Wikipedia

Talk:Long Peace

Untitled

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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”

[edit]

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]

Yes, I absolutely agree. I removed that statement. Gandalf 1892 (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent AI vandalism

[edit]

I found that two inline citations directly contradicted the text, and were being used to support the idea of Pax Americana when, if you read them, they clearly refute it. 'Unipolarity, Hegemony, and the New Peace' comes to the conclusion that U.S. dominance was not important to peace: "If indeed hegemonic stability exists, it does so without leaving much of a trace." And Mueller's position is right in the title of the source: "Pax Americana is a myth."

I removed the last source, "Gregg Easterbrook, war, and the dangers of extrapolation" by Daniel W. Drezner. It likely supports the idea of Pax Americana, but I can't access it because it's behind a paywall. I'd appreciate if someone with access to this source could check whether it's reliable and worth including. Apfelmaische (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This pattern, of sources directly contradicting the text that cites them, seems to apply to the whole article. There are signs of fabricated sources. There's also some total nonsense in the article, such as this bit: "The Coming War with Japan will be followed by The Coming Conflict with China who are locked in the Thucydides Trap and The Jungle Grows Back, While America Sleeps."
@User:Pseudopolybius I think I need to revert all of your changes to this article. I'm trying to assume good faith, but it looks like AI vandalism to me. If you disagree, please let me know.
To anyone else who's contributed after January, I'll try to manually add your improvements. I've also reported this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AI Cleanup. Apfelmaische (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fettweis and Mueller discuss Pax Americana though their view is critical. Hence I mentioned both as sources. For example, Robert Kagan is cited in Fettweis (p 424), hence I made reference to Fettweis meaning cited in Fettweis. Alternative causes of long peace of both authors were mentioned among the causes above.
  • "Total nonsense" is a total sense. Those linked books were in the passage showing that traditional pessimism remains in academia despite much quantitative data of the long peace.
  • Give me one sign of "fabricated sources."
  • You removed one source only because you had no access to it. And you demolished almost the whole article for the above misunderstandings and wrong guesses. I'm trying to assume good faith, but it looks to me like human vandalism on a large scale.
Pseudopolybius (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for being overly hasty. My general criticism is the following:
Your contributions to this article tend to have a lot of synthesis: coming to conclusions that aren't explicitly stated by the sources you cite. Sometimes the source will back up what you're saying, but not nearly as strongly as how you're saying it. It's important to state the facts plainly. Also, in my opinion, the article has grown needlessly large for how much information it actually provides. I think it should be heavily trimmed for clarity and brevity.
I mistook these patterns for being AI-generated content, and I was wrong about that. Genuinely, sorry.
As for fabricated sources, I've looked closer and haven't found any. Again, sorry. I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything--at the time I really thought the article had AI content, which tends to fabricate sources.
I still think the article needs serious scrutiny. I will try to address specific issues as best I can as time allows. For now, I'm reverting my revert. Apfelmaische (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pseudopolybius I started working on this today, you might like to review my changes. You may notice I removed a number of good, reliable sources from the article. I'm focusing on removing synthesis from the article. Those sources can be re-added as long as we stick to what they actually say. Apfelmaische (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's now clear that all edits made by User:Pseudopolybius were in violation of a prior block. I have reverted this article to its state before their first edit to it, and I will manually add any improvements made since then. In my opinion, this version is unambiguously better anyway. Apfelmaische (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis, Scope & Article Length

[edit]

I'm struggling to improve this article, which is chock-full of synthesis and needs attention. My question is less about whether this content is original research, as I feel strongly it is, and more about how to fix it. I feel the problem is really the scope of the topic: Should any source that doesn't explicitly and specifically relate to the academic concept of the Long Peace (and related concepts like New Peace) be considered off-topic? If that were the case, it would be a lot easier to trim all the synthesis.

In my opinion, this article has drifted far from its original topic, and includes all kinds of analysis about war and geopolitics. It is currently 2,925 words long, even after significant trimming, rivaling War which is 4,882 words long. Apfelmaische (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oof I just finished reading though this, and I definitely agree it's overlong. There's definitely some repetition and excess fluff that should be trimmed down. My instinct is to trim what seems off-topic, condense some of the sections, and yank all the things that are floating around with citation needed tags. Things can always be added back in if the article is seeming to suffer without it, but as of right now, this is very wordy and I think has too much going on/gets too broad. maryshelagh (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As well, not sure every page linked in the see-also is needed, but that's a pretty low-priority issue imo maryshelagh (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Low priority but easy to fix. (done) Apfelmaische (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]