Hi Mindcemetary - nice to see that someone else is interested in the Nonviolence article. I've made some minor edits to the Criticism section in an effort make it a bit more NPOV.

You're probably quite right that Churchill can't be characterised simply as pragmatist - indeed, there are strong moral threads running through the writings of the other names mentioned in that section of the article. As individuals all deeply involved in the struggle for social equality of one kind or another, how could they not? I would argue, however, that the ideological clash between the nonviolent and 'any means necessary' approaches has most often been characterised as a clash between pragmatists willing to use violence, and moralists who are not, most often for ethical or religious conviction.

BTW, remember that Wikipedia articles don't usually have single authors. I've written a fair chunk of this one, but generally speaking, the more people who work on an article the better it seems to get. If you feel you can improve on an article, then you are free to edit it as you wish, but anyone else working on it will appreciate it if you post some comments on the 'Talk' page as you've done here, particularly if you are proposing a radical change.

Forgive me for not responding to all of your arguments - I think that 'Talk' pages are best used for discussion about and concrete proposals for editing articles rather than 'for and against' debates. If you want to discuss this in more depth, you are welcome to e-mail me by going to User:Dirtbiscuit and clicking on 'E-mail this user', but I'm most likely to suggest some reading material rather than engage in a long-winded debate!

Oh, and welcome to Wikipedia. (Welcoming seems to be quite the done thing around here, but I guess the more experienced welcomers must have missed you somehow.) Dirtbiscuit