Misplaced Pages

Talk:Democratic peace theory: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactivelyNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:31, 12 August 2005 editPmanderson (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers62,752 edits Talk:Democratic peace theory moved to Talk:Democratic peace theory/Archive 1: Too long; remnants of past disputes.  Revision as of 16:42, 12 August 2005 edit undoPmanderson (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers62,752 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{FACfailed}}
#redirect ]
{{oldpeerreview}}

Archives of this page are at ]. This should be read by any new editor of this page. Most of them are ] explaining edits and ] protesting that the page would only be NPOV if it defended one particular version of DPT. ] 16:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

==New edit==
I agree that it should have been pruned for length and detail. So have the other editors who have contributed to it, with one memorable exception. I thank ] for his bold pruning, and will in general defend it. ] 16:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:42, 12 August 2005

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.
Former FACThis article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed.
For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.
Democratic peace theory received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.


Archives of this page are at Talk:Democratic peace theory/Archive 1. This should be read by any new editor of this page. Most of them are Septentrionalis explaining edits and User:Ultramarine protesting that the page would only be NPOV if it defended one particular version of DPT. Septentrionalis 16:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

New edit

I agree that it should have been pruned for length and detail. So have the other editors who have contributed to it, with one memorable exception. I thank User:Robdurbar for his bold pruning, and will in general defend it. Septentrionalis 16:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Categories: