, but that section is a hodgepodge of unrelated opinions that only share that they're critical. I've seen that too often on Wikipedia - it's like a ghetto. I think our readers would rather see different opinions integrated into the rest of the article.

Now, as for the question "Why people sometimes choose to use violence?", it is related to the section Methods, especially when you regard NV as a tactic, and not as a principle. However, there are many people who choose violence for ideological reasons, as evidenced by the first sentence of Criticism. Should this be its own section? — Sebastian 16:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That would belong in the Violence article, another article filled with WP:OR which needs some cleanup. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Organizations that embrace nonviolence

As I'm moving the organizations list to category:Nonviolence organizations, I realize that we currently don't have a category for organizations that just embrace NV. E.g., if Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (Yasin Malik) is really a nonviolent organization, then it doesn't feel quite right to move it to Category:National liberation movements, which describes itself thusly:

"This is a category about different movements or organisations, both legal and illegal, that have engaged in force in what they see as an attempt to force regime change or independence. Some of these movements can be considered separatist (see List of active autonomist and secessionist movements). Some are described by their critics as terrorists. They have differing levels of support. Not all are accepted as legitimate in their own countries."

Should there be a category for such organizations?

BTW, if we had a NV wikiproject, as proposed above, this would be a great topic to discuss there. — Sebastian 19:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

What was the organizations list called before? Unclear. Nonviolence organizations tends to mean those that advocate nonviolence in general, not merely use it as a strategy or tactic. Which those organizations largely are, though even those sometimes are infiltrated by apologists for various types of violence. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed -- I think that "Nonviolence organizations" should mean groups whose purpose is to advocate for the use of nonviolence. Not groups that use nonviolent tactics (exclusively or otherwise), for other purposes. Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Carol, the list was simply called "Organizations",[4] which is indeed very unclear. I agree with both of you that "Nonviolence organizations" should mean more than just embracing NV, but for the reasons Carol cites, this requires some research. I won't object with anyone removing organizations from that categories on these grounds. BTW, I just noticed a similar list at nonviolent resistance#Current and recent nonviolent resistance organizations, and I will move those into the same category. — Sebastian 20:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Questions about "undermining power" and "how can the person live it?"

'On a national level, the strategy of nonviolence seeks to undermine the power of rulers by encouraging people to withdraw their consent and cooperation.'
This section needs clarification as not all pacifists are anarchists.
'Of course no one can simply will themselves to have such care, and this is one of the great personal challenges posed by nonviolence - once one believes in nonviolence in theory, how can the person live it?'
This section appears to assume that existentialism is self evident. Particularly that emotions come before actions and that emotions are more important than actions. Further, I do not recall any encyclopedia ending a section with a question or, indeed, including any question.

Tum Dushul (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I renamed the section title from "Bias", because that title was very vague.

The first sentence was originally much clearer, and was not limited to anarchism: "The nonviolent approach to social struggle represents a radical departure from conventional thinking about conflict, and yet appeals to a number of common-sense notions. The first of these is that the power of rulers depends on the consent of the populace. Without a bureaucracy,[typo corrected] an army or a police force to carry out his or her wishes, the ruler is powerless. Power, nonviolence teaches us, depends on the co-operation of others. Nonviolence undermines the power of rulers through the deliberate withdrawal of this co-operation." Maybe you can find a wording that closer resembles the original intention?

The second sentence has been largely unchanged since 2005, although it was also a bit clearer then. As far as the question is concerned, I think the intention is clear, but if you prefer to avoid the question mark, it's easy to turn that into a statement, such as "... the question remains how one can live it." However, we don't have to retain the wording of the question. Let's look at the first part of the sentence. I don't think this was intended to be based on existentialism; it seems to have been meant only as a common (and common-sense) observation. Would that be clearer if we reworded it to something like the following? "Because such care requires an unusual amount of willpower, the question how to live NV in practice poses a great personal challenge." — Sebastian 01:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawing support can be temporary, or can be from some institutions but not others, so anarchism is not the first thing that will jump to mind, though more clarification would help. And more of the original quote would be good too.

The second concern is relevant to two unsourced paragraphs which may be generally true how ever it is worded, but obviously needs sourcing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I will be starting a Nonviolence WikiProject

Resolved

 – see Wikipedia:WikiProject Nonviolence

If you are interested in participating, please chime in at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Nonviolence. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, thank you and hello. Three words that mean a lot in our world, but that people here seem to think we don't hear enough.these simple words often can't purely be said. In dependant LG or together, they are marks of healing. Hello is to be happy for others to live. Like the great Mata harp said in the UK. How many people do you cross in your your day who are happy that you live? Most don't even think about it, because we've become Tra spare to one another. It has its advantages . Start made and I would like to continental tomorrow thank you . Signed scouting to the awesome team . Scoubidou144 (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It would be a difficult task, but I feel that merging Ahimsa into this article will help improving both the articles and moving towards FA status. Further, they overlap each a little too much in their present state. If the articles can't depict clear distinction and are prone to becoming duplicates, it would be better to merge them. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 13:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

