Countries at peace[edit]

It would be interesting, though I'm sure very difficult, to list the status of every country (ie. "at war" or "peace") in a table. Even better would be presenting it as a map! violet/riga (t) 19:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be interesting but it would be POV. Whether a country is at peace or at war is entirely POV. So, NO you should not include it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudeman1st (talk • contribs) 02:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also War on Terrorism. LOL! Tschravic (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Been watching this page for more than a year.[edit]

All stuff on this page needs cites. I don't care if it's your religious view or your group's view. There can be no original research or POV stuff on this page, especially without cites. I am now deleting stuff that has been on the page for more than a year without a cite, like "Environmental Peace." I am reorganizing a little. I will trim down POV stuff. If you have beef with my changes, post here or to my talk page. Dudeman1st (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not put symbols for peace in the main area. Whether you like it or not, there is no universally recognized symbol for peace. I believe the dove and the "peace sign" are sufficient, but I also believe that a swastika is a peace symbol. Better to let sleeping dogs lie.Dudeman1st (talk) 03:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

international creed for peace / International Peace Institute[edit]

I have restored the International Creed for Peace please read to the disscusion page before deleting Motegole (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

you know i am not sure what user Jossi meant by "..........., and we are not listing such orgs in this page" please could someone clarify who he is refering to as we Motegole (talk) 23:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

see also [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Motegole (talk • contribs) 00:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about Peace, not about Peace organizations. The material does not belong here. When I said "we" I meant Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added a redlink to International Creed for Peace, you are welcome to create an article about the subject, based on verifiable sources. This article does not present other organizations related to peace either, so do not add a section about the International Creed for Peace as that will violate WP:UNDUE ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why would you delete a redlink to that page? That is very strange behavior... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah... I see that Peace Insititute was |deleted. on the basis of lack of notability. If that is the case, a mention of this "International Cree for Peace" in this article is not warranted either. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
you see you dont take your time to investigate properly Motegole (talk) 00:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry? If that was the case, why did you revert my deletion of the material? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In your edit summary you said: restored the International Creed for Peace was allowed on the page by consensus. Where is that discussion? I do not see anything of the kind, on the contrary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

please read the discussion page see

12 Recommend removal of "International creed for peace" and "International Peace Institute" and 18 Reorganized different kinds of peace

you see one person is not wikipedia

International creed for peace is not an organisation and it well referenced that is why it survived the deletion on the basis of lack of notability

i will restore the entry so that we can allow others to contribute and we will definitly reach a consesus to delete or to keep

please take is easy i appauld your zeal but let others have a say Motegole (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not about "zeal", but about material that does not comply with our content policies. The related articles have been all deleted for lack of notability, so the material should stay out of the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In case you forgot International Creed for Peace was deleted in this AfD alongside these related articles:
Peace Insititute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Universal Peace Protocol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Peace Conservation System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ICP Campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Post Philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Christian Post Philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and
Chika Sylva-Olejeme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Re-adding any of that material is against community consensus, and will be regarded as disruption ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re- adding? this entry has been on the peace page before and after all the pages deleted please investigate before making strong statements Motegole (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, re-added by you after my deletion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Jossi, this is the peace page you know, what is the hurry to remove this entry, 1, the website has been cited 2, "WAR AND PEACE: THE ETERNAL SWING" CALL FOR PAPERS 2008 Conference JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY: April 3-4, 2008 also, you may search the web for even more, please no disrespect i will restore the entry and await administrative actions as you have suggested, sometimes others editors of wikipedia may have alternative opinions to yours in such cases what do you do? let allow other wikipedians discuss this issue or do you simply take up you decision , i hope you understand i do want to upset you Motegole (talk) 08:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have made the necessary points already, but you seem unable to understand them. What you are doing is not acceptable, as the material you are adding has failed several times to be included in Wikipedia due to lack of notability. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the International Creed for Peace has been on the Peace page for more than one Year and has been edited by wikipedians before and after the deletion of the other pages i think it is evident as it on 12 and 18 see the dates

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)

