Talk:Global peace system

Bias
This article seems almost entirely focused on Shiffeld's perspective of this and moreover in such a way as to imply agreement: "the recognition of a global peace system is increasingly growing"; " Shifferd provides strongly grounded arguments". This is not our purpose - we're not here to agree with or disagree with his views, but merely (if they are notable) to document them and what reliable, unrelated sources say about them. I'm not sure if Shifferd's view is that prominent in this field - currently, Google is only giving me 28 distinct hits, many of which are circular. While there's no doubt that the press is scholarly, there are many, many books on this topic. Who says that Shiffeld's work is "more comprehensive" than any other or that this man's 2011 book is more prominent than any of his many predecessors? If we're making a claim like that, we need impeccable sourcing. We're not allowed to put our own opinions into articles, but can only reflect the viewpoints of reliable sources. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the article to focus on the theory without the close focus on Shiffeld as a single theorist in the field. I've also removed some content that seemed to have been copy-pasted from external sources. For instance:


 * This archived news site says:


 * We cannot copy from our sources unless we verify that they are compatibly licensed and then must note such duplication in accordance with Plagiarism. See Copy-paste. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Global peace system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141208080853/http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html to http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality tag
The article is 100% apologetic, not a shred of criticism. Obviously this concept is an utopia on par with Communism: nobody fights with each other, and everybody is happy. Unless the human nature changes, the only solution is to kill all who does not want peace. (That's what Communists did.) Staszek Lem (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Section above cites: " the world is becoming more peaceful." -- Are these scholars from the same world as I am? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The main problem with this article is that it's not properly integrated with other existing resources on en.Wikipedia and it lacks structure - it's more like an essay with references than an encyclopedia article. So I don't see it as a problem of NPOV, it's a problem of lack of integration. (I don't propose changing the tag for the moment - it's close enough in meaning from the real problem.)


 * For references to use in improving the article: whether the world is becoming more peaceful or not depends on how it's quantified; there is some evidence of an overall decline, returning to the "modest" level of war of the Middle Ages; while the numbers of war years between great powers have been dropping dramatically over the past three centuries. The page https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace has lots of links to some of the most relevant en.Wikipedia pages. The data there are all claimed to be empirical, without the hypothesis that ,,betryzacja" has suddenly been invented. Boud (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)