A noble idea, but the two pages, although revolving around similar concepts, seem to me separated by heritage and historical usage. Both pages are large, and contain different information points pertinent to their related but slightly individual topics. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

After going through the content little deeper, I noticed that there's no origin / history section in this article. It is a must for such an important concept. As far as Ahimsa is concerned, it is more of a collection of three separate article clearly segregated into sections of Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism. It talks more about religious faiths than the term in particular. Looking upon both these aspects, one can include the ahimsa into this one. It's also worth noticing that Ahimsa (Jainism) is a featured article in itself. I further went through a few sources cited in the mentioned articles, and most of them use the terms interchangeably as has been done by many other authors and scholars. If there's minor difference, that can be (and should be disclosed) via a separate section like etymology or something. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 14:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The proliferation and segregation of articles on nonviolence is an old problem. However, discussing it on one of the concerned articles does not encourage the wide view needed for such an endeavor. Therefore, this was the first task I suggested we tackle together at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nonviolence#First task, but the suggestion didn't find enough resonance to fly then. I would love to give this another chance. Please take a look; it would be great to work with you there. — Sebastian 14:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

SebastianHelm how about we create a section named "in religion" and simply copy-paste the content of Ahimsa in this article with due credits to the editors who worked there? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Ahimsa is a topic in Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace, and Conflict, not a synonym. Ahimsa has been a core religious concept in the Indian traditions such as Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism, while nonviolence concepts elsewhere do not share the premises of the Indian religions. For example, Ahimsa concept in the Indian traditions include ideas such as having no intent nor even thought of doing harm to any living being. Nonviolence elsewhere sometimes does not include such depth nor the intent to not harm animals etc (meat eating is fine). The two articles can be improved indeed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Randy Kryn and Ms Sarah Welch. -- Begoon 03:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I oppose this idea because Ahimsa is itself a Sanskrit word coined by Tirthankar Rishabhanatha millions of years ago.Non violence is essentially used as a political term by pacifists such as Gandhiji, Mandela,etc.But Ahimsa is a rather religious term in Buddhism and Hinduism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parasparograhi1 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: Ahimsa is a distinct word with a distinct etymology, meaning and context of its own. Non violence, though may refer to Ahimsa, is rather used in modern times to denote a political ideology. Ahimsa is more concerned with religious and philosophical tenets. Thus, the two varying concepts should not be merged. JainismWikipedian (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gandhi, nonviolence and violent persons who choose not to employ violence

The criticism section currently contains this line which has been marked as lacking an appropriate citation:

Nonviolence advocates see some truth in this argument: Gandhi himself said often that he could teach nonviolence to a violent person but not to a coward and that true nonviolence came from renouncing violence, not by not having any to renounce.

I'm familiar with the quote from Gandhi that's probably being referenced:

"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. Violence is any day preferable to impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent."

While this accords with the assertion that Gandhi said he could not teach nonviolence "to a coward", his words in no way imply that a "coward" is any person who is not violent. An "impotent" is a person who is naturally violent but falls back on nonviolence purely because he believes this will make him personally safer. Gandhi was pushing back against the notion that nonviolent resistors are simply afraid of fighting; instead, they were accepting that violence would be done on them but that they would make the principled (and in Gandhi's view, tactically effective) choice of refusing to use violence in return. The reference should be the quote (it can be found here (https://books.google.com/books?id=F3ofAAAAIAAJ&q=%22cloak+of%22&pg=PA254&hl=en) but at a bare minimum, the wording should be changed. 108.34.206.74 (talk) 02:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Copied content from Ahimsa in Jainism.

Copied content from Ahimsa in Jainism to Nonviolence See Ahimsa in Jainism pages history for attribution. Rishabh.rsd (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Disagree with the first sentence of the article

It says that non violence means not hurting self or others in any condition. If we take this meaning, Gandhi's non violence will have no meaning because in that, fasting and discomfort to self is expected but harming others is not expected. Gandhi has said that he is ready to give his life for many reasons but there is not a single reason for which he will take life of other person. Thank you. -- Dr. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 08:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

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. Somewhat related, Gandhi, Bevel, and others said only vegetarians can adequately organize a nonviolent movement, taking into regard the fuller range of nonviolence. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Erica Chenoweth under "Criticism"

Leaving aside that Chenoweth's analysis has faced its own very extensive criticism, why is non-violence apologia being pushed even in the section on critical responses? 2602:3F:E2EA:FE01:E430:6CB3:574E:2D3 (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Property damage

This article could be improved by addressing the different approaches towards property damage (regarded variably- anything from completely unacceptable to acceptable) within non-violent movements. Harmlesshumanist (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)