Talk:Peace/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Peace. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Did a clean up

There was a request for clean-up of this page. On my arrival, I discovered a heavily POV essay (perhaps better described as a "philosophically-tending ramble"). I've made it as encyclopedic and NPOV as I could in the last hour. It still needs work. I have not tackled the link lists as well as I would have liked. The page will need some restructuring before it sounds like an actual, informative article instead of a messy meditation on what peace "means."

Anyone up for the task? I'm a little tired at this point. :D -Monk of the highest order^(t) 04:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.inspad.org

Sardar Muhammad Tahir Tabassum Director, Institute of Peace and Development Brussels, Belgium, December 1, 2007

Brussels Conference Promotes Coexistence among Religions An International Conference on Interfaith Dialogue towards Global Peace at the Peace Embassy in Brussels, Belgium, unanimously passed a resolution entitled "Brussels Peace Declaration on Religious Coexistence" on December 1, 2007. Participants discussed the importance of interfaith harmony and conflict resolution to combat extremism, intolerance, hatred, and violence in the name of religion. The conference was organized by the Universal Peace Federation-Belgium and the Institute of Peace and Development, a European think tank. Both organizations affirmed that they will work together to promote and preserve peace, justice, human rights, equality, genuine brotherhood, and tolerance. Cultivating friendly interactions among people of diverse cultures and religions will help create an environment conducive to building peace and harmony among communities and peoples. Prominent Pakistani intellectual, Major General (retired) Muhammad Tahir, Director of Welfare Education for the Fauji Foundation of Pakistan, was the keynote speaker and received the Institute of Peace and Development’s Peace Award 2007 and a UPF appointment as an Ambassador for Peace. He said that all religions promote a message of peace, harmony, love, and compassion. He described the basic principles and moral values that govern Islamic nations’ dealings with other nations. He said that justice is the inalienable right of all people and that oppressing other people is forbidden, irrespective of their religion, color, or ethnicity. General Tahir envisions the emergence of a world culture wherein the histories and traditions of diverse cultures and civilizations are respected and accepted. He hopes that enmity and oppression will give way to respect and tolerance as people recognize that everyone has the basic right to live peacefully and enjoy their own cultural tradition or religion. Representing the host organizations, Mr. Amin ul Haq, President of the Institute of Peace and Development, affirmed that organization’s commitment to oppose terrorism and extremism in all its manifestations and the use of religious symbols and ethnic values to generate conflicts, feed wars, or justify terrorism. Mr. Philippe Jacques, Secretary General of the Universal Peace Federation-Belgium, spoke of UPF’s work to promote understanding and tolerance among people of all religions based on its understanding that humankind is one family under God. Conference presenters gave examples of interreligious initiatives, including those between Jews and Muslims in Europe and among different religious groups in India. Buddhist and Sikh speakers described aspects of their traditions that can contribute to peaceful coexistence among diverse people in Europe. The Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, H.E. Prof. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mrs. Louise Arbour, congratulated the NGOs for taking the initiative to organize the event. The Director of Human Rights Without Frontiers, Mr. Willy Fautre, expressed appreciation for efforts to promote tolerance and respect among various faiths around the world. The conference decided to establish a Permanent Committee for Interfaith Cooperation, comprised of religious scholars and representatives of different faiths and communities, NGOs and the media. NOTE: Reference was made at the conference to the European Platform for Jewish Muslim Cooperation established by the European Parliament in Brussels on November 27. It aims to build trust between Jewish and Muslim communities in Europe, support and empower grassroots dialogue and cooperation, and provide a forum to showcase good practices at a European level. Its steering group consists of twelve representatives of Jewish and Muslim organizations from six European countries. Brussels Declaration of Religious Coexistance Brussels, Belgium December 1, 2007 We, the representatives of different faiths, communities and cultures, participating in an international Conference on Inter-faith dialogue towards global peace, organized in Brussels on 1st December 2007 by two sister organizations, Universal Peace Federation (UPF) and Institute of Peace and Development (INSPAD) Belgium, have stressed the promotion of inter-faith dialogue for peaceful religious co-existence, cultural harmony and understanding. We have noted that the multi-cultural society in Europe has become an example for the world to follow. • The participants of the conference stressed the role civil societies play in creating social awareness about inter-religious harmony, human rights and respect of law, as well as the role of religious and spiritual educational institutions in promoting tolerance, mutual respect and human rights as human rights are part of all religions and civilization. • The conference called for strengthening communication between the representatives of religions, faiths and European inter-governmental and non-governmental institutions. • The conference urged the media and intellectuals to focus on principles that enhance values, equality, tolerance and acceptance of others after having thoroughly examined and discussed the common values of the various faiths and religions as well as barriers to building inter-faith harmony within the international community and people. We declare our profound conviction that • The various faiths and religions in European countries advocate peace, compassion, and tolerance among mankind. • The promotion of human rights and fundamental freedom, including the right of individuals to choose religion or faith, can contribute to upholding respect for the diversity of faiths and religions, which is essential in combating extremism, intolerance, hatred and violence. • It is more important for people of different religions and faiths to stand united and make clear that they will not allow the use of violence to divide them. We must all speak up against those who use religion to rationalize terrorism and murder. • Promoting and protecting peace, justice, human dignity, equality, equity, genuine brotherhood, tolerance and friendly interaction among cultures and religions needs to be cultivated and nurtured to help create an environment conducive to building peace and harmony within communities and people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.163.239 (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Peace Studies

