From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


No merge per strong consensus. (non-admin closure) Daask (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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 ( but at a bare minimum, the wording should be changed. (talk) 02:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)