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)

i have cited this before please give another reason and we can reach a consensus to delete or to keep i don't want to engage in an edit war i have also seen your report Motegole (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have removed "written by Chika sylva-Olejeme" and the website link to avoid the claim advertisment of the author and the website however the International Creed for Peace i still think is relevent in the discuss of Peace today i stand to be corrected Motegole (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm responding to the ANI report. I've removed content that clearly does not belong in this article. It is not notable and has been deleted from Wikipedia on that basis. This article is about peace, not peace organizations. Do not re-add this material to the article. Dreadstar † 05:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

fine thanks Motegole (talk) 10:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cleanup-rewrite[edit]

The current articel appears to be stuck somewhere between a disambiguation for various "types" of peace ("plural", "inner", etc.) and trying to explain what the concept is in general, with some extra directory like sections thrown in. If someone wants to rewrite or revise this, I suggest deciding what sort of a page this will be and then fixing or rewriting it. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

too much "clean up"[edit]

i think the "clean up" is slowly reducing the article into a joke, i hope that the whole page will not soon be removed due to "clean up", it is unfortunate that those who do the "clean up" to not contribute to building up the page Motegole (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No edit wars, please.[edit]

Vandals, spammers and edit warriors, please keep yourselves from editing this page. Remember that this is not a battleground and this page is about peace. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 22:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peace Prize[edit]

Does anyone feel that the Nobel Peace Prize section is placed a bit too early in the article? I don't think the Nobels are a central concept of 'peace', worthy of being in the first paragraph after the lead. comments? User:Pedant (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Criticism[edit]

I dont see why there is no criticism section. There can never be "true" peace. One organism much consume/kill another to survive. One human must have some type of hegemony (even on the most minute scale). Any one can add anything to it or make some type of criticism.

Survival has nothing to do with peace.--108.20.189.221 (talk) 03:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Picture[edit]

u shuld hve a pcture of lke john lennon of that guy on my shirt. thy is heaps more peacefull. or doves —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.0.0.162 (talk) 04:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope you don't mean Che, because communism ain't peaceful. Besides that, symbols of peace are cultural and don't fit in it directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.210.119.109 (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pacification[edit]

Redirects here, while its meaning is quite different.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added a section on Peace in the presence of injustice which covers the perspective of those on the receiving end of a pacification policy. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rewrites/Clean-up[edit]

I re-wrote the first section of the article. It was very sloppily done, and from the moment I saw it I knew it needed re-writing. The very first sentence said something about peace being either a positive and negative condition, and that peace is a negative condition when associated with an unwillingness to engage in armed conflict????? I don't know. Didn't really make sense/sound good. The other sections look just as bad. Lots of work needs to be done on those sections. It looks like some biased trolls have been valdalizing this article, probably for a long time now. 204.254.175.249 (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most of the stuff in this section should be moved to peace studies.[edit]

Peace is a general term, Please move the details of peace studies items to peace studies. Geo8rge (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Active Peace Theory[edit]

Active Peace Theory has very few google hits if any, and no references. I think it should be deleted as it is original research. Or moved to peace and conflict studies. Geo8rge (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please move these sections to peace and conflict studies, create a new WP article to contain them, or delete them[edit]

These articles seem are too detailed for a general article like peace.

Geo8rge (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redesign[edit]

Okay so I just reviewed the article, a dreadful mess. What I do is repair articles. So I am going to do some major work on this article. I think the basic structure is there but needs clarification. There is a need for more sources which is the force thing I am going to do. Empireheart (talk) 08:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Definition[edit]

"Peace" can mean a variety of things; this is not well explained in the article's definition. I suggest that the article is made a disambugation page stating that it may refer to - a type of social relationship (aka 2 entities "being in peace" or "at peace with" ) - the duration of absence of conflict; aka a period of peace or period of absence of conflict

Finally, it should be mentioned that the opposite of peace isn't war (the latter being essantially a period of conflict), rather the opposite of a period of absence of conflict is a period of conflict

The opposite of Being in conflict (aka "Being at war") is "finding practical solutions to ensure that no conflicts can arise" (see http://gracetopia.wordpress.com/2009/07/19/the-opposite-of-war-isnt-peace-its-creation/) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.66.161 (talk) 08:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Homogenizing Theory[edit]

