Talk:nonkilling

RFV discussion — passed
Is this a protologism? The alternative spelling looks like an adjectival form. Why are all the translations capitalized but not the English version? SemperBlotto 06:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a protologism at all. Part of Buddhist ethics for centuries. Used in academic articles since the 80s, including works by Marvin Harris (Our Kind, 1990), Johan Galtung or Glenn D. Paige (2002). Entries in other reference works include:
 * "Nonkilling: A New Paradigm" International Encyclopedia of Peace. Oxford University Press, New York (2009)
 * "Nonkilling Political Science" Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace and Conflict, 2nd Edition. Elsevier, San Diego (2008)
 * "Nonkilling Global Society" Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS). EOLSS Publishers, Oxford (2004)
 * See academic support of Nonkilling Research Committees.
 * The alternative spelling follows the same logic as that of nonviolence/non-violence, even though use without hiphen seems to be preferred.
 * Capitalized translations have been corrected. --Cgnk 14:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * References are not citations. We need to see how the words are used in context in the entry itself or on Citations:nonkilling. Each citation should be from a different work, preferably a different author. Google Books is a good way to get the material. For something that is under challenge we need three citations. See pirate for an example of two challenged senses, once cited, one uncited, the uncited one being likely to be deleted. DCDuring TALK 16:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Quotes showing the range of use of the noun would help. A quote from a well-known author, like Gandhi might be nice. Quotes with usages like "Nonkilling is ...." or "Nonkillings are...." clearly show noun usage in contrast to usage as above in the titles of the works where it could be adjective usage (though it probably isn't). DCDuring TALK 17:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments and guidance. Please take a look to see if it's OK. Never done a dictionary entry before. Thanks!--Cgnk 20:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not clear to me that the quotations for the "doctrine" sense support that meaning as opposed to the other one. It is also not clear that we have a true adjective as opposed to a noun used as an adjective ("attributively"). A true adjective could be used after a form of "to be" ("predicatively") and would be comparable ("more") or gradable {"very"). Plurals show true noun use. Such citations may not make for good illustrations of meaning, but are necessary for constructing a high-quality dictionary entry. This is especially necessary when we venture into an area where no dictionary has gone before. If the quotes don't contribute to the users, we might put some of them on the Citations page. DCDuring TALK 13:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems quite complicated. Can it be simplified? DCDuring TALK 14:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Cited all senses; closing. Equinox ◑ 01:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

RFC discussion: September 2014
Translations need a lot of work / verification- some languages we don't recognize. DTLHS (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

RFV discussion: September 2022–February 2023
Sense 1: "A precept or worldview that affirms the possibility of a society where killing is absent." It has tons of citations, but I believe every single one fits better under sense 2: "Lack of killing; permitting to live". Equinox ◑ 20:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Appears to be ✅. Ioaxxere (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No new quotations have been added since Equinox started this discussion. The question is whether the existing cites belong to the challenged sense. – Einstein2 (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, yes. The first set of quotations refer to the "principle/precept" of nonkilling while sense 2 is about the nonkilling of something. I wouldn't be opposed to merging but that's not an RFV issue. Ioaxxere (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

close this as you like. Ioaxxere (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

RFV Passed (no response). Ioaxxere (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Um it doesn't automatically pass just because someone didn't pass it whose shoulders you dumped the burden on! I will RFV it again if it's still shit.  Especially bad now that there are 80 cites that might be under the wrong sense.  All right all right I did nothing. Thanks to people who did something. Equinox ◑ 07:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There was a consensus (me) that the cites were okay... do you still think it's "still shit"? Ioaxxere (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)