Talk:Peace and conflict studies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Anti-war (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anti-war, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the anti-war movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

First institute[edit]

PRIO was founded in 1959 ...

... yet it only claims to be "one of the first". Anyone knows a reliable source as to which was the very first? 19:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Major addition of text[edit]

I've written most of this page from scratch. Please do add to it and correct any mistakes I may have made. Thanks, --SianMycock 23:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


There seems to be substantial overlap between Conflict resolution, Conflict resolution research, and Peace and conflict studies. Perhaps one or more merges are advisable. --Rinconsoleao 07:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Peace deserves better[edit]

Folks this article is full of original research (except for the paragraph I dropped in, there are no sources), the external links are mostly spam (so what if some university has an undergraduate major in Peace Studies!), and even the text has paragraphs of spam. I removed this one:

Established in the 80's, at the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution (ICAR), faculty and students are committed to the development of theory, research, and practice that interrupt cycles of violence. ICAR is an innovative academic resource for people and institutions worldwide. It comprises a community of scholars, graduate students, alumni, practitioners, and organizations in the field of peace making and conflict resolution. ICAR is a Commonwealth Center for Excellence, recognized for its leadership in the field and its world-renowned faculty.

I'll do a little work with this article, which in the first round means cutting out about half of it. Please let me know now if I'm likely to step on your toes. --Anthon.Eff 15:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you are off to a good start. This is one of the articles I have just enough knowledge in to watch, but I haven't had time to do further research and work on it. Sxeptomaniac 23:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted external links[edit]

I'm removing these from the external links. Most of them are links to an academic course of instruction; some are links to activist campaigns. I left in everything that seemed like it was a research institute, but we are still way above Wikipedia guidelines for number of external links.

Historical origins[edit]

This entire section is original research. If you would like to put it back into the article, appropriate sources must be cited. There also seems some question as to whether this background is sufficiently important to the article as to require three paragraphs.

The First World War was a turning point in Western attitudes to war. The expression "the war to end all wars" reflected the traumatic events and subsequent flu epidemic. US President Woodrow Wilson had been responsible for taking the USA into the war and this coincided with the emergence of the USA as a major world power. At the 1919 Peace of Paris where the leaders of France, Britain and the USA (Clemenceau, Lloyd George and Wilson) met to decide the future of Europe, Woodrow Wilson proposed Fourteen Points. These included breaking up European empires into nation states and the establishment of the League of Nations. These moves, intended to ensure a peaceful future, were the background to a number of developments in the emergence of Peace Studies as an academic discipline.
The Department of International Politics was established in the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth in 1919. David Davis was the first "Woodrow Wilson Chair". The first blow to Wilson's peaceful vision was the rejection of US membership of the League of Nations by the United States Congress. The 1920s and 1930s saw the rise of fascism and military dictatorships. Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Francisco Franco and Josef Stalin all came to power and militarism was on the rise in Japan. International relations became increasingly dominated by the realists and dealt mainly with the international politics of power between states. Examples of peaceful figures were seen as unrealistic in the face of aggressive dictators. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain followed a policy of appeasement in an attempt to temper the aggressive ambitions of Hitler. A strong opposing view was that the West should confront Hitler and build up forces to match German rearmament.
After the nuclear bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of the Second World War the United States was in a unique position of being the only nuclear power. The gap was soon closed when the USSR acquired nuclear weapons in 1949. At the emergence of the Cold War, Peace and Conflict Studies was be the normative academic subject no longer represented by the broadly realist International Relations.

--Anthon.Eff 18:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing SPAM or near SPAM[edit]

What follows seems like SPAM. When we mention specific programs, they should be prominent, and there should be some information about what they do that makes them stand out from the 200 other programs. Otherwise, it is just SPAM.

For example, the University of Bradford established a Chair of Peace Studies in 1972 and now boasts its own Peace Studies department. In the 1960s the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute was endowed by the Swedish government. More recently a Centre for Peace Studies, to do Peace Research and coordinate the Master's in Peace and Conflict Transformation was established at the University of Tromsø, Norway in 2002, and a year later a master's programme in Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Oslo.

--Anthon.Eff 19:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy of peace[edit]

Is this academic discipline informed in any way by philosophy, as science is informed by a philosophy of science?

I am beginning to learn about various philosophies of peace, and I was disappointed that Wikipedia didn't have an article about it. So I'm trying to create one by accretion; not the best method, I'm sure!

I've heard of slogans like "Speak softly but carry a big stick", but seriously what sorts of philosophy or ever religion are devoted to peace? And what philosophies have actually brought about peace on any level? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are asking "what philosophies have brought about peace?" there is no unambiguous answer. But if you are asking "which philosophers have talked about peace?" then the answer would be (at least for the West), "begin with Immanuel Kant." --Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Help at Peace?[edit]

This article seems well written and well cited. Any chance some of you guys knowledgable about peace stuff can come over to peace and help clean it up? I have been wrangling with POV and original research at the peace page for well more than a year now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudeman1st (talkcontribs) 18:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I second the motion. Much of the peace article should be in this one. Geo8rge (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of Vandalism[edit]

I see there is some nasty journalistic slop that keeps being inserted on this page. It appears to keep reappearing. Most of the info in the articles appears properly sourced by peer reviewed academic journals and books etc from major universities. It could do with tightening up. The slop is taken from sources from newspapers and thinktanks (Bawer/ Kay?? who are they? Are they academics getting published in decent journals?). Some of it is idiotic, some of it represents POV, NPV, even BLP violations. Make your own mind up, but I will expunge and report at some point if someone else doesn't have the time.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opr1 (talkcontribs) 20:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Your claim that the criticism and controversy section is "slop" represents a poor understanding of wikipedia. Newspapers are not prohibited from commenting on academic programs and citations from them, as long as they are relevant and properly sourced, are allowed in wikipedia. If it is felt that any of this information is incorrect, is being misconstrued, or is improperly sourced, feel free to point it out. Also, feel free to provide evidence that contradicts the criticisms.

