Talk:Department of Peace/Archive 1

Executive Branch Actions
The article focuses on legislative branch approaches. What can be done within the executive branch? Can the president, through executive order or other executive branch mechanism, create such a department, or at least implement this function within the existing state department? --Lbeaumont (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Anti-violence versus pro-peace
I think this section is it's own sort of philosophical argument unrelated to the actual "Department of Peace". For that matter, I find it kind of stupid.YusufMJH (talk) 10:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, Ms Williamson's Return to Love has NOTHING TO DO with the Department of Peace! Somebody considered the edit nonconstructive, and that's true - it was not constructive, it was destroying stupidity and pointlessness.YusufMJH (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the section took a NPOV stance, had irrelevant sources and was in effect unsourced. I deleted it. Шизомби (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Didn't Orwell write about this in his book, '1984'?
Isn't there a department of peace in the book 1984?

15:37, May 24, 2005 132.241.245.49


 * There's a Ministry of Peace, which is the British analogue. --
 * Shotput 19:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yikes, creepy!


 * 16:36, May 24, 2005 132.241.245.49
 * There's a Ministry of Peace, which is really the Ministry of War. Kind of like the Department of Defence, when all it mostly does is go on the offensive.203.206.249.161 04:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually the Department of Defence used to be called the Department of War, personally if I ever became President I'd change the name back, with pride.

Critisism Section
The section is not NPOV. It does not properly attribute the criticisms and thus seems to be Wikipedia making arguments against the proposal. All criticism should be addressed to notable critics with citations. --Cab88 23:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

In order for an article or section to be non-neutral, the writer has to be suggesting that he personally holds these opinions. This criticisms section only states the fact of criticisms made against it which are commonly made, especially by the Republican community, without making any suggestion that the writer holds these opinions. It specifically uses phrases like 'has been called', so as to not be making any of the statements itself, but referencing that it has been said. So that while citations should be referenced simply for the sake of the quality of the article, the arguement here is the quality, not the neutrality.


 * And now there is no criticism section, nor anything about why there is no department of pace. A low-quality version is better than none at all, and some history of what happened to previous proposals seems a reasonable thing to want. 75.177.89.14 (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Redundant Introduction
Is it just me or does the introduction state that the House bill has 60 supporters twice? --trekie9001 21:14, 17 August 2006 (MST)

External links cleanup
I cleaned out a few, see the history for details. Instead of citing a bunch of WP:EL and WP:NOT, I looked at each link. The ones which remain seem appropriate as listed below:
 * USIP - from the site national institution established and funded by Congress.
 * PA - not just a blog/forum, but has actual content above and beyond WP
 * Rep & Sen - official statements about legislators involved in this process. Maybe it could be worked into the article proper, but seems ok here also
 * &mdash; MrDolomite | Talk 03:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin Rush "Peace Office" proposal
The "Peace Office" proposal by Benjamin Rush was in places heavily satirical, as a reading will show. It first appeared in Banneker’s Almanac published by Benjamin Banneker, but Banneker was not a co-author as was implied in the article. --Blainster 19:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) LewRockwell.com is NOT a neutral source of info on Benjamin Rush. It's front page clearly states that "anti-state, anti-war and pro-market. 2) Rush's writings were satirical in nature.  If he were to seriously have proposed a "Department of Peace" in the 1790s, when Jefferson viewed England as a threat and when Hamilton viewed France as a threat, both Hamilton and Jefferson would have likely conspired together to have him put in one of his own insane asylums. 174.71.86.127 (talk) 09:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Us-dept-of-peace-logo-framed.jpg
Image:Us-dept-of-peace-logo-framed.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Article cleanup
This article could use some attention from an interested party. The introduction doesn't actually explain what a department of peace would do. Rather, it simply lists the supporters.

In addition the first section after the introdcution doesn't seem to relate to the department's work at all. This information would make more sense as a section late in the page, and not as the first section.

--12.47.208.34 (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)