From the amateur through the academic historian, and the military buff through the five-star general, we devote tremendous energy to the study of war. Unfortunately, the study of peace has not kept pace. So much so that history is commonly perceived as a catalogue of slaughters. Even books supposedly about peace tend to gravitate to discussions on the causes of conflict, and conflict resolution, which is kind of like trying to discuss light through a discussion of shadow. I think we can advance the study of peace by expanding this article. A good place to begin is the discussion of when and where we have experienced peace (as defined by an absence of war.) Sweden 1814 to present is a good example. Please add other examples, perhaps from your own country or region. Later we can expand this into a more general article about peace studies, to complement the current articles on the peace movement.Tomcool 15:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Added the Roman expression "Pax = Absentia Belli". I don't know what "is" is in Roman, anyone? It should read "Pax _is_ Absentia Belli". Sigg3.net 22:17 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The Latin (not "Roman") word for "is" is "est" - but it should NOT be inserted unless we're sure the original quotation contained it. Latin grammar actually allows for the speaker to omit verbs of being, and the Romans did it like crazy! So "Pax absentia belli" makes perfect grammatical sense in Latin and very likely IS the proper form. I can't seem to find the original quotation to check on it - anyone know which of our ilustrious pre-Western forefathers is supposed to have said this, and where? Hierophany 11:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed Hospitality services from internal links (the article is about "gives travellers the chance to stay with locals instead of in hotels or hostels") and the small section called "Peace of heart" which said in its entirety: "Peace also could be used to describe a person's feeling free from sin and fear." -- BCorr|Брайен 15:49, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I just readded Hospitality services. Bcorr, I invite you to take a moment to read about the main ideas behind organizations like this before you edit things out ;-) Hospitality exchange is probably one of the best ways to get to know people from other cultures, increase intercultural understanding and build peace in the long run! Veit 15:21, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This was added by Bcorr to my personal talk page - moving it here and answering: Hi Veit -- I appreciate that you started the Hospitaly Services organization, and I think it's a great idea, but it's considered poor form to promote one's own creations through links if it's not a major part of something or directly related. I think that it makes a lot of sense to have a link to peace in the hospitality services article (which I've done), but not the other way around.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 00:07, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I did not create the hospitality services article (if I remember right :-), and the idea that hospitality exchange can be a road to peace has been around for over 50 years, and I would never lay claim for this to be my "own creation". I am only 26 years old...:-) To be fair, it is true that I founded the Hospitality Club 4 years ago, which is similarly to Wikipedia a very open, non-commercial network, and now the world's largest hospitality network. But: I did not add a link to the HC on the peace page, but to the hospitality services page. So what is your problem exactly? Why is hospitality exchange NOT related to peace????? That's the question you should answer when you remove something. Veit 08:06, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why the revert Bcorr?. Iner Peace is a relevant entry. The fact that tha link points to a stub does not mean it is not relevant. I am adding it back. If you want to remove it, please provide rational. -- jossi 19:14, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The last paragraph under 'historical examples and counterexamples' seems to be more of an opinion-biased statement than an objective one. Kaiwanxiao 08:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't look like an encyclopedia entry at all.

You guys should make this look more professional and serious and like an encyclopedia entry. How do I do that "This article requires cleanup" tag? -- (Anon)

This article does need an overhaul. While there are many differing viewpoints and opinions as to what 'peace' is, a lot of these definitions are too trivial. For example, the opinion of one author's perspective on peace is inappropriate to have here. Things such as "inner peace" should have their own article -- that term itself refers to something very metaphysical, moreso than 'peace' itself. The less said about "peace and quiet" being a section, the better.

Also, the article lacks much reference to terminology from the study of peace -- terms such as 'negative peace' and 'positive peace' should be linked as articles if not directly included. --Dalar 02:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Peace as absence of something?

Is peace the absence of something? Or is peace something in itself? Do we describe light as the absence of darkness? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I second starting the definition with a positive definition. Suggest replaceing 1st & 2nd sentence with: "Peace is entities in harmony. Most often signifiing the absence of conflict, discord, or hostilities." Implemented Rez 04:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say that peace is something in itself, and yet it cannot exist in the presence of certain things. So, peace stands alone but needs the absence of something.

Love

Love then Peace, You cannot have Peace without Love.--68.216.187.39 18:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd beg to differ, is nature peaceful? Does it have Love? 24.205.34.217 23:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree, nature can be peaceful. Also, I think peace can exist without love, it merely can't exist with hatred.

kindoki

Within the following entry is the term 'kindoki'. It's definition, here, seems both useful, but at variance with a cursory search for the term using Google.

Could any-one clarify?

Thanks

john courtneidge

John courtneidge 18:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Plural peaces

Some "peace thinkers" choose to abandon the idea of one definition of peace; rather, they promote the idea of many peaces. They think that no singular, correct definition of peace can exist; peace, therefore, should be seen as a plurality.

For example, in the Great Lakes region of Africa, the word for peace is kindoki, which refers to a harmonious balance between human beings, the rest of the natural world, and the cosmos. This is a much more broad vision of peace than a mere "absence of war" or even a "presence of justice" standard.

Many of these same thinkers also critique the idea of peace as a hopeful or eventual end. They recognize that peace does not necessarily have to be something the humans might achieve "some day." They contend that peace exists, we can create and expand it in small ways in our everyday lives, and peace changes constantly. This view makes peace permeable and imperfect rather than static and utopian.

Peace sign should be removed from article

Though the sign is often used for peace, its true meaning and original meaning is less so. I think it should be removed. do to this reason. --Vehgah 03:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Although its original meaning may differ, it is still very commonly known as 'the' peace symbol. We're not here to change what a sign is "supposed" to mean, but what is does mean to the general public. --Dalar 02:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The peace sign should NOT be removed as it is commonly known as the peace symbol. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur: Keep. Actual photographs of peace are kind of hard to come by, but the symbol is ubiquitous.

Septegram 14:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the concept and idea of peace, not Nero's Crosses, and doves. It has no real purpose in this article and offers no aid in the comprehension of peace as an idea. The Swastika is widely recognized as an evil Nazi symbol, even to the point that its orginal purpose as a sign of the sun is discouraged from being used. If you want to keep it I charge you to make an article about its history and orginal purpose, and put it further down the article. --Vehgah 02:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This article doesn't have a header which states "this is about the concept of peace." This article should definitely include the peace symbol because it is internationally recognized and widely used. If you think it should be changed, make a better caption for it. However the "peace and tranquility" image is POV and should be deleted.Dudeman1st 11:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

anarchists

since when they're pacifists? they're agressive and violent by no reason, oh weel there is a reaon, if you don't agree with them they attack you! and you can see that everytime some anarchist shows up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.25.43.201 (talk • contribs)

Anarchists are peaceful. Say otherwise and they'll "Bash yer facking face in!!!". oTHErONE 02:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Depends on your anarchists. I have an anarchist friend (who's not some uneducated lout, either; PhD in physics, worked on a project that won a Nobel) who refuses to do any work, however lucrative, for the military. He's quite committed to peace.

Septegram 14:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Sorry, I was confused with Neo-Nazis. Carry on. oTHErONE _(Contribs) 10:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

External links section = linkspam

The external links section appears to be packed to the brim with linkspam. I'm tempted to trim it down to a handful of entries. Does anyone have any objections before I "thin out their numbers" ? Megapixie 03:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"26 days without war"

See section "Peace as an absence of war", paragraph 2:

The maintenance of longstanding peace between nations ranks among the few great successes of the United Nations. Peace can be voluntary, where potential agitators choose to abstain from disturbance, or it can be enforced, by suppressing those who might otherwise cause such disturbance. Since 1945 the world has only been 26 days without war.

Note that this last sentance contradicts the rest. This looks an awful lot like very clever vandalism, but it's not recent -- at least before Jun 6. I would just remove it, except that it might actually be true. While worldwide military conflict has not occured since 1945, it's not clear that the United Nations is responsible, and enough smaller miltary conflicts have occured that this statment ("26 days without war") is plausible.

In summary, It's clear something should be done here, I'm just not sure what. --Khaydarian 05:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed "Peace and Tranquility" image

The image is POV and doesn't add any usable information to the article.Dudeman1st 12:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What POV does it take? Peace is good? I restored it to a more appropriate section. It is a very good illustration of the concept of tranquility.--agr 16:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Then put it under the Tranquility article. I am not going to get in an edit war with you. Get rid of it or cite something. This picture clearly doesn't belong.

removed "tranquility" photo. It does not represent "peace" in any way. If you want to put it somewhere, put it in tranquility Dudeman1st (talk) 02:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Recommend removal of "International creed for peace" and "International Peace Institute"

The "International Peace Institute" page has been recommended for deletion AfD. There's no good references for these two terms, even if you Google them. I think they are probably fabrications. If there's no major objections, I am going to delete themDudeman1st 12:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Refs have been added and the organization is listed by UNESCO. The AfD proposal is still pending, but even if the article is deleted, there is no reason why material from the organization can't be included here.--agr 16:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an article about Peace and shouldn't be an advertisement for IPI of Nigeria. An NPOV blourb is acceptable.Dudeman1st 14:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

removed the link of IPI Kobrown 18:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Recommend removal of "Peace as a selfless act of love" section

This sounds completely POV and a bit like hippy propaganda. No refs.Dudeman1st 12:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph propounds one theory of peace so of course it is POV. If you'd like to add some anti-hippy propaganda, feel free. It also cites a book, so there is a ref. --agr 16:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a publisher of original thought. The encyclopedia itself is not a public forum designed for debate and expounding one's view. There are other places on the internet for that, but this is an encycopledia. No matter how many sources you have, wikipedia is not a medium built for you to get your "theories" out there. -Monk of the highest order^(t) 03:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

So then are agreeing that it should be deleted? Are you familiar with Wikipedia policy POV?Dudeman1st 14:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

A home page is not a cite.Dudeman1st 14:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that this section is so controversial that we need to hold a discussion for it. It reads more like an advertisement than anything informative. I have removed the section, and it is still there in history should someone feel the desperate need to revert it. But please note the |Neutral point of view rules.

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views

These are rules we need to adhere to. We should only include sections on "Peace as a selfless act of love" if that is popularly viewed as an integral part of piece. Once you can provide evidence (outside of a few published books. There are millions of published books: some written here or there which touch on the subject do not prove the dominance or popularity of atheory) that a great deal of people follow this viewpoint, and that it's notable, then I'll gladly put it back myself. Or, you can. Just provide sources. -Monk of the highest order^(t) 03:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Recommend removal of "Environmental Peace" section

No refs. Honestly, this concept seems a bit out of the scope of "peace." Dudeman1st 12:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I added a ref. It may seem that way to you but there are many who disagree. It's an aspect that belongs in the article--agr 16:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

~~You didn't add a ref. Make a cite or delete it or I will delete itDudeman1st 14:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)~~

Striking my comment does not add a cite. It has been more than a year. You have had more than enough time to find a cite and add it properly. It's getting deleted. Dudeman1st (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Recommend removal/edit of "Plural peaces" section

No refs. Doesn't need its own heading. Unclear. Dudeman1st 12:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is a viewpoint about peace that deserves to be included. i agree a ref is needed.--agr 16:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Make a cite or delete it or I will delete itDudeman1st 14:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding cites, nice work dude. Dudeman1st (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Recommend removal/move of "Is violence necessary?" section

This section belongs under the violence article. No refs. Dudeman1st 12:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a good argument for it belonging here as well. Ending violence would seem a legit aspect of peace. Each of the topics mentioned has links to main articles. This is just a summary. --agr 16:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Make a cite or delete it or I will delete it.Dudeman1st 14:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved Nobel Peace Prize winners

I think everyone can agree this is a more important aspect of the term Peace and therefore belongs at the top of the article.Dudeman1st 14:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree i think Nobel Peace Prize winners should serve as the first section of the concluding section of the article a prize should be near references and i suppose there is a seperated page for the Nobel Peace Prize winners Kobrown 19:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that the Nobel Peace Prize is A)Internationally recognized B)Famous C)Definitely one of the first few things most people would think of when they think of peace D)Widely covered in the media. If you disagree with these, then you must be living on a different planet.Dudeman1st 00:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you in your in your A, B C and D but I really dont think that because it one of the first few things most people would think of when they think of peace, therefore it should be so placed on the peace page i think it should be placed at a position of "after all these comes its reward" kind of position i also think that more important topics stay at the conclution of articles some times Kobrown 09:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Reorganized different kinds of peace