Finally, feel free to ask an wiki administrator to review the article if you feel that any material posted is incorrect.

Also, when posting on talk pages, it is proper format to place new material at the bottom of a page in a new section (not at the top). Please keep this in mind.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC))


pls do not conflate journalistic attacks on individuals or on the general subdiscipline with the scientific work and arguments being produced in peer reviewed material. It is shoddy. Detailed refs pls from peer reviewed material where nec to keep material live. agreed??

stop damaging this piece[edit]

Please respond to the above comment rather than deleting it.

The information on criticisms etc 'hyperionsteel' keepings adding is incorrect, misconstrued, and improperly sourced. S/he does not seem to understand that s/he are using non expert and partisan, non peer reviewed sources which make a general attack on a scientific debate in peer reviewed journals. Clearly they have not read the debates, but just reacted to what they thought the subdiscipline was about. PLease adhere to NPV. Also, if HS is going to make specific comments about Galtung's statements, let's have the references to where he makes these statements, not vague refs to a journalist who probably hasn't read them- otherwise it is BLP violation. Kay and Bawer and others and not just 'newspaper' sources reporting the news- they biased and ideoligical, and ill informed- and this isn't news.

So the version standing of the piece includes their dubious arguments, makes the above responses, proves the criticism wrong, and just about retains the standards and balance of the piece. If this page is going to be developed it should include serious criticisms. Why does hyperionsteel keep deleting it and putting in this junk, and wasting everyone's time? I can appreciate concerns about balance, but perhaps s/he needs to go and read the literature before intervening.

Once again, I will remind you that newspapers and journalists are acceptable sources for Wikipedia. Your position that journalistic sources cannot be used for this article is incorrect. You claim that the people criticizing Peace Studies are "biased and ideoligical, and ill informed" but the same thing could be argued against the people cited in this article who support peace studies. On topics such as this, nearly everyone has a strong opinion - the fact that you don't agree with that opinion does not mean you can remove it. You claim that these additions are "incorrect, misconstrued, and improperly sourced" - how exactly? - I've clearly cited all of the sources that I have drawn these citaitons from. If you feel I am "damaging" this article, I suggest you submit your concerns for mediation or contact an administrator to ask for a review. On the surface, I do not find your arguments convincing and your tone - use of the words "their dubious arguments" suggests that you have not taken an objective approach to this article but rather are determined to minimize any criticism of peace studies. I stand by my original position. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 07:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

One more note, if you feel this strongly about the content on Wikipedia, I suggest you register as a user.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

I agree that critical perspectives have a place in this article (and in the article on Johan Galtung). After all, it's an academic field, and in academics we all agree to disagree (and we can do so politely). Perhaps the edits would meet with less resistance if the edits were more concise. Also, it might be worthwhile to bring back the Bruce Bawer material (from City Journal--check the Johan Galtung article history), so that there is more than one source.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


OK the piece is better now, but the issues I have indicated before linger on. Bawer is included already. Hyperionsteel you misreprent my comments. I claim that Kay and Bawer are wrong in THIS case, are weak sources, and that you could really find stronger sources to back up alternative arguments. I am not saying you can't use journalism, but in this case these examples arent suitable. The Scruton ref is more suitable because he is a well known thinker and public intellectual, but even there he is quoted through a journalist not the original source, which would be much more credible.

Editing pages with stuff pulled off google is not helpful.

I too am concerned with balance- but the 'critical' approaches you are including are not balanced- if you want to critique the arguments, please respond with similar arcademic quality arguments. Anthonyeff, the 'critical' approaches you mention are actually not critical, they are actually right wing, mainstream. Critical does not have to mean right or left- it has methodological foundations not necessarily ideological. Anyway most 'critical thinkers' are not lefties and do not dream of socialism... This is a lazy stereotype from the 50-60s. Introducing political ideology into this piece looks like an attempt to undermine its entirety with a few wild accusations- as wild as those Galtung is accused of! There are many mainstream constributions to this field.

At the moment, the criticism you have introduced still looks weak because you cannot cite the sources or make any academic arguments, despite repeated requests. Also , hyperionsteel, you are copying your same material verbatim into other pages, which looks dodgy. I have tried to develop the balance, but at the moment the criticism section looks like journalism vs academics, which no-one will take seriously. Galtung is one player in this field, but there are others. Drawing on his academic work is different to agreeing with his personal or public statements. There are other famous names, but they aren't so easy to attack on populist grounds. You wouldn't accuse Doyle, say, of such things, though he helped introduce the democratic peace 'law' which is a central debate in this field.... This is a more central argument than Galtung's stuff (and probably should be included... I might do this).

Kay and Bawer need to back up their claims with their sources, which they don't. So then you could cite the actual sources and not just rely on filtering and making what look like wild accusations. If you don't have time to do this then you probably shouldnt be including their material.

I am happy to have this mediated- I don't think journalist commentaries can be given the same weight as academic peer reviewed material and I think the material you include on Galtung is probably out of context and difficult, not to say impossible, to verify.

Hope this is clearer.

I'm Looking Out for You![edit]

Wikignome crop.gif This editor is a WikiGnome.

I'm a new member of this site, it's true, but I have proclaimed my self a WikiGnome and will be watching this Article.

Goodbye; I will retreat now from all talk pages... (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)