Talk:Pacificism

This page was proposed for deletion by Carchasm (talk · contribs) on 15 September 2022.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pacificism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics
	Social and political philosophy

DELETING THIS ARTICLE

DELETE
This article used to be directed to pacifism; possibly an article deleted in the past?
A two sentence paragraph under modern history may be warranted since a Richard Normal also discusses, but not a wide usage so should not be part of definition since still obscure and likely to remain that way.
Internet research will show that it mostly is a MIS-spelling of pacifism
Martin Caedel is an obscure author and didn't see evidence anyone else quotes him.
Should be redirect to pacifism again, for all the people who spell pacifism wrong.
Otherwise we WILL need either a disambiguation page or a clear indicator on top of page indicating that those who arrived at it probably MIS-spelled "pacifism" and should go there. So WIKIPEDIA doesn't confuse people who make a Common Spelling Error.
Overall have to question WP:NPOV - WP:OR of this article.

Carol Moore 01:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Pacificism DIFFERS from pacifism

Pacificism IS a separate and distinct theory from pacifism.

The Peace Pledge Union's official website recognises Caedel, mentioning on this page:

— "...five 'war and peace theories' - militarism, crusading, defencism, pacificism and pacifism."

— "Meanwhile pacifists should, so far as their consciences allow, support pacificism as a step in the right direction."

Similarly, this article in the Western Herald states:

— "Pacificism is the idea that some wars are necessary to advance the cause of peace, one step beyond conditional pacifism, but not quite at the level of defencism , which is the theory that all defensive wars and acts of deterrence are inherently just."

— "There are five overall themes of pacifism: the deontological and consequentialist versions of absolute and conditional pacifism, and the principle of pacificism."

I have no doubt that other online sources cite the theory, but have no further time to search for them at present.
I myself teach political and philosophical theories. Whilst pacificism is indeed a common spelling variant of pacifism, it is recognised as a distinct theory in its own right. As such this article should NOT be deleted. It does, however, require a disambiguation, which I have now added.

Ukulele7 16:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Ukulele7 talk

You removed delete template, which is WIKI-Legal, but the other ones I'll put up should not be removed until issues resolved.
If Peace Pledge Union mentions it, it should be in the article and explicitly sourced with a link.
If you are promoting a questionable theory, then you should beef up the article. The internet search evidence that it is widely used as an alternative to pacifism is not obvious - but there's lots of evidence it is used as a misspelling.
You should at least mention Richard Normal - unless of course you are him, in which case see WIKI guidelines on promoting own theories.
Who knows what the Western Herald is? Is there a date, author, title, link?
Just because one teaches political theory does not mean one also cannot be advancing a fringe theory which at the very least should be clearly separated from the dominant theory.
You must recognize that it WILL be seen as a neoconservative statist (or conversely black block anarchist) type attempt to confuse people on the meaning of pacifism. You should therefore be anxious to be very clear about the origin of the word and the intent of the originators.
If it's just some abstruse intellectual distinction, it should at least be mentioned as such and not advanced as if it is an active philosophy, as it was when put in pacifism. Being abstruse, it belongs either in modern history or criticism section of pacifism.

Carol Moore 18:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

The reference to the Peace Pledge Union has now been added in the main article.
A link to the aforementioned Western Herald article are both above and referenced in the main article.
I am not "promoting a questionable theory", I am simply emphasising the need for an accepted distinction to be retained, not deleted.
Pacificism is NOT a "fringe theory".
I am unaware of how pacificism was worded in the pacifism article. I merely object to this article being listed for deletion.

Ukulele7 20:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Ukulele7 talk

I'm not against fringe theories myself, as long as it is shown they are widely used, if only by fringy people. However, the notability of the pacificism is still to be proved. If there are only 3 mentions of it as this theory (and not misspelling of pacifism) on the planet, considering the confusion it causes with pacifism, it should not have own page and only get brief mention in main article. So waiting for the proof.

Carol Moore 21:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Pacificism

Pacificism? What a mouthful. How can people practice this if they can't even say it? nirvana2013 (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two terms in one article, or do we need to split fully as disambiguation?

Can a single article cover both the geographic meaning and the philosophical meaning akin to pacifism? Or do we need a full split into three pages (as neither has primacy)? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

As I understand, Pacificism refers to an ideology that the nations of the Pacific Rim should work with each other, akin to Atlanticism, while pacifism refers to the belief that war must never be waged. Because of that, it doesn't seem to make sense to say that Pacificism should not be confused with pacifism, and then to go on and define Pacificism in the same way as pacifism, as the current edition of the article does.

Since my attempt to clean up the article was reverted, I am going to add some clean-up tags and see what others think to do.--Beneficii (talk) 01:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to read more carefully for the definition of pacificism, as a concept related to but distinguishable from pacifism.

"Pacificism", as a geographical notion, was added here by a one-edit editor and is still unsourced. If you think that's a real thing, then you need to improve its sourcing. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]