Just cleaning up a little. The new heading is 'theories and versions of peace'Dudeman1st 00:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I also moved things from "International Creed for Peace" section to the International Creed for Peace page. If users want to read the creed's text and philosophy, they can follow the link. The ICP philosophy and text belong on the ICP page. There's no need to double post them. I added the intro sentence "The International Creed for Peace(see link for creed's text), created by Chika Sylva-Olejeme and the International Peace Institute, sets forth an agenda and moral code for the advancement of peace for all humans and nations."Dudeman1st 02:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

you clean up is good Kobrown 09:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hate to even mention such a pragmatic thing amongst the heated discussion, but should there be a disambiguation link for "peace"? There's a play by Aristophanes by that name, listed under "Peace (play)". Hierophany 01:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Peace not necessarily good

I'm think maybe the idea that peace isn't always good should be mentioned somewhere in this article, or maybe another article, like the articles on Heaven, Utopia, conflict, or boredom. I think that to some people the idea of peace is, well, boring; and that conflict makes the world a better place. Maybe peace just wouldn't be any fun. And you learn things from conflict. Note that the Hebrew word for peace, shalom, comes from a word that means completeness or wholeness, not just peace. --Max 00:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Recommend Taufer Section

The Taufers of Switzerland were often persecuted for their faith in Jesus's message of peace with yourself, one another, and the world. 400 years of persecution around Europe eventually forced many to move to America and the present-day UK where the Brethren, as they are called, just about died out. Please create a section for these valiant peace-makers.Peace,pachem,pax 19:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no and no. This is not an article about the Taufers. Dudeman1st (talk) 02:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Clean up needed badly!

I am taking the liberty to work a little bit on this page. I intend to make the article flow better. Bawad1 22:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Utopia

Okay, who thought they could change the passage about Apocalyptic peace to one about Utopia? It is clearly inappropriate to say that utopian peace could work out complete harmony between man and nature. Goldfritha 02:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is that inappropriate? That seems like an important part of the definition. Superabo 02:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

A Wikipedia article on Peace must deal fairly with all the major concepts falling under the category of "Peace". At the moment, it reads rather like a puff piece for "peace studies."

Indeed, entirely suitable material was editted out, on the pretext "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". True, it's not, and that's why the editting was inappropriate. Goldfritha 02:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, what point of view is not being represented? And what claims this page are opinion and not fact? I think you need a better justification for the neutrality warning, or it ought to be removed. Superabo 02:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The criticisms of peace section is woefully inadequate. -L Ww.

What type of criticism are you looking for? It's difficult to criticize such a utopian and ambiguous concept; that's why most of the things that might constitute 'criticism' end up as alterne formulations of peace. To me, the biggest dispute in the literature is about positive vs. negative peace, but this dispute is already encapsulated. I think unless y'all bring forth more direct examples of non-neutraility, the tag ought to go. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Superabo (talk • contribs) 02:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

External links

There seems to be a lot of external links in this article. Are they warranted in expressing the views of multiple different organizations, etc (since the page does a poor job of it currently) or should we cut down down? Regards, -- Jeff3000 22:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely cut down. I removed the most obvious violations of WP:EL, but the whole section is still too long. It might be best to create subpages like: List of world peace organizations, etc. and put those links there. Nposs 10:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Historical examples and counter examples

I was wondering why the edo period of Japan ist not mentioned as an example of long lasting peace. I cannot find information on any wars waged between 1600 and 1850 in the List of conflicts in Asia or the articles Japan-China relations and Japan-Korea relations. What am I missing? Tierlieb 15:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

International Creed for Peace

i have added a link International Creed for Peace to the projects(Motegole 20:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

Scientific aspects

please add more contributions regarding the scientific theories emphasizing on peace

please make it clear why this topic belong to this page Motegole 09:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have just discoverd the Ali Eftekhari page and moved the Scientific aspects topic there Motegole 09:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Scientific Aspects of Peace

can somebody help explain what this topic is about Motegole 09:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC) I have just discoverd the Ali Eftekhari page and moved the Scientific aspects topic there Motegole 09:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)