Mr. Inderias Dominic Bhatti, a role model peace hero from Pakistan ;[1] added his peace theory with a title Homogenizing Theory with these words below:

“Peace is a cycle of contentment starts from the very SELF of individual and regulates one’s consciousness and thinking patterns in such a way that homogenize ones individual liberty with collective and public good” [2]

References

  1. ^ http://www.findahero.com/HeroDetailsPrinterFriendly.cfm?SearchValue=351
  2. ^ http://www.wiserearth.org/forum/view/56edc5a65c231e3c306e63c29527f96d

dove[edit]

the dove is a sign of peace. --WhiteInKnights (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Democratic peace theory[edit]

Democratic peace theory is simply a calque from Marxist peace theory which claims that in a socialist society there is no reason for war.--79.111.107.10 (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image[edit]

Perhaps

this image

can be integrated to the article ?

91.182.232.33 (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peace as a code word?[edit]

Need more information about ways to achieve peace?[edit]

One should consider why people look at an article about peace. Are they simply interested in gathering more informaiton about the subject of peace in the same way that they would about, say, Lady Gaga? I don't think so. I believe that peace is what one could call a "lifestyle subject," in that one is interested in it not in a casual way but in a deeper way that could affect one's lifesytle. I therefore feel that there is a need for the article to list more ways to achieve peace, which is, after all, one of life's essential questions. That is why I added the ways to achieve peace given by Buddhism and the spiritual teacher Meher Baba. Wikipedia's motto, I think, is "the sum of all human knowledge," which is of course a tall order, but Wikipedia does seem to want to be rather inclusive. Tentotwo55 (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's very subjective. See WP:COI, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_textbook.2C_or_scientific_journal. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, but at least add somewhere in the article that one definition of peace is the state of not wanting anything. It was taught by Krishna as "renouncing the fruits of one's actions" and by the Buddha as "desire is the cause of all suffering." It is one of the oldest religious concepts related to peace and should be included. A concise article is great, but a complete article is even better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tentotwo55 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Religious beliefs and peace[edit]

added interesting ref by Benedict XVI, connecting peace and ecologyUnimpeder (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

World peace and global unity is something that is created or made manifest by this generation. A major player and effector of this is the Messiah. That is Andy Peak. Known by many names and the one who fulfilled and is fulfilling many prophecies in many ways, perceptions, religions, through healing, awakening, fishing, revealing truth, bringing freedom from slavery from the monetary system created by the wealthy elite to offer more choice and freedom the more no ey one has... without it we have severely reduced choices/freedoms. So that gets sorted... awakening of the planetary consciousness and Synchronizing with self, one another, the planet, God, and any and all other conscious entities in the galaxy and universe of galaxies beyond. GaianMonkey (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brings peace, love, unity and dreams and ways and ideas... GaianMonkey (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Introduction Disregards Content / Theories[edit]

The introduction currently specifies too much, more than a common denominator of the mentioned theories could be, and by such violates the article's content.

I suggest (for the whole article) incorporating a closer look at Dietrich's categorisation of 5 functionally different concepts of peace (cp.: Dietrich 2012: Interpretations of Peace in History and Culture; Dietrich 2013: Elicitive Conflict Transformation and the Transrational Shift in Peace Politics), as the article itself also mentions different philosophies. In energetic traditions (e.g. Buddhism) peace is related to unblocked flows, absence of Karma, or Tantric harmony and resonance. By the principle of Yin & Yang there is no freedom from violence (compare Krishnamurti), peace is not and cannot be static, but peace is a process and requires continuous effort. The only (static) state of being in peace is Buddha and/or emptiness. In moral understandings (e.g. Abrahamic religions) peace is related to absence of sin, guilt and fear (this is the moral aspect, this is not to deny that all religions show energetic aspects). Modernity (or modern peace) is more difficult to grasp. Generally it is related to the notion of universal truths as found in modern sciences, and in related non-humble 'attitudes' like positivism and progress. Derived from such a perspective is the idea that a peaceful society can be constructed, as in Marxism or institutionalised and constitutional democracy. Postmodernity acknowledges the context-dependency of truth, requires constant critique, and thereby denies the absence ofa unique truth. Postmodern peace is therefore a recognition of peaces as plural, "defined, relational, contextual, vernacular, and anything but arbitrary" (p. 207). Transrational concepts recognise the most complex rational model of the world as systemic (non-static complex web of interactions, causes, and effects), which is found in both postmodern and energetic perspectives, and which excludes a moral understanding of guilt. It also respects the processes that exceed humans' rational grasp, like emotions, a person's role in a larger system (as a recognising person is always part of the recognised, nobody can isolate and fully grasp her-/himself), and spirituality. Transrational peace does not prescribe (as opposed to modernity and development politics), is process- and not solution-oriented, and relation-oriented and leaves the interpretation of facts to the respective dynamics. It recognises all parties in a conflict as essential to be regarded.

