Talk:Peace

message: It would be interesting, though I'm sure very difficult, to list the status of every country (ie. "at war" or "peace") in a table.  Even better would be presenting it as a map!  violet/riga (t) 19:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would be interesting but it would be POV. Whether a country is at peace or at war is entirely POV. So, NO you should not include it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudeman1st (talk • contribs) 02:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countries at peace 

message: All stuff on this page needs cites. I don't care if it's your religious view or your group's view. There can be no original research or POV stuff on this page, especially without cites. I am now deleting stuff that has been on the page for more than a year without a cite, like "Environmental Peace." I am reorganizing a little. I will trim down POV stuff. If you have beef with my changes, post here or to my talk page. Dudeman1st (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not put symbols for peace in the main area. Whether you like it or not, there is no universally recognized symbol for peace. I believe the dove and the "peace sign" are sufficient, but I also believe that a swastika is a peace symbol. Better to let sleeping dogs lie.Dudeman1st (talk) 03:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Been watching this page for more than a year.  

message: The current articel appears to be stuck somewhere between a disambiguation for various "types" of peace ("plural", "inner", etc.) and trying to explain what the concept is in general, with some extra directory like sections thrown in. If someone wants to rewrite or revise this, I suggest deciding what sort of a page this will be and then fixing or rewriting it. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup-rewrite 

message: i think the "clean up" is slowly reducing the article into a joke, i hope that the whole page will not soon be removed due to "clean up",  it is unfortunate that those who do the "clean up" to not contribute to building up the page Motegole (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  too much "clean up" 

message: Vandals, spammers and edit warriors, please keep yourselves from editing this page. Remember that this is not a battleground and this page is about peace. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 22:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No edit wars, please. 

message: Does anyone feel that the Nobel Peace Prize section is placed a bit too early in the article?  I don't think the Nobels are a central concept of 'peace', worthy of being in the first paragraph after the lead.  comments? User:Pedant (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peace Prize 

message: I dont see why there is no criticism section. There can never be "true" peace. One organism much consume/kill another to survive. One human must have some type of hegemony (even on the most minute scale). Any one can add anything to it or make some type of criticism.
Survival has nothing to do with peace.--108.20.189.221 (talk) 03:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: u shuld hve a pcture of lke john lennon of that guy on my shirt. thy is heaps more peacefull. or doves  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.0.0.162 (talk) 04:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Redirects here, while its meaning is quite different.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a section on Peace in the presence of injustice which covers the perspective of those on the receiving end of a pacification policy. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pacification]] 

message: I re-wrote the first section of the article. It was very sloppily done, and from the moment I saw it I knew it needed re-writing. The very first sentence said something about peace being either a positive and negative condition, and that peace is a negative condition when associated with an unwillingness to engage in armed conflict????? I don't know. Didn't really make sense/sound good. The other sections look just as bad. Lots of work needs to be done on those sections. It looks like some biased trolls have been valdalizing this article, probably for a long time now. 204.254.175.249 (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrites/Clean-up

message: Peace is a general term, Please move the details of peace studies items to peace studies.  Geo8rge (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most of the stuff in this section should be moved to peace studies. 

message: Active Peace Theory has very few google hits if any, and no references.  I think it should be deleted as it is original research.  Or moved to peace and conflict studies. Geo8rge (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Active Peace Theory 

message: These articles seem are too detailed for a general article like peace.
*Active Peace Theory- few if any google hits
*Plural peaces - few if any google hits
Geo8rge (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please move these sections to peace and conflict studies, create a  new WP article to contain them, or delete them 

message: Okay so I just reviewed the article, a dreadful mess. What I do is repair articles. So I am going to do some major work on this article. I think the basic structure is there but needs clarification. There is a need for more sources which is the force thing I am going to do. Empireheart (talk) 08:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Redesign

message: "Peace" can mean a variety of things; this is not well explained in the article's definition. I suggest that the article is made a disambugation page stating that it may refer to
- a type of social relationship (aka 2 entities "being in peace" or "at peace with" )
- the duration of absence of conflict; aka a period of peace or period of absence of conflict
Finally, it should be mentioned that the opposite of peace isn't war (the latter being essantially a period of conflict), rather the opposite of a period of absence of conflict is a period of conflict
The opposite of Being in conflict (aka "Being at war") is "finding practical solutions to ensure that no conflicts can arise" (see http://gracetopia.wordpress.com/2009/07/19/the-opposite-of-war-isnt-peace-its-creation/)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.66.161 (talk) 08:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: the dove is a sign of peace. --WhiteInKnights (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  dove 

message: Democratic peace theory is simply a calque from Marxist peace theory which claims that in a socialist society there is no reason for war.--79.111.107.10 (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democratic peace theory 

message: Perhaps  can be integrated to the article ?
91.182.232.33 (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: *Peace has been thrown around often. During the Cold War, Soviet dictators claimed they were "always in the interests of peace". Of course, their definition of "peace" was world communism. On that note, how is Islam a "religion of peace"? 69.143.107.112 (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peace as a code word?

message: One should consider why people look at an article about peace. Are they simply interested in gathering more informaiton about the subject of peace in the same way that they would about, say, Lady Gaga? I don't think so. I believe that peace is what one could call a "lifestyle subject," in that one is interested in it not in a casual way but in a deeper way that could affect one's lifesytle. I therefore feel that there is a need for the article to list more ways to achieve peace, which is, after all, one of life's essential questions. That is why I added the ways to achieve peace given by Buddhism and the spiritual teacher Meher Baba. Wikipedia's motto, I think, is "the sum of all human knowledge," which is of course a tall order, but Wikipedia does seem to want to be rather inclusive.
Tentotwo55 (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's very subjective. See WP:COI, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_textbook.2C_or_scientific_journal. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need more information about ways to achieve peace? 

message: added interesting ref by Benedict XVI, connecting peace and ecologyUnimpeder (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious beliefs and peace 

message: The introduction currently specifies too much, more than a common denominator of the mentioned theories could be, and by such violates the article's content.
I suggest (for the whole article) incorporating a closer look at Dietrich's categorisation of 5 functionally different concepts of peace (cp.: Dietrich 2012: Interpretations of Peace in History and Culture; Dietrich 2013: Elicitive Conflict Transformation and the Transrational Shift in Peace Politics), as the article itself also mentions different philosophies. In energetic traditions (e.g. Buddhism) peace is related to unblocked flows, absence of Karma, or Tantric harmony and resonance. By the principle of Yin & Yang there is no freedom from violence (compare Krishnamurti), peace is not and cannot be static, but peace is a process and requires continuous effort. The only (static) state of being in peace is Buddha and/or emptiness. In moral understandings (e.g. Abrahamic religions) peace is related to absence of sin, guilt and fear (this is the moral aspect, this is not to deny that all religions show energetic aspects). Modernity (or modern peace) is more difficult to grasp. Generally it is related to the notion of universal truths as found in modern sciences, and in related non-humble 'attitudes' like positivism and progress. Derived from such a perspective is the idea that a peaceful society can be constructed, as in Marxism or institutionalised and constitutional democracy. Postmodernity acknowledges the context-dependency of truth, requires constant critique, and thereby denies the absence ofa  unique truth. Postmodern peace is therefore a recognition of peaces as plural, "defined, relational, contextual, vernacular, and anything but arbitrary" (p. 207). Transrational concepts recognise the most complex rational model of the world as systemic (non-static complex web of interactions, causes, and effects), which is found in both postmodern and energetic perspectives, and which excludes a moral understanding of guilt. It also respects the processes that exceed humans' rational grasp, like emotions, a person's role in a larger system (as a recognising person is always part of the recognised, nobody can isolate and fully grasp her-/himself), and spirituality. Transrational peace does not prescribe (as opposed to modernity and development politics), is process- and not solution-oriented, and relation-oriented and leaves the interpretation of facts to the respective dynamics. It recognises all parties in a conflict as essential to be regarded.
In the light of the above families there can also be seen different concepts and theories like inner/external peace, positive/negative peace, etc.
This was just a quick, by far not exhaustive summary, probably with errors, and largely referring to the above mentioned books by Dietrich without detail references. I hope it clarifies why an introduction telling a common understanding is problematic. An intersection of understandings of peace across cultures (not philosophies) might be feelings of resonance, compassion, freedrom from fear, etc. Such are in the focus of energetic worldviews, and covered in terms like love (to God and others) within Abrahamic religions. I propose to contextualise such common descriptions.
I suggest therefore to rethink the introduction and the structure of the article from a philosophic meta-level (I mean at least one higher level of abstraction than present).
By the way, in all these different traditions there are different symbols for peace. The one shown stems from ND (nuclear disarmament) and is postmodern. Energetic ones include Yin & Yang. Moral ones include the dove of peace. Modern: white flag, V-Symbol. Transrational: Sri Yantra. However there are so many more - by culture and religion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.175.89.114 (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction Disregards Content / Theories 

message: The section on "Religious Beliefs and Peace" goes into too much detail about Christianity. The specific way one is supposed to get into heaven is irrelevant, as is the quote from Pope Benedict. Also, the way one is supposed to go to heaven varies between sects.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.1.62.142 (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious section goes into too much detail

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Peace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071026033111/http://nobelprize.org:80/alfred_nobel/will/short_testamente.html to http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/short_testamente.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The topics of "peace" and "peacetime" seem to be closely interrelated. At this time, Peacetime is an unsatisfactory WP:DICDEF stub. It is probably better to discuss peacetime in politics as a subsection of the general topic "peace" for now, then branch it out into its own topic later if the discussion grows too long. Mz7 (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 04:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: . I've redirected Peacetime here. Mz7 (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Peacetime]] 

message: Sweden participated in the war in Afghanistan from 2002 and in the war against Libya in 2011.
If the claim of ongoing peace is right it should mention by which definition Sweden has ongoing peace while partaking in wars.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.234.170.89 (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sweden 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Peace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071022225012/http://einaudi.cornell.edu/PeaceProgram/ to http://www.einaudi.cornell.edu/peaceprogram/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090620023950/http://internationalpeaceandconflict.ning.com/forum/topics/the-theory-of-active-peace to http://internationalpeaceandconflict.ning.com/forum/topics/the-theory-of-active-peace
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Peace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101220083923/http://mkgandhi.org/momgandhi/momindex.htm to http://www.mkgandhi.org/momgandhi/momindex.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130609195112/http://files.rhodes.gethifi.com/Ottawa_September_2011_To_render_war_impossible.pdf to http://files.rhodes.gethifi.com/Ottawa_September_2011_To_render_war_impossible.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130922131706/http://www.rhodeshouse.ox.ac.uk/news/cecil-rhodess-vision-of-peace-highlighted to http://www.rhodeshouse.ox.ac.uk/news/cecil-rhodess-vision-of-peace-highlighted
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130922150243/http://www.rhodeshouse.ox.ac.uk/news/honouring-j-william-fulbright to http://www.rhodeshouse.ox.ac.uk/news/honouring-j-william-fulbright
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150626193842/http://www.hwpl.kr/content.php?p=EN%2Fwarp to http://www.hwpl.kr/content.php?p=EN%2Fwarp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121013220950/http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/index.html to http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article cautions against adding more links but I think it would be appropriate to add a link to https://www.iep.utm.edu/peace/, which provides a more detailed encyclopedia article on the topic. The proposed link site is a piece of scholarship, not (like some of the previously existing links) an attempt to recruit partisans for some activity. What do others think?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aubreybardo (talk • contribs) 16:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link? 

message: What flag should be raised in peace? 2001:56A:FC70:E300:A928:1B59:D289:E72D (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peace 

message: The second picture in this article (the one containing the goddess Eirene) may have incorrect information in the caption.
The caption states that the statue in the photo is of Eirene with her infant son Pluto, but I could find no information of Eirene having a son named Pluto on her Wikipedia page, and the name Pluto is usually used for the Roman equivalent of Hades, who was not Eirene's son, not to mention that calling Eirene's, a Greek goddess's, son by a Roman name would be incorrect.
I think the infant in the statue may instead be Plutus, the god of wealth and son of Demeter, because he is in the statue pictured on Eirene's page. If this is the case, someone should change the caption accordingly. 90.128.57.150 (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, he is Plutus, good catch! Randy Kryn (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect information in the caption of the 2nd picture 

message: The people of the world should know that sustainable peace can only happen with the cooperation of all people of all races and religions, please join the peace for all campaign.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.18.26.69 (talk) 09:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  United people of the world for peace