Talk:Peace treaty

International relations: United Nations / Law Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law (assessed as High-importance).

Politics Top‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Request to remove a portion

Modern history section has no sources. Then it compares how Ottoman got a more punitive reparations, but it did not result in a war like Germans did. The Treaty of Sèvres was not ratified, because of the nationalist movement rejecting the terms, which led to Turkish War of Independence. At the conclusion of Turkish War of Independence, Treaty of Lausanne was signed which had no punitive reparations like Treaty of Versailles. All reparations responsibilities ended with Ottoman empire, which was not transferred to the successor state of modern Republic of Turkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:8000:D84F:4D11:D01:A8FE:63CF (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed link (forum)

Hello, I removed the link for forum as there isn't currently an article for that usage of forum (and, imo, it would only be a dictionary definition if such a page were created). Politepunk 16:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some how in the middle of this page someone wrote this:

"Look folks, it is really easy to insert anything into these articles. Avoid not using bad language, software or what ever picks that up. Try and go in the middle of paragraphs and say what you really want , in a form that is not easily picked out, in fairly random articles. It is good to write in an encyclopedic tone, even if what you are writing is totally nonsensical, which is actually part of the fun. There is no reason not to do this, destruction indeed being as compelling as creation. Anything worth establishing is worth attempting to defeat."

You can read it in like the part only about about the wording of peace treaties in two languages. Its maybe the third paragraph.

Unfortunately this whole section do show up when you went to look at the history.

Just knew that someone would notice.

How clever the two nations

When I read that the Hittite version claims that the Egyptians came suing for peace, while the Egyptian version claims the reverse. ,I cann't help snickering.--Ksyrie 22:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Peace treaty. 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: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibility of Inclusion of Peace of Westphalia

This is a great succinct article in itself.

I’m considering adding a paragraph around the Peace of Westphalia - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia

These treaties were significant in establishing the European conceptual and legal framework for recognising the sovereignty of states as supreme in international relations against competing imperial, religious and national-ethnic-linguistic priorities. Particularly the principles of “Whatever the religion of the Prince, so be the the religion of the state”.

Quote “The European order after 1648 - with its basic territorial unit of the nation-state - provided the basis for the development of world-state interaction into the twentieth century. The twenty-first century has sometimes been described as "Post-Westphalian". Darylrwallace (talk) 05:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Negotiations

A treaty cannot be agreed upon without negotiations, text drawings, the finding of principles, sometimes only one word where everyone can rally behind, to come to arrangements all parties can agree upon. An often long and difficult process that asks for a special type of hero's: diplomats, jurists, negotiators, plus an inviting 'caretaking' atmosphere to enable formal and informal talks. The bumpy road that leads to a good treaty deserves it's own chapter, i think. Not being a native english speaker, unfortunately I can't start writing it right away .... VanArtevelde (talk) 11:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]