In the light of the above families there can also be seen different concepts and theories like inner/external peace, positive/negative peace, etc.

This was just a quick, by far not exhaustive summary, probably with errors, and largely referring to the above mentioned books by Dietrich without detail references. I hope it clarifies why an introduction telling a common understanding is problematic. An intersection of understandings of peace across cultures (not philosophies) might be feelings of resonance, compassion, freedrom from fear, etc. Such are in the focus of energetic worldviews, and covered in terms like love (to God and others) within Abrahamic religions. I propose to contextualise such common descriptions.

I suggest therefore to rethink the introduction and the structure of the article from a philosophic meta-level (I mean at least one higher level of abstraction than present).

By the way, in all these different traditions there are different symbols for peace. The one shown stems from ND (nuclear disarmament) and is postmodern. Energetic ones include Yin & Yang. Moral ones include the dove of peace. Modern: white flag, V-Symbol. Transrational: Sri Yantra. However there are so many more - by culture and religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.175.89.114 (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Religious section goes into too much detail[edit]

The section on "Religious Beliefs and Peace" goes into too much detail about Christianity. The specific way one is supposed to get into heaven is irrelevant, as is the quote from Pope Benedict. Also, the way one is supposed to go to heaven varies between sects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.1.62.142 (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Peace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed merge with Peacetime[edit]

The topics of "peace" and "peacetime" seem to be closely interrelated. At this time, Peacetime is an unsatisfactory WP:DICDEF stub. It is probably better to discuss peacetime in politics as a subsection of the general topic "peace" for now, then branch it out into its own topic later if the discussion grows too long. Mz7 (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 04:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done. I've redirected Peacetime here. Mz7 (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sweden[edit]

Sweden participated in the war in Afghanistan from 2002 and in the war against Libya in 2011. If the claim of ongoing peace is right it should mention by which definition Sweden has ongoing peace while partaking in wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.234.170.89 (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Peace. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Peace. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External link?[edit]

The article cautions against adding more links but I think it would be appropriate to add a link to https://www.iep.utm.edu/peace/, which provides a more detailed encyclopedia article on the topic. The proposed link site is a piece of scholarship, not (like some of the previously existing links) an attempt to recruit partisans for some activity. What do others think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aubreybardo (talk • contribs) 16:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peace[edit]

What flag should be raised in peace? 2001:56A:FC70:E300:A928:1B59:D289:E72D (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incorrect information in the caption of the 2nd picture[edit]

The second picture in this article (the one containing the goddess Eirene) may have incorrect information in the caption. The caption states that the statue in the photo is of Eirene with her infant son Pluto, but I could find no information of Eirene having a son named Pluto on her Wikipedia page, and the name Pluto is usually used for the Roman equivalent of Hades, who was not Eirene's son, not to mention that calling Eirene's, a Greek goddess's, son by a Roman name would be incorrect. I think the infant in the statue may instead be Plutus, the god of wealth and son of Demeter, because he is in the statue pictured on Eirene's page. If this is the case, someone should change the caption accordingly. 90.128.57.150 (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, he is Plutus, good catch! Randy Kryn (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

United people of the world for peace[edit]

The people of the world should know that sustainable peace can only happen with the cooperation of all people of all races and religions, please join the peace for all campaign.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.18.26.69 (talk) 09:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories