Talk:Long Peace: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:18, 8 August 2023

Military history: Technology Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

Untitled

I thought "The Long Peace" is an interesting term. There seems to be a lot relating it to this time period, although it apparently may also have other referents. Peter Flass (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in the article, and probably should be, but the term "the long peace" was coined by noted historian John Lewis Gaddis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.92.2 (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Translations

This definitely needs more translations. It's a very brief article, so it shouldn't be much of a problem to create French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese etc. articles of it. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merger with Pax Atomica

I have seen that this article and Pax Atomica seem to cover concepts with a significant overlap. Seeing as the Pax Atomica article is a stub, I feel it could be merged into this article as a subsection, which could provide a more elegant result. I am an inexperienced editor so I feel that I should consult the community to determine what the prevailing opinion is before attempting something of this scope. Please let me know your thoughts. KnowForge9 (talk) 05:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Similar but different and historically speaking small periods of relative peace. 109.93.51.74 (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It seems that Pax Atomica is a more ambiguous term than the Long Peace, and are distinct terms from the perspective of usage in historical scholarship. Halfadaniel (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, with no merge, given consensus not to merge. Klbrain (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“Relative peace is not peace”

Sorry, I usually don’t ever post here, but I noticed that the first paragraph ends with “However, relative peace is not peace.” I think that statement sounds more like an opinion and does not objectively add anything to the paragraph. Does anyone else feel that way? 96.86.71.225 (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 :'''Oppose'''. It seems that Pax Atomica is a more ambiguous term than the Long Peace, and are distinct terms from the perspective of usage in historical scholarship. [[User:Halfadaniel|Halfadaniel]] ([[User talk:Halfadaniel|talk]]) 19:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 ::'''Closing''', with '''no merge''', given consensus not to merge. [[User:Klbrain|Klbrain]] ([[User talk:Klbrain|talk]]) 11:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
+== “Relative peace is not peace” ==
+Sorry, I usually don’t ever post here, but I noticed that the first paragraph ends with “However, relative peace is not peace.” I think that statement sounds more like an opinion and does not objectively add anything to the paragraph. Does anyone else feel that way? [[Special:Contributions/96.86.71.225|96.86.71.225]] ([[User talk:96.86.71.225|talk]]) 16:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)