Talk:Democracy/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Is a list of all the pros and cons of democracy really helpful. I think i'd still be dubious even if they all were pros and cons of democracy, but as it stands many are just correlations which people are putting down as features of democracy. I don't even know where to begin with that terrorism 'con'. I think that section is reprsentative of the problem with a list of pors and consTommo 87 23:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

Archive 8

Another editor pagemoved the previous talk page to Archive 8 (see above). I've corrected the pagemove and added the link to the archive. Take care! ~Kylu (u|t) 02:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Definition

1. What does "people ruling themselves" mean? How am I as a citizen in a "democracy" ruling myself? This is just a slogan rather than a definition.

I suggest replacing this with something along the lines of "citizens having equal power to impact public policy".

2. What does "civil rights and civic duties (individual liberty and individual responsibility)" mean? Even if you do define these terms satisfactorily, they do not seem inherently democratic. One can easily imagine, and come up with examples, of non-democratic societies where certain rights and duties are part of the government system.

It seems to me that the "equal political power" property is the only true defining characteristic of democracy, while the rest - rights, duties, prosperity, etc. may be associated with democracy, but is not part of the definition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drono (talk • contribs) .

I think the most concise definition of democracy I have seen is this: "In a democratic government, the right of decision belongs to the majority, but the right of representation belongs to all." -- Ernest Naville, 1865

Perhaps that should be added?

Institutions, procedures and patterns which are perceived as leading to equality in political power

I reverted the wording of the preamble so it does not imply that free elections and other "democratic" institutions necessarily lead to equal political power. This is not clear at all. It is better to treat these as two different interpretations of the term. One may hope to show that they overlap in many cases, but this should not be assumed. --Drono 21:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete that democracy may include other systems than representative government. Please provide a source for that democracy means "equal political power". Exactly what do you mean by that? Democracy as word simply means rule by the people.Ultramarine 21:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I have not made any claim that democracy (in the sense of political equality) must be representative. What I wrote is that many people use the term "democracy" to mean "a government where regular free elections are held" or "free elections + independent judiciary" or some such combination of institutions. Your wording implies that a government with free elections is a particular example of a government with political equality. This is may or may not be true. I am trying to avoid this implication. --Drono 21:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Most consider a state with free elections to be a democracy. Please describe how a government with free and fairl elections is not a democracy. Do you have any examples? Ultramarine 22:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The view that elections are democratic (in the "political equality" sense) is relatively new - it has developed about 200 years ago. Classical political philosophers, such as Aristotle, and even 18-th century political philosophers, such as Rousseau, regarded elections as oligarchical. The common wisdom in ancient Greece was that the democratic way to fill government positions was by drawing lots. This method is called sortition. Aristotle, for example, wrote (Politics, IV, 9) that one of the oligarchical characteristics of Sparta is that "all offices are filled by election and none by lot".
Note that I am not trying to convince you that elections are oligarchical. All I am advocating is letting the reader form his or her own opinion, rather than formulating the definition in such a way that makes an implication one way or another. --Drono 05:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia reflects how peoplw use words today. If you want to describe the history of the word, the place is in a history or etymology section. People today certainly include voting, whether indirect or direct, as part of the definition. See any dictionary. Again, can you give any example of state today with free and fair elections that is not a democracy? Ultramarine 10:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
You don't seem to be paying attention: I am not disagreeing with the statement that the term "democracy" is used to signify a society with free and open elections. In fact, that was explicitly in my phrasing. My point is that we have two different definitions of democracy: (1) "political equality", (2) "free and open elections (or referenda, or other such institutions)". These are two different definitions, and should be presented as such.
As for the example that you request: it is my opinion that political power is extermely unequal in many (if not all) Western democracies (which are indeed democracies in the "free and open elections" sense). But that is only my opinion, your opinion may be different. We shouldn't try to settle this. What we should agree is that the two definitions are not logically the same thing, and that the phrasing in the Democracy entry should reflect this. --Drono 16:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
As I suspected, you do not consideer Western democracies to be democracies at all. Unfortunately, your opinion is original research which is not allowed. Most people consider these nations to be democracies. See also for example [Freedom House]]. Or Merriam-Webster: "1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections"Ultramarine 17:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, your quote from M-W supports my point. Their two definitions conform fairly well with the two I suggest: the first, "government by the people", is an imprecise way of saying "equality of political power". The second, talks about elections. The main point here is that these are two separate definitions, just as I am trying to put it. You seem to be insisting that the two things are the same, (i.e., elections = political equality).
You are trying to turn this issue into a political debate. It isn't - it is a matter of having a clear definition of the term. (By the way, the idea that Western democracies do not provide political equality is hardly original research - people have been saying that at least since the 19th century, and probably since the birth of the U.S.). --Drono 18:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Again, you must have a source for your claims, otherwise it is original research. I have provided sources: Freedom House and MW. "government by the people; especially : rule of the majority" is certainly not the same as "equality of political power" in your sense which excludes most Western democracies. Ultramarine 18:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
My claim that we are dealing with two separate definitions is supported by the M-W entry you provided. Do you claim that definition (a) in M-W is the same as definition (b) in M-W? If so, why? As for the meaning of "government by the people", what does that mean in your opinion if not "equality of political power"? --Drono 18:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
MW's first definition simply refers to the etymology of the world. Democracy as a word means means rule by the people in the Greek Language, compare oligarchy, rule by a few. Today, most people think that rule by the people means b. As in "We the People of the United States". Your opinion that most Western democracies are in fact not democracies is your own original research and not allowed in Wikipedia. Publish this outside Wikipedia in reliable source and come back.Ultramarine 18:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
You are clutching at straws. Your claim that definition (a) is just an etymological statement is nonsense. Dictionaries don't use etymology as a definition. Etymological information may be given, but this is done separately. Besides, if definition (a) really is about etymology only, where does "rule of the majority" come in? There is no etymological basis for that.
You are, for some unclear reason, unable to accept that the word "democracy" is used to mean more than one thing. Most people associate democracy with elections, and other such procedures, but at the same time they use the term more abstractly to mean a situation where all opinions have the same weight.
Again, please give a source for that your view that most or all Western democracies are in fact not democracies. I have given Freedom House and MW definition 2.I see nothing in defintion 1 that support your view that these states are not democracies.Ultramarine 19:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
My views on Western democracies are beside the point since I do not suggest having them as part of the entry at this time. I do suggest following the natural path of having two separate definitions (which is also how M-W does it): (a) political equality (b) regular referenda or elections. You have not given any good reason not to do so. --Drono 22:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
You have given no source, as required by Wikipedia. I have looked at various sources. None state that democracy means "political equality", regardless of what you mean with this very unclear statement. Encarta: "Democracy (Greek demos,”the people”; kratein, “to rule”), political system in which the people of a country rule through any form of government they choose to establish. In modern democracies, supreme authority is exercised for the most part by representatives elected by popular suffrage." Britannica "Literally, rule by the people (from the Greek demos, "people," and kratos, "rule"). The term has three basic senses in contemporary usage: (1) a form of government in which the right to make political decisions is exercised directly by the whole body of citizens acting under procedures of majority rule, usually known as direct democracy; (2) a form of government in which the citizens exercise the same right not in person but through representatives chosen by and responsible to them, known as representative democracy; and (3) a form of government, usually a representative democracy, in which the powers of the majority are exercised within a framework of constitutional restraints designed to guarantee all citizens the enjoyment of certain individual or collective rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, known as liberal, or constitutional, democracy."Ultramarine 14:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Political equality

Since you insist, here are a couple of sources: Participation and Political Equality by Sidney Verba [1] and On Political Equality by Robert A. Dahl [2]. On a more fundamental level, however, I just cannot understand what you could perceive as the basic premise of democracy if not political equality. What, for example, do you think is the idea behind slogans like "one man, one vote" if not political equality? What is the common principle in democratic devices like referenda and various variants of elections if not the fact that all people have approximately the same imapct on which of the available options is selected? How would you call this principle if not "political equality"? --Drono 04:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I oppose your viw that Western demoracies are in fact not democratic. Total political equality have probably never existed, whenever there is some form of leader total equality disappers. "One man, one vote" refers to equality in the election of temporary leaders, who will have more powers than others temporarily. You seem to advocate that some form of direct democracy is a superior system. Fine. However, people today do not think that direct democracy is the only "democratic" system and Wikipedia should reflect that. As noted in for example MW, Britannica, and Encarta, representative representation is also democracy.Ultramarine 05:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Again: this discussion is not about whether Western democracies are democratic or not. Western democracies are democratic in the sense of M-W definition (b). I am actually not an advocate of direct democracy, but even if I were, this would be beside the point. The point is that we should distinguish between the democratic ideal and the democratic practice. Political equality is the ideal of democracy. Devices like elections and referenda make up contemporary democratic practice. These two things are both called democracy, but the question of how much the practice lives up to the ideal is debatable. In such a situation it makes sense to make this distinction explicit by having two definitions rather than having one definition confounding both aspects. --Drono 02:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Drono, please stop creating your own personal defintin of democracy. Literaly, democracy means rule by the people. Now some may argue that democracy is equal political power but that is not stated in any dictionary or encyclopedia. As such, it is a minority view and should not be mentioned in the intro.Ultramarine 02:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because something is not stated in a dictionary or an encyclopedia does not mean that the idea of political equality isn't inherent to democracy. In fact, the purpose of Wiki is not to be a derivative of any dictionary or encyclopedia, but as a source for verifiable knowledge. That is the whole problem with democracy. As Churchill puts it "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms." The drawback of democracy or the egaliatarian ethic is that it can and often undermines the other big Enlightment political concept of liberty. How does one resolve the problem of when a majority wants to impinge the liberties of a minority? Thus a constitutional republic. But the problem is not solved entirely because how can a constitution interpret every liberty worth protecting. If you missed that democracy is the form of government meant to manifest egaliatarianism, you missed why democracy is the favored political system. For it goes further than being the "will of the people", it is interpretted as (since most people don't speak Ancient Greek and understand Ancient Greek compound words) the "equal will of each individual worthy political agent"; if it was just will of the people every description of democratic system would have to be qualified by the fact that you have to be 18 or a citizen or haven't committed a crime; because those are still "people". To put it another way, its not a shareholders meeting when someone gets a vote worth 150 times another person. Though its implied by most, it should be in the included in the definition to improve on every other poor definition that you claim is out there.M.r. moon 10:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Dissent

RjII, why are you insiting on including this statement: "Peter Kropotkin approved of Renaissance Florence in Mutual Aid." There is no mention in the book that Kroptkin thought that this was a good anarchist society. Ultramarine 18:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't catch that. Didn't mean to delete it. I assumed your edit was only about Proudhon from your edit summary. RJII 18:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Democracy in India?

This seems to be a pet theory of a professor at Nippising University, which is a backwater University in Northern Ontario.

Seems dubious. The linked text is not a published journal article or an academic book, although it claims to be similar to an earlier published article. Also, "But in many states, perhaps most, political participation was restricted to a subset of all the ksatriyas . One needed to be not just a warrior, but a member of a specific royal clan, the rajanya". Ultramarine 22:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope this is talking about 'olden times' since I haven't fully completed reading the article. No aspersions on India's current status I hope. -_- XK

Recent back-and-forth reversions

Recently User:Drono and User:Ultramarine have been reverting back and forth between their preferred versions of parts of this article (example diff). I've invited them both to discuss it here on the Talk page instead of just reverting.

For instance, is the derivation from the Greek objectionable in itself, or just being removed along with the other text? Is either "direct" or "participatory" substantially more common usage in political science circles as a descriptive? Are the sections being blanked truly duplicating other articles, and if so, should at least a summary be present instead of complete removal?

Personally, I tend more to Ultramarine's wording - phrases such as "employ certain government devices", "perceived as promoting" sound like some point or other is trying to be made. - David Oberst 17:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

As seen in the diff, Drono is blanking of large parts of the article. No explanation for this has been given. As such it is Wikipedia:Vandalism. "Blanking Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit." Ultramarine 18:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd read WP:VAND as indicating that vandals commonly use blanking, not that all blanking is necessarily vandalism (although of course it usually is). Drono's blanking (at best only marked with "removed sections duplicating other entries" in the edit summary) and lack of interaction is certainly unhelpful, but given his other edits it likely is intended more as "radical article revision" to his preferred wording rather than vandalism. I used a diff example with blanking to give readers the entire range of the changes, but there are certainly others where he just replaces the existing text with his own[3]. Hopefully he'll join in here, and I'd certainly support keeping the existing version in the meantime - the article got added to my watchlist after I fixed a problem paragraph, and it was irritating seeing it keep flip-flopping like this! - David Oberst 19:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking at all of his changes, [4], he is systematically trying to delete the advantages of democracy, like the protection of human rights in liberal democracies, research on how electoral spending affects the elections, research on mass murder, and research on happiness.Ultramarine 20:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine, you wrote '...the advantages of democracy...' as if your vision of 'democracy' is the only type. Obviously, there are a wide spectrum of types of democracy, they do not all have the same 'advantages', would you agree? Who around here holds the definition of 'democracy'? BruceHallman 20:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. Yes, all the research showing advantages are on liberal democracy. Yes, maybe this should be pointed out.Ultramarine 20:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
...in the Liberal democracy article. BruceHallman 23:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, maybe most of the material related to liberal democracies should be moved to that article.Ultramarine 00:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I propose creating a brief summary of the material in the "Liberal democracy" section since it is now duplicated in Liberal democracy. I also think that the material in "Advantages and disadvantages of democracy" should be moved to liberal democracy since it is about that form of democracy. Thoughts? Ultramarine 00:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

First, I think that the entry is already much improved due to the removal of some sections that were not quite relevant (and others that had dubious content). As for the definition of democracy, I think that the current definition is problematic for at least two reasons:

  • It does not really say what democracy is about. A phrase like "rule of the people" is no more than a slogan. Saying that it "can take many forms" does little to help. There should be something that makes clear what is the basic idea behind democracy. To me, it is clear that this basic idea is equality of political power. If someone has a better definition, I am interested to read.
  • Whatever is definition of the idea democracy ("rule of the people", or "political equality" or whatever) this is an ideal, and should be clearly separated from modern practice of democracy. The way things are phrased now, it is implied that the democratic ideal, "the rule of the people", has been fully achieved through free and open elections. This may or may not be true, but it should not be assumed implicitly in the definition. Later in the entry, arguments in favor and against this point of view can be presented.

--Drono 04:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

First liberal democracy.

The claim that the US 'can be seen' appears like original research, is it? Why (other than ethnocentrism) isn't the democracy practiced by the Iroquois Confederacy considered a liberal democracy? Is appears very similar, especially when compared to 1789, it even has given suffrage to women since ancient times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BruceHallman (talk • contribs) .

I concur, there does need to be a reference to back this up if it goes back in the article. Captainj 20:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC) tash roxz

Some differences to liberal democracies and direct democracy: Only males of certain families could be leaders. Only females from those families decided the leaders. There should be consensus among the leaders, not majority support decided by voting, when making decisions.[5]Ultramarine 21:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I added a temporary "check citation" tag to the "white male adult property-owners" phrase - it may be an oversimplification for a encyclopedic article. At a guess I'd suspect that some of the northern states (such as Massachusetts) probably didn't explicitly limit the vote to whites, at least in the early decades after 1776 - I'll try and look this up. The small number of free blacks in these states, the property qualifications on the franchise in general, and the effects of social prejudice would of course make the generalization useful in the cited source, which is a simple timeline on infoplease.com, but I suspect the paragraph here can be better written.

I also added a "citation required" tag to the "originated on" dating phrase for the Iroquois Confederacy. The related article is quite murky as to what exactly is being dated - as best as I can tell, the implication is that the oral traditions indicate some sort of ratification event, which was associated with an eclipse, and that the eclipse in question was in 1142 AD. This seems to be based on work by Barbara Mann[6], but there is no citation as to how widely accepted this is, and seems a somewhat dubious basis for the current wording in the article. - David Oberst 08:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the "History" section to avoid the problematic citations altogether. But as a note, the last citation for the Iroquois "1142" date[7] is not in regards to any "dating" at all. A previous version used another reference,[8] which was actually some text copied from the ratical.org site[9]. This in turn leads back to the Mann article I previously noted[10]. Again, I can find no immediate references to any other basis for the "1142" wording, or any significant indication of acceptance or debate on Mann's work, which makes it a fairly thin hook to hang the previous wording on. The Iroquois Confederacy article would be a more useful place to go into these issues.

As for the "only white male adult property-owners had the right to vote", aside from the fact that an informal timeline webpage is not really a useful reference source even if I were disputing the , the new wording avoids the need to rewrite or needlessly qualify the previous simplistic phrase. For instance, even a brief Google search indicates provides indications of various degrees of black franchise in the north[11] [12], and efforts to reduce or eliminate black voting rights in Pennsylvania[13] and New York[14]. - David Oberst 21:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

First, I like your rewrite. Though, I wonder about the question of 'balance' when the majority of detail in the section is devoted to Athenian democracy, but independent non-European developments of democracy are touched on without even complete sentences. And worse, they are qualified with the weasel word 'claimed'. This appears ethnocentric. BruceHallman 21:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Balance tag

We should talk about the balance tag. BruceHallman 13:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this is related: many places in the article, especially upon the reliance upon research by Freedom House, the article makes the mistake of using the word 'democracy' when it actually means 'Liberal democracy'. This is especially a problem in the Democracy around the world section. BruceHallman 16:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree on this. I propose moving "Democracy around the world" and "Political legitimacy and democratic culture" to the liberal democracy article. Objections? Ultramarine 22:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Not from me. BruceHallman 14:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
That paragraph about Public Choice is an interesting addition to the article. BruceHallman 15:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Iroquois Confederacy had no written language

How do they have any historical record of any democratic process, or any proof, if the people in question had only oral histories? This claim is unverifiable so I removed it. Furthermore, it is not accepted history so it should not be given prominence as the first sentence if there in the history of democracy. Likewise the claim that the there was a form of democracy in India before Greece is one professor (or claiming to be) from one an obsure university, who published only online - it is not a copy of a proper journal article. It may be true, but it has not been verified, and may be a hoax for all we know. Please try to show some rigor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.222.125.238 (talk • contribs).

There is no requirement in history that only written records are acceptable. Oral records or historical artifacts can also be used. The Indian paper is based on another published paper.Ultramarine 15:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Note also that the text states "claimed", not that it is an absolute fact.Ultramarine 15:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
This is extremely irritating I am trying to write a well balance, well-researched bit on the history of democracy and you seem to feel the need to very prominently preface it with, I repeat, extremely fringe research. The first sentence is important because it leads and gives the first impression for the rest of the text. You previously claimed to have an exact date in the 12th century for the Iroquois Confederacy - how is possible to pinpoint if they only had oral histories? This history is questionable at best. 24.222.125.238 15:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
If you look at the article, and my earlier notes below, you'll notice that those research references and claims are no longer present. As written there is no specific need to have the Iroquois Confederacy as one of the examples mentioned in passing in the opening, but no great harm either. I specifically used the "second millenium CE" phrasing, which covers the 15th century period of orthodox Iroquois study, and prevents enthusiasts of the Mann research from popping that 12th century date into the text. Also, note that the original insertion of this date was by User:BruceHallman (see diff), not User:Ultramarine. - David Oberst 16:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I followed the supporting links and I end up in very strange territory. I invite other wikipedians to follow the reference links. Some of it is openly hostile to conventional history, and extremely unprofessional to use as a source. It is poorly documented one or two source authors of questionable reputation --24.222.125.238 13:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Again, the only reference to the Iroquois Confederacy in the current revision is in passing in the opening paragraph of the "History" section. And there is no claim of any weird dates - I used "second millenium" deliberately, since it covers what appears to be legitimate research into "democratic principles or elements" that may be present amongst the Iroquois in, say, the 15th or 16th century. Personally the idea of trying to establish some specific origin event based on oral histories and an 1142 eclipse seems rather wonky, but since it is no longer present in this article the debate can be moved over to Iroquois Confederacy. - David Oberst 15:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that the section begins with a reference to the History of democracy article - what follows should be an appropriate summary of the more detailed information there (see Wikipedia:Summary_style). While the opening paragraph I wrote used the two examples that happened to be around already, I sort of like it as a general concept - it tends to acknowledge or defuse the "democracy isn't just Athens" folks without giving undue weight to esoteric (to me) arguments and semantics about early democracy.

I did, however, remove again the specific reference cites that someone added back in. There is an implicit reference inherent in the "main article" notation, and specific details probably belong in the History of democracy article. If a consensus should develop otherwise, I'd be tempted to eliminate or rewrite the opening in such a way to make the citations unnecessary - as I mentioned they seem to be single-source research references (and in the Iroquois case a third-hand reference at that), and probably don't belong in such a general overview article.

I moved some chunks of text from the "20th century" section to the History of democracy article (where some of it seems to have originated anyway), including the Freedom House analysis, although a summary or citation of that probably needs to be added back in. Some more pruning and moving to the History of democracy article is likely possible - for instance fewer specific details in the Greek and British segments as opposed to emphasizing their various contributions to democratic development. - David Oberst 06:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

OK I have done some research: many say that the Iroquois Confederacy was formed around 1570 to 1600, and originally was just the Huron and the Seneca. Some type of system similar to the confederacy may have existed for centuries before that but the formal Iroquois Confederacy only existed from this time. Iroquois is a French term. Furthermore, their form of democracy is not in any way broad based - it was a meeting of elders in a long house. I would call this a very republican type of democracy. The elders themselves are not democratically elected. Mann is one researcher who based his findings on astronomical finding from oral histories, that places a specific date in the 12th century, but that is one source, and needs to find further historical acceptance before it warrents mention in the first paragraph of the history of democracy. --24.222.125.238 16:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Defintion of democracy

One user keep inserting that democracy "is a government within a group in which the members of the group have approximately equal political power". That is is one view, but there are many others, like views of the Commuinist states, which called themselves democratic. As such, this particular view should not be declared to be the only correct one. It is already mentioned in "Conceptions of democracy".Ultramarine 21:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

One user keeps deleting the only definition of democracy that was offered, claiming there are others. What are those alternative definitions? Sources? --Drono 21:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
" The 1977 Soviet Constitution: "It is a society of true democracy", but also, "The Communist Party, armed with Marxism-Leninism, determines the general perspectives of the development of society and the course of the home and foreign policy of the USSR, directs the great constructive work of the Soviet people, and imparts a planned, systematic and theoretically substantiated character to their struggle for the victory of communism"
Encarta: "Democracy (Greek demos,”the people”; kratein, “to rule”), political system in which the people of a country rule through any form of government they choose to establish. In modern democracies, supreme authority is exercised for the most part by representatives elected by popular suffrage."
Britannica "Literally, rule by the people (from the Greek demos, "people," and kratos, "rule"). The term has three basic senses in contemporary usage: (1) a form of government in which the right to make political decisions is exercised directly by the whole body of citizens acting under procedures of majority rule, usually known as direct democracy; (2) a form of government in which the citizens exercise the same right not in person but through representatives chosen by and responsible to them, known as representative democracy; and (3) a form of government, usually a representative democracy, in which the powers of the majority are exercised within a framework of constitutional restraints designed to guarantee all citizens the enjoyment of certain individual or collective rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, known as liberal, or constitutional, democracy."Ultramarine 21:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
The quote from the soviet constitution is not a definition. The definitions from the encyclopedias are elaborations with examples rather than alternatives. --Drono 22:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
The Soviet Union described itself as a democracy. The definitions from the encyclopedias are very different from your definition. Again, your defintion and links are included in the "Conceptions of democracy" section. Please do not try to make your own prefered defintion the only true one. Please read Wikipedia:NPOV.Ultramarine 22:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Here are several other defintions: [15]. For example, "A democracy is a system where people can change their rulers in a peaceful manner and the government is given the right to rule because the people say it may."Ultramarine 22:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
The "definitions" in the link you offered are (like "the rule of the people") just slogans. They do not define anything. They are neither in agreement nor in contradiction to the "political equality" definition. How can a people rule or "consent" to be ruled? This is meaningless anthropomorphization.
Unlike you, I have no agenda here. I am just trying to make this entry make some sense. It is absurd to look at the democracy entry and see that there is no definition. Of course, any political entry is somewhat open to interpretation, but there is a common intuitive understanding of the term "democracy", and that understanding is that in a democracy everybody counts the same, i.e., "political equality". Among the editors here, everyone seems to be happy with this definition, except for you. How about letting the cat out of the bag and telling what exactly is your objection to it? --Drono 22:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikpedia should not create the "true" defintion of democracy. Since there is no universal defintion of what democracy is, we should not state that there is one. That would violate Wikipedia:No original research. The Soviet Union and the Athenian democracy definied democracy differently than you, explicitly not giving any political powers to most of the population. I find your claims that you have no agenda very strange, as you have previously stated that the Western nations do not have much political equality, which leads to the conlusion that they are not democratic. Ultramarine 23:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Why should we state your defintion, and not for example ""A democracy is a system where people can change their rulers in a peaceful manner and the government is given the right to rule because the people say it may."[16] Why is just your text the correct one? Ultramarine 23:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
This is becoming repetitive, so I'll make one more response and I will leave it that. My definition of democracy as political equality carries no agenda - it is simply an intuitive and consice description of what most people view as democracy. In addition, I have even provided references for this idea appearing in existing research.
Whether or not Western democracies live up to that definition is a different matter - I do have an opinion about that, but I am not trying to insert that opinion into the definition of democracy. You have not given any reasonable interpretation of democracy that does not conform to the idea of political equality. The ability to peacefully change rulers is not a democracy if the set of options is limited. For example, if in a country that has a majority of black citizens, voters can choose any man they want as long as he is white, would any reasonable person call that a democracy? --Drono 18:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Here you are stating that there is only one "true" defintion of democracy and that Wikipedia should state that. That would be original research, there are many different opinions. Again, why should we state your prefered text instead of for example Britannica's? You state they are equivalent. But then we can equally well use Britannica's text, right? Another again, the Soviet Union and the Athenian democracy explicitly called themselves democratic but explicitly excluded most of the population from political power. Ultramarine 18:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Change to Introduction to Democracy

I have added the following to the end of the first paragraph

Democracy can be [[direct democracy|Direct or Indirect (Representative). Representative democracy can, in turn, be bottom-up democracy or top-down democracy. Another distinction is between liberal democracy and illiberal democracy.

Whoever is deleting this, please explain why.

I cannot think of how to me more neutral in approaching this topic. It does cover the kinds of democracies without indicating any preference -- so what is the objection?

Skovoroda 00:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Not all agree that one can or should representative democracies into bottom-up democracy or top-down democracy. Looking at the descriptions, it seems to be advocated by people who argue that some form of Communism or Socialism is a superior system. As such, it is very POV and should not be mentioned in the intro as an absolute fact. It mentioned later in the article under Kinds of democracy.Ultramarine 01:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
1. You are saying that some claim that the distinction cannot be made. Who? and Why not?
2. You are also saying that it should not be made. By who? and Why not?
3. I gather that you do not wish to make the distinction. But that is your POV.
4. You claim that people who advocate the distinction also advocate Communism or Socialism. Is this true a priori or is this some kind of genealization? Furthermore, so what?
5. It is an absolute fact that some make the distinction -- Noam Chomsky, for one.

If I do not get coherent reposes from you, I will revert to my version. Skovoroda 18:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

A Goolge search finds only 420 hits for "top-down democracy", a very small number. Compare to 2,5 millions for liberal democracy or 231 000 for Athenian democracy. As an obscure concept, it should not be mentioned in the into. It is mentioned in the article proper. Ultramarine 18:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Suppose that at the time of Copernicus we counted heads for how many people believed the earth to be flat. One person says it isn't flat, and the others that it is. What does the number of believers have to do with truth? Furthermore, why don't you reply to my five points?

Skovoroda 02:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


See my notes on the Talk:Bottom-up democracy and Talk:Top-down democracy pages. I'm not convinced (to put it mildly) that "top-down democracy" is in general usage to categorize representative democracies. "Bottom-up" as a term may be on somewhat firmer footing in the anarchist tradition, or with the Soviet/Chinese examples, but not as a basis for Skovoroda's top/bottom division in this article. It may be easier to tell if the bottom-up democracy article ever gets cleaned up satisfactorily.- David Oberst 21:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
If you do not allow for the "bottom-up" /"top-down" democracy distinction then you are conflating these distinctions with the phrase "representative democracy" and -- in a propagandistic fashion -- allowing "representative democracy" be associated with "top-down democracy." Do you genuinely not see a conceptual distinction? And if there is such a conceptual distinction, it should be labeled and made explicit. No?

Furthermore, how do such disputes as ours get settled? You deleted what I posted. I can then post it again, and you delete it again. And so on. If you are a rational person, I will try to satisfy some criteria which you specify. If you are an irrational person, then I won't play the game, and your will will be done.

Skovoroda 02:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

We discuss and reach a consensus. Again, I see no reason why this obscure concept should be mentioned in the intro to the very broad Demcracy articles. Here are some other divisions, all much more common:

  • Proportional and majoritarian representation
  • Presidential and parliamentary systems
  • Christian Democracy and non-Christian Democracy
  • Social Democracy and non-Social Democracy
  • Multiparty democracy and one-party democracy
  • Sortition and election

Ultramarine 08:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite of intro

I've written a new intro paragraph. Whatever its faults, perhaps it can serve as a template for future efforts. Specifically, as a general reader of this article instead of someone with any doctrinal axe to grind, I think an introductory paragraph on a broad subject such as this that requires multiple reference citations is probably a bad sign. - David Oberst 07:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The second paragraph paints a somewhat rosy, American perspective. In eastern Europe "democracy" is often synonymous with hypocrisy, corruption, and organized crime. In short, democracy imparted only two freedoms 1) freedom for organized crime to run rampant, and 2) freedom for citizens (but not journalists) to complain about it. Rklawton 16:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I just rewrote the first paragraph - the second was already there. I was actually considering rewriting it as well to eliminate that warty "illiberal elections" phrasing, but inertia kicked back in by that time. I'm not sure if the 20th century spread of democracy needs half the intro section, but it is significant and much of the article covers this. - David Oberst 08:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I took a crack at the second Paragraph. I'm still not entirely satisfied however. I am open to any suggestions.--Davidmintz 23:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Your changes: [17]. Please do not revert everything if you disagree with one thing. Regarding quotes, they belong in wikiquote. Why did you deleted the information on illiberal elections and that most ideologies include nominal support for democracy? Ultramarine 01:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ultramarine with the introduction. Illiberal democracies do not exist only in Eastern Europe. See Central Asia, most of Africa, South America. Other countries outside Western Europe and North America should not be 'blamed' for illiberal democracies either. Furthermore, quotes from people supporting democracy do not belong on the democracy page but in wikiquotes, as Ultramarine has mentioned. Jazza 15:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the introduction suffers from deep seated systemic bias, assuming a perspective and bias from the Western liberal democratic point of view. The phrase 'garner legitimacy' is one example of the POV because it conveys superiority of one type of democracy over others. Also, the lead sentence based on the etymology of the word is quite irrelevant for modern usage. More valuable would be to describe the modern origin of the philosophy of 'democracy', which comes from the Age of Enlightenment and to mention the evolution of the philosophy including *both* the American/French revolutions and the birth of socialism and communism. BruceHallman 17:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Does not state that democracy is superior, only that many think so and that others try gain legitamcy due to this.Ultramarine 18:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Please also address my systemic bias complaint. You wrote 'many think so', and your 'many' tend to live in blue part of the world, in other words, the article has a 'blue' systemic bias. Wikipedia should be edited neutral, including the perspective of the grey portions of the world too. BruceHallman 19:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Your use of the word 'legitamcy' also implies POV bias, and claiming 'Does not state that democracy is superior,' seems wildly illogical unless you also believe that 'legitamcy' is not desireable. BruceHallman 19:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
It is not I, but various dictatorship who claim legitamcy by having sham elections. I certainly do not consider them any more legitimate for this.Ultramarine 20:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Kinds of Democracy

I have come to the conclusion that Democracy is best divided into Direct and Indirect. And Indirect into Representative and Non-Representative. This is as neutral as I can make it. Whoever disagrees, state your reasons.Skovoroda 21:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


This not the place for an discussion of what kind of democracy the US has. Also why was the information about the democracy in the Communist states removed? Ultramarine 22:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
"If a non-representative democracy -- like the original soviet democracy -- all office holders are elected through "electors" or "delegates." For this reason, non-representative democracy is best called delegative democracy." Links to two new articles by you. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.Ultramarine 22:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

A recent TV programme claimed that 150 is about the largest an organisation can be and still have everyone know each other, and be able to function without some form of coercion. This would set a limit on the size of a tribe, commune, etc. Say we rounded this down to 100, this would indicate a hierarchy of political units each with 100 representatives, with the lowest level being "direct", that is an assembly of all adults in the village/neighborhood.

Say

Level 1 - 100 (neighborhood) Level 2 - 10,000 (town/district) Level 3 - 1 million (city/region) Level 4 - 100 million (state) Level 5 - "United Nations"

Just an idea!

The programme pointed out that today we are the members of several communities - our company/employer, neighborhood, church/mosque/temple, political group, sports or leisure club, etc. A democracy might have to ensure we were represented through most or all of these.

Exile 19:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Role of Editor

There are several things an editor may do which look like original research. These are:

(1) Selection of material to include,
(2) Selecting what to write about the material
(3) Sorting or classifying the material in some way
(4) Writing paraphrases
(5) Clarifying by disambiguating and precising of vague concepts
(6) Making distinctions where there is conflation

All of this may look like original research -- but is really excluded from the ban against original reasearch.

1. The subheading is kinds of democracy, so the discussion should be limited to this topic.

2. So, what is objectionable about my divisions of Democracy? Your division is too small.

3. I used U.S. democracy as an example. But your use of communism is an example of what -- democracy? What kind of democracy?

Please respond to all my points.Skovoroda 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Skovoroda,
(First part)
I'm not sure, but I reckon (5) and (6) certainly could be original research (they are quite vague). (4) has the potential if taken to the extreme. Of course all of them have the potential to be used for POV pushing (eg selecting a few minor sources and painting it as mainstream when the vast majority of reputable sources disagree, etc)
(Second Part)
This is a bit specific, and I haven't been following the arguments on this page closely - and they seem to be addressed to a specific user. OOps, hope I haven't interfered :-). CaptainJ (t | c | e) 19:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, please stay - there is a surprising lack of activity on what I would have thought to be a notable page - where are all the political science wonks? I'm only here myself because of a small rewrite I made awhile ago, and I've stuck around to try and comb out some of the odder idiosyncracies it led to. For User:Skovorada, try thinking of it this way. "Democracy" is hardly an obscure or unmined subject, and there must be any number of introductory textbooks, etc. If these are not generally using terms such as delegative democracy, bottom-up democracy, etc., as you are in creating your various articles, might this not be a good sign that your usage is idiosyncratic, bordering on [[WP:NOR}]? - David Oberst 20:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I used to contribute to this article somewhat, but got quite weary as the level of conflict became too high for my comfort. So, today, I tend to hang out more in democracy-related articles. I would (someday) like to work on several of this article's todo's, many of which I created, to help balance out this article more (e.g., benefits of majority rule vs. tyranny of the majority, and overall pros vs. cons). —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 20:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Map source use POV

For two of the three maps used in the article, the so-called "Freedom House", a US-government funded institution, is used as a source. The caption of the map in the middle, not from "Freedom House", indirectly hints that you should in no case trust the information portrayed, as it's only claims. It thus points the reader into looking at the other maps. Please see Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid.

The "Freedom House" maps show, for example, Russia as being "Not Free" and not having any sort of an electoral democracy.

First of all, what is a map showing the amount of "freedom", an ambigous concept, doing in an article talking about democracy. The definition of democracy does not explicitly outlaw the possibility that some people may choose a government which restricts freedoms (see USA PATRIOT Act for an example). Therefore, it could be said that this map has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the article. If you want, go an put that map in Freedom. It has nothing to do with this article.

The other map, showing "Electoral Democracies" is from a single point of view not taking into account other opinions, and thus violates WP:NPOV. The map does not represent all views fairly and without bias, as it should according to this policy.

For the abovementioned reasons, I suggest removing both of the "Freedom House" maps from the article. The first one for the reason that it is both biased and is off-topic (this isn't an article on Freedom), and the other one because it shows obvious bias. If someone wants to do a map based on, for example, the less biased United Nations statistics, feel free. Comments? If someone can come up with a good reason to keep a map of alleged level of freedom in the world in an article talking about democracy, I won't remove the map. The same applies to the other map. --HJV 03:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The Freedom House research on democracy is very well-known, respected, and widely used. It is a valid and significant view. If you argue that there is a view missing, add it.Ultramarine 04:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Freedom House is also very much biased towards the fallacy that democracy equals a blend of Liberal democracy and Market democracy and their map reflects their fallacious bias. BruceHallman 18:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia should include all significant views. NPOV is not an argument for excluding some views on the grounds that only one, "neutral" view, should be presented. If there are arguments and views missing, add them.Ultramarine 18:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that Freedom House has a louder bullhorn due to tax exempt government subsidized funding. Your asking to include the opposing research institute, knowing full well that such an institute does not really exist (and is denied overnment subsidized funding) does nothing to refute the criticism that over reliance on Freedom House is POV. BruceHallman 18:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Using this argument, one should then remove all research by governments or organisations receiving government money, like universities, stating that there may be views missing. The article already has an opposing map, showing all states claiming to be democratic. If you want another research institute, you may make a map using the Polity scores. It will show almost the same thing as Freedom House.Ultramarine 19:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Just take a look at the history and composition of Freedom House. It is simply a Cold War creation with a view of democracy equating it with the North American/Western European systems of political voting and economic non-democracy. Freedom Hosue is not a reliable source for a global encyclopedia.
Even if this was correct, then this is still a valid view. You can add an opposing view if you want, showing a map of what states are democratic accoring to some other widely used source.Ultramarine 18:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Pakistan = No democracy right now

Pakistan claims to be democratic? Sorry, but the map needs to change, Pres Musharaff is a military dictator, as we can see, Pakistan can be a Republic, not a democracy.

(Hopes the Pakistani online diaspora does not strike back)

Hey, people here have claimed that Russia and China are democratic, but these are communism/socialism. Some say that Palestine isdemocratic, but everyone knows that they support terrorism, which is the enemy of the people and therefore the enemy of democracy. Why? I think they just want to confuse the issue in order to weaken the power of the truth that democracy, in its purest form, is the power of the people in equality. Opponents of democracy would blind us with false claims concerning democracy in order to prevent the true power of pure democracy from becoming truly unleashed and threatening to their visions of "world order." Honestly, I would revise your title to more accurately read, "No pure democracy has ever been on this earth."--Landen99 20:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"Hey, people here have claimed that Russia and China are democratic, but these are communism/socialism" - Ummm - Russia hasn't been Communist for 17 years. And not many people would say that China is democratic.

Exile 19:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

No pure democracy has ever been on this earth

When is the last time that government has ever waited to hear from the majority of an entire population? Woman were ignored for the longest time, and slaves too. So most of the earth's history has already been disqualified from pure democracy. These days the majority of the vote is taken to be the majority of the population, but two issues arise from that: 1) Majority vote is not majority population, 2) A small, well-organized, and motivated faction can exercise great political influence by voice and by vote, and 3) Apathy does not constitute endorsement of any view, even of the majority of the voters. In reality, modern democracy cannot be described as the rule of the people, but instead as the rule of the voters, or the rule of the factions.

When has any government been content and patient to wait for the majority of the people before closing its elections and extrapolating the will of the people? And why do intellectual elites deem their issues to be of such great importance as to berate the people for ignorance and apathy when their pet issues are neglected and thus rejected for lack of resonance with the people? And finally, how do representatives pretend to represent when most of the work represents their own interests and agendas, lacking support from the majority of their entire constituency? Who do representatives represent and how do they withold from the people the power to override their vote, which vote is considered to represent the will of the people? Such weaknesses are inherent in the nature of the current practices of government and politics, and they challenge the very foundation of power for a great many politicians and special interest groups, hence the justification for substantial opposition from those who pretend to be democracy's strongest advocates, but in reality are the strongest advocates of the modern, corrupted forms of democracy.

In a real democracy, the representatives represent the people, only acting with and according to their explicit and expressed will. Likewise, the government only governs by the established will of the majority of either the people or their representatives. The government should never have the power to discriminate, except in the execution of justice or enforcement of impartial, indiscriminate laws, or in the contracting of private agencies by bid for government work according the relevant requirements of each respectively. --Landen99 20:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Map / China

On one of the maps it says that China claims to be democratic and does not allow opposition groups to exist. This is actually not quite true - opposition groups do exist and are registered. Minority groups are represented on the NPC. A point for debate, perhaps? Jsw663 14:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Terminology vs Truth regarding Majority Rule

Enough fighting over terminology. Majority rule is the foundation of democracy and no attempt should be made, even under the guise of rejecting the term pure democracy, to erase that fact. It is the undisputed history of our civilizations and the basis for this new popular, modern movement (see Iraq, 2003-2006). Everyone accepts that democracy holds the majority decision of the voters as if it were the majority decision of the entire population, and this stands as the foundational building block of any discussion about popular, modern understandings of democracy. I believe that the principle is flawed, but regardless, it must be recognized as popular knowledge and the foundation of this form of government. If the recognition of this fact reveals the flaw, then courage requires one to allow the people to see it as it is and accept the vulnerabilities and weaknesses of the systems that we love so dearly. --Landen99 21:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

RFC: Democracy (disambiguation)

Please see Talk:Democracy (disambiguation)#Request for Comment: Democracy (disambiguation) for details and please leave comments. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 21:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Question on "first democracy"

Quote from the article: "The United States can be seen as the first liberal democracy, [2] with a relatively wide franchise (although initially limited by property and gender restrictions, and the existence of slavery) and the United States Constitution protected rights and liberties."

I don't really understand the statement. The first state with a bill of rights was England. The first constitutional monarchy was the Kingdom of Great Britain (since the last Royal Assent was withheld in 1708). The first state to implement universal suffrage was the Grand Duchy of Finland. The first states with a direct democracy (albeit no bill of rights or universal suffrage) were the Greek nation-states. So I would understand if either of these four states were claimed to be the first liberal democracy, but I do not understand the reasoning behind naming the US as the first.

If I don't understand the definition and "liberal democracy" is different from "democracy" or "democracy with a bill of rights and/or human suffrage", then what is special about liberal democracy (i.e. merits the mention)?

I would privately lean toward naming Finland as the first democracy in the true sense of the word. Of course, I don't propose making the change, I am just genuinely curious.

laddiebuck 00:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Addendum, maybe I should have said New Jersey instead of Finland. laddiebuck 00:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
If you are thinking about the Magna Charta, it was really only intended to give some protection to the nobility and the church from the king. The rights in the Bill of Rights 1689 were extremely limited. Only a few percent could vote and there were problems like rotten boroughs. At the time of the American revolution, George III still controlled most policy. Ultramarine 00:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I was thinking of the 1689 document. The wiki page for it does not describe it as limited and mentions correlations between it and amendments to the US constitution, so I don't understand what you mean in practice by limited. I understand the issue of rotten boroughs (although that's more of a topic of corruption), but I had thought that it was Parliament (in opposition to Pitt, the PM) that decided policy at the time of the American Revolution? Various sources -- such as indeed the Wiki page for Declaration of Independence -- decribe the situation thus. laddiebuck 04:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is how the National Archives describes the democratic situation: [18]Compare the 1689 Bill to the Virginia Declaration of Rights which included things like Freedom of the Press and Religion. The king (and the nobility in the House of Lords) still had considerable powers at this time, he was certainly not a figurehead.Ultramarine 10:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
So if you base democracy on voting availability (as I believe it should be), then how can any state before suffrage for women and ethnic minorities be a democracy? In that case our first candidate is the Grand Duchy of Finland (1906). laddiebuck 21:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Arguably most people had very little influence in Britain due to lack of voting rights, lack of many other rights like Freedom of Speech, and the power of the king and nobility. In the US a majority of the males had the vote and rights and tbis was the first time that this had happened in world's history. This was a dramatic revolution compared to everything before and many predicted a disaster when letting the common people decide things. Regarding women, on many issues they probably had similar views as men with similar SES. The extension of franchise to women was not as dramatic a revolution as giving the majority of males the votes and rights.Ultramarine 22:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Your argument is reasonable, but I also think that a condensed version of it should be included in the article as a justification. laddiebuck 22:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, while women may have in general had similar views, slaves would likely have dramatically different views, so that's another caveat to consider. I'd only consider the US a democracy (even without suffrage for women) until all ethnic minorities received the vote. laddiebuck 22:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

map

the freedom map of the world is very (self evidently) inaccurate it should be replaced with another which is more representative of reality eg: freedom/democracy in in afghanistan is rated higher than russia (i am an australian with no national or political agenda just want to be a good wikizen). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.106.19.3 (talk • contribs) .

i think there should be a way for users to edit the maps (this is a WIKI!) otherwise it should be discarded completely in favour of a list of countries and categories the posting of a "AUTHOURATATIVE" democracy map to tell the people who is free and who isn't is itself very undemocratic! how's that for irony? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.106.19.3 (talk • contribs) .

I've replaced the map deleted (3 times) by the above user, who has now created an account of their own (User:Esmehwk) and informed them of WP:3RR. - David Oberst 05:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The map should be removed. Dudtz 6/8/06 6:58 PM EST

Three maps representing not only one PoV, but one set of measurements of that PoV is undue weight; they always have been. Septentrionalis 23:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

My mistake... that russia is worse than afghanistan is also shown in reporters san frontier world press freedom.--Esmehwk 10:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there is some discussion of the maps earlier in this Talk (mainly spillover debate from Freedom House, I think) , for those interested. I reverted at the time mainly because it appeared to be image removal by an anon (no edit summary), but turned out to be new user Esmehwk. However, I'd likely support keeping them. Their value seems to significantly outweigh the defects, and as I think someone pointed out, the same source is often used in other publications. As a parallel, the political corruption article uses a map based on the Corruption Perceptions Index of the group Transparency International. If three are considered too many, the middle one might be considered for the axe - since almost everything is blue it seems merely to be emphasizing the point in the text that almost all goverments feel the need to at least make a claim to democracy. - David Oberst 08:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

what democracy is:

i think to be clear this needs to be added. --Esmehwk 05:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC) democracy is a form of government. the word "government" here does not limit the concept to states and nations or political organizations. the word government is applicable even in "commercial" or small groups of individuals. therefore the word government, (in all its applications in all areas of society) is what should be put here. In all the references I have looked oxford dictionary Ian Robertson’s sociology, the latter is THE textbook in sociology define democracy exclusively as a form of government. --Esmehwk 06:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

kinds of democracy:

there were three entries: direct representative "The one party Communist states" the third does not belong here there are two overarching classes, the first two. all would agree that Communist states are not democracies and therefore are not, "types" of democracies.now we COULD add a million things which aren't types of democracies but let's not. --Esmehwk 06:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine if you disagree put forward your argument in the discussion page i am open to your point of view, you simply deleted everything i did without any sort of discussion is democracy yours?! if so i'm very sorry to have stumbled on to your territory.

--Esmehwk 07:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Esmehwk, please be careful when reverting. You also put back the deleted "dictatorship" essay and the "Colbert/musket" prank. I've reverted these out, but also your changes. "By the people" is preferable to the unclear "of the people", just as "slaughter by the people" would be rather different than "slaughter of the people". "From the Greek" is common usage that doesn't necessarily require "words", (and personally I prefer how it flows). "a form of government" got dropped with my revert; I'm not sure it is an improvement (but if others like it they can re-insert), but your version parsed as if it needed a semi-colon instead of a comma in any case.
Also, try not to create excessive numbers of section headers, while writing your comments paragraph style instead of double spaced single line sentences saves a lot of scrolling. - David Oberst 07:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

ok i accept all your revertion and thank you for your input.and if you want ill delete the hearders now(is it ok to change what you wrote in a discussion?) as for: "is a form of government" ive looked it up in many places and you can also see my previous argument this part i really think should be there and i've put up my reasons i'm going to put it back with the semi colon unless you object.... also please let me know what the prank thing is and how i can avoid puting it up.thanks for your constructive crit. --Esmehwk 08:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

While "government" may indeed refer to more than states, etc., most readers encountering it cold at the start of the article are likely to subconciously form the most common association of the word, as a national or subnational government. I'm not sure what is gained is worth it. "Governance" might work instead, but I'd prefer to just leave it as is. - David Oberst 08:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

ok i see your point. can you think of some other word which explains, WHAT democracy is ie a form of group decision making. i think this is necessary. the article i feel needs to initially explain what the concept is; not the etymology but in what situation the concept is used. this adds clarity, and without it the article seems a bit uncentered, also other sources i've been looking at all refer to it as a form of government, personally i think governance is better. --Esmehwk 08:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

i think theocracy is a good model of how the first part of democracy should be set up. also here is an example of a good definition from Ian Robertson's Sociology 3rd edition: QUOTE Democracy is a form of goverment in which it is recognized that ultimate authority belongs to the people, who have the right to participate in the decision-making process and to appoint and dismiss their rulers. "Democracy" actually comes from a Greek word meaning "rule of the people". UNQUOTE this definition is (i think) superior to the current version and its source is quite authouratative. --Esmehwk 08:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The Communist states claimed to be democratic and they were cetainly significant. So, they should be mentioned.Ultramarine 13:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
There are many different views of what democray is. Wikipedia is not the place to decide the "true" meaning of democracy. We should only report the different views.Ultramarine 13:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

if you get the time look up a political science textbook, democracy is divided into direct and representative forms, the communist states claiming to be democractic would describe themselves as a variation of representative democracy. they do have a place in this article just not under this section please find a more suitable place for it, possibly with other examples of controversial versions of democracy. you should do a little bit of research in other texts: encyclopedias, textbooks, journals, etc to get a better understanding of a topic before you confidently put up whatever comes onto your mind. if you can find a single reference where your addition is put together next to the two overarching classes of democracy, i will withdraw my objection. --Esmehwk 22:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What is your reference for that they fall under representative democracy? They relatively recently controlled 1/3 of the world's population, so they are significant.Ultramarine 22:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

i would refer you to: Wikipedia:The perfect article: (*reflects expert knowledge; it is grounded in fact and on sound scholarly and logical principles. ) In representative democracy people elect others to make political decisions, in direct it is done directly. now, the communist governments claimed to be representatives of the people, they did not claim to physically BE the people. many may argue over whether they were truely representatives or not... that is not the argument here, the point is simply that they were (or claimed to be) reps, so that puts them under the rep subset. this is quite logical and in the science of politics, and sociology, democracies are divided into two general types: direct and representative i could give you as many references as there are first year political science textbooks but ill give you one of the most authuratative and that is the one taught in universities all over the world: IAN ROBERTSONS sociology. i hope i have convinced you and i'm sorry if i came off a bit self-righteous.--Esmehwk 22:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

To be truly neutral shouldn't we separate theory from what we perceive to be reality? Communism claims to be a people's democracy just as the US system claims to be a liberal democracy. Not everyone agrees on this, but why should we let our personal feelings / views hamper this? Can't we write a people's democracy theory section separate from a criticisms of people's democracy theory section (where you can say it is not representative of the people they claim to represent)? That way you'll preserve maximum neutrality whilst informing people to the full. That is, of course, if you can allow yourself to do so. Jsw663 03:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

personally i dont think liberal democracy should be up there either it should be in a different section but i'm not going to touch it cuz it might upset others, my suggestion is not in anyway a comment on liberal or communist or galactic states, its just about a logical categorization of something. for example animal reproduction is divided into sexual or asexual, and the fact that some people choose not to engage in either activity (as tragic as that is) has no bearing on the logical categorization of reproduction. in the same way when types of democracies are being listed the should be divided into their proper subsets direct and indirect. It makes no sense to put communist or liberal examples, unless you list ALL of the different system. but as i said earlier i do not dare to take the liberal example off as doing so would require a complete redoing of the article which although necessary, is very difficult given the opposition to any sort of change. I can do without the stress.--Esmehwk 05:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, I ask for a source for that the Communist states describes their democracy as representative.Ultramarine 09:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I refer you to my comments above, i am not going to argue over this any more.--Esmehwk 23:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine, see this book: August, Arnold (1999). Democracy in Cuba and the 1997-1998 Elections, Montreal:Canada-Cuba Distribution. ISBN 0968508405; which very clearly describes the representative nature of the nomination process for the candidates, followed by public elections with secret ballots. BruceHallman 20:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Lenin and Marx rejected representative democracy as practiced in the states at their time. They saw their system as different.Ultramarine 20:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Marx on "misrepresentative" democracy and the Paris Commune:
"While the merely repressive organs of the old governmental power were to be amputated, its legitimate functions were to be wrested from an authority usurping pre-eminence over society itself, and restored to the responsible agents of society. Instead of deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to misrepresent the people in Parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people"
"The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally workers, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time."Ultramarine 20:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Lenin makes this more complicated. He thought that ordinary people do not spontaneously make the right decisions. So they must be lead by an elite vanguard Communist party until this happens. Regardless, he and his followers, including all Marxist-Leninist Communist states, called themselves democratic.Ultramarine 20:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Why was Hitler's example removed?

Under the criticisms of democracy section why was Hitler's example removed? Granted, he was not directly elected but he still (ab)used the democratic process to get to where he was. Am I missing something here? Jsw663 03:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Free lunch

I'm (reluctantly) going to take this off. its really funny and should be put into some humour page or wikiquote or something like that but unfortunately it doesn't belong here.

Request for Comment: types of democracy

there is a dispute over the types of democracy there are. --Esmehwk 23:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Freedom in the world map

This map reflects the findings of Freedom House's survey Freedom in the World 2006, concerning the state of world freedom in 2005.      Free.      Partly Free      Not Free
This map reflects the findings of Freedom House's survey Freedom in the World 2006, concerning the state of world freedom in 2005.      Free.      Partly Free      Not Free

I don't think the map should be on here. But the worst thing is the description in the map key next to the green box, it says: "Free: Freedom House considers these states to be liberal democracies." That sentence shouldn't be included, Freedom House doesn't include it on their website map. It should just say free. Whoever phrased the article that way creates the false impressions that Freedom House's ranking of "Free" should correspond to a liberal democracy, and that liberal democracy is "assumed to be" democracy. Get rid of this map and the other map also. The other map has no source and is ridiculous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lecky333 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Does it make sense to have a map describing "freedom in the world" in an article about democracy? Freedom is not the same as democracy. BruceHallman 23:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

not to me... also the source is very dubious it is from a neoconservative think tank and it has become the central source, the director of the freedom house was head of CIA.(notice how afghanistan is more "free" than russia)... but i'm not touching anything in here anymore... --Esmehwk 23:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, I have just deleted the map. BruceHallman 20:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
This has been discussed before. This is a siginificant view used in much research. Add opposing view if disagree.Ultramarine 20:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
You have not explained why a map showing freedom belongs in an article about democracy. Freedom is not the same a democracy. Please explain. BruceHallman 05:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It is about democracy. It is explicitly stated that Free nations are considered liberal democracies.Ultramarine 08:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
In research, this scale is one of the most widely used measures of democracy (and also highly correlated with the other ones widely used).[19]Ultramarine 08:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Because 'freedom' is associated with Liberal Democracy, as you point out, I suggest a compromise that the map be included in that article instead. BruceHallman 15:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Liberal democracy is arguable the dominant form of democracy today. In research this scale is one of the most widely used measures of democracy. So this view is certainly significant and should be included in this article.Ultramarine 15:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

bullying

I STRONGLY agree with drono, ultramarine is ruining this article through sheer persistance, people come, look at the article, see that its is of bad quality try to fix it, ultramarine bites them until they give up and leave, ultramarine, not attempting to come to a consensus with anyone destroys wikipedia, if EVERYONE you bump into, seems to disagree with you, that says more about you than them. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esmehwk (talk • contribs) .

Requested Comment

So, just looking over the discussion, it seems like the claim that the One-Party Communists states represent a distinct type of democracy is a fairly controversial assertion. Doing a quick search, I find many sources that list "Direct", "Representative" and "Liberal" as types of democracy, but I haven't bumped into any mention the one-party communist states as a fourth distinct type of democracy.

I think most people would dispute the claim that the German Democratic Republic was a democracy. Nonetheless, some of these nations DID call themselves a democracy, and we could certainly include that fact in the 20th century part of the history section.

--Alecmconroy 06:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"Liberal" as a type of democracy

I am wondering what are the sources used for the description of "liberal" as a type of democracy. Why does this "type" get so much play in this entry?

I found one source [20], but the definition there (By liberal democracy, I mean primarily the general method of choosing or removing governments that developed in England and then spread among English-speaking peoples and beyond.) does not seem to be the same as the one used here.

--Drono 23:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Liberal democracy gets around 2.2 million hits in Google, compared to around half that for Direct democracy or Representative democracy.Ultramarine 23:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
You did not answer my question. Where do you take your definition from? --Drono 02:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
For example, look at how Freedom House defines it: "Freedom House's term "electoral democracy" differs from "liberal democracy" in that the latter also implies the presence of a substantial array of civil liberties." [21]. Their ranking is one of the most widely used by researchers.Ultramarine 02:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I tentatively accept the definition of "liberal democracy" as being an "electoral democracy" + "presence of a substantial array of civil liberties", although before this is finalized, there should be evidence that this term used widely in this sense, rather than just by a single source.
However, this definition is quite different than the one in the entry ("a form of representative democracy where the ability of elected representatives and the will of the majority to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution which emphasizes the protection of liberties, freedoms, and rights of individuals and minorities."). If you believe the definition you referred to is the accepted one, then the entry should be changed to conform to it. --Drono 03:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The rights and liberties Freedom House looks at includes those things.Ultramarine 03:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Another example: "for almost a century in the West, democracy has meant liberal democracy -- a political system marked not only by free and fair elections, but also by the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property." [22]
The definition in the entry talks about much more than the "the presence of liberties". Talk about the will of the majority being subject to something or other, or the moderating influence of a constitution is a completely different thing than saying that liberties exist. Presuming we accept Freedom House's definition as authoritative, I suggest we use Freedom House's definition verbatim and include a list of civil liberties that are implied.
As for the definition being standard or widely accepted, I remain skeptical. A citation of a paper that uses a certain definition has little weight in showing that that definition is standard. Above I have cited a paper with a very different definition. A citation of a widely read textbook (or perferably a set of such textbooks) would be much more convincing. --Drono 05:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The definition you cited above do not contradict the one I have given. Regarding textbooks, which are summaries of research and academic works for students, they are inferior to the actual works and rankings used by researchers. Would you state that a textbook is correct if it is contradicted by the works and papers in the field? I have given two works showing how liberal democracy is widely used by professionals.
We can certainly remove the statements about the will of the majority or moderating influence of constitution. I think that the second example above is concise and suggests using it.Ultramarine 11:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I will make the change - it seems to be an improvement of the current definition which apparently has no credible source.
As for the the acceptance of the Freedom House-Zakaria (FHZ) definition - if these are the only two sources you can come up with, then this could hardly be called standard terminology. As I pointed out, I found, with very little effort, a different definition (Yes, it does not contradict the FHZ definition, but it is substantially different.)
A definition in a paper represents the opinion of the author, and the fact that the referees didn't consider it an error - it does not mean that it is accpeted usage. Once a definition gains wide acceptance it finds its way to textbooks. Alternatively, a set of papers from a variety of sources could also be used as credible evidence for accepted usage. You have not even come close to making a convincing case. --Drono 20:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
They are not substantially different. "the general method of choosing or removing governments that developed in England and then spread among English-speaking peoples and beyond." is not a definition, more like a historical narrative. I have given two good scholarly sources both stating a definition and stating that this is widely used. Theere is no requirement that I should go through the 2 million Google hits for liberal democracy.Ultramarine 20:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Massive deletions

Please explain the massive unexplained deletions here, including the maps, and the sourced definition of liberal democracy previously agreed on above. [23]Ultramarine 04:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This map reflects the findings of Freedom House's survey Freedom in the World 2006, concerning the state of world freedom in 2005.      Free. Freedom House considers these states to be liberal democracies.      Partly Free      Not Free
This map reflects the findings of Freedom House's survey Freedom in the World 2006, concerning the state of world freedom in 2005.      Free. Freedom House considers these states to be liberal democracies.      Partly Free      Not Free
This graph shows the number of nations in the different categories given above for the period for which there are surveys, 1972-2005
This graph shows the number of nations in the different categories given above for the period for which there are surveys, 1972-2005
Countries highlighted in blue are designated "Electoral Democracies" in Freedom House's 2006 survey Freedom in the World.
Countries highlighted in blue are designated "Electoral Democracies" in Freedom House's 2006 survey Freedom in the World.
Since World War II, democracy has gained widespread acceptance. This map shows the official claims made by world governments with regard to democracy, as of June 2006.      Governments that claim to be democratic and allow the existence of opposition groups, at least in theory.      Governments that claim to be democratic but do not allow the existence of opposition groups.      Governments that do not claim to be democratic.
Since World War II, democracy has gained widespread acceptance. This map shows the official claims made by world governments with regard to democracy, as of June 2006.      Governments that claim to be democratic and allow the existence of opposition groups, at least in theory.      Governments that claim to be democratic but do not allow the existence of opposition groups.      Governments that do not claim to be democratic.

i know that this page is very important for some people but i would refer them to theWikipedia:Ownership of articles page and also tell them to relax and have a cup of tea.

after trying to come to a consensus with some people it seems such a thing is impossible and there is no middle ground here... this article specially the central parts of it seem to stay a certain way... which i find quite poor... now i don't care if anything on this page is written by me or not, people should come and MERCILESSLY EDIT everything but i see that people are getting bitten and the owners are wikilawyering: "don't delete referenced work" and many good knowledgable people would be scared off by that thinking these people know the rules etc...

my mission is to lift the hegemony of such folk, if they back off and let others come along and make some edits (not me) i will also back off. It is better to have a poorly written article by many people in goodfaith than to have a so-so article that one person has taken hostage.

if people are ready to compromise or better yet abandon the article I shall do the same.

let us have peace...

)

Esmehwk 04:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So you just deleted references and maps as some sort of protest? That is not acceptable. Give concrete explanations for your deletions.Ultramarine 04:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


i have so have others but this page is just so darn edit proof its amazing. i just want some reasonable people to come and have a look at the page and edit it i don't care if everything i've written is taken off as long as the content is editable! Esmehwk 05:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As noted above in the discussion on the definition of liberal democracy we agreed on a sourced definition after a discussion. You deleted this without explanation. If you disagree on something in the article, discuss it here. Just deleting large parts of the article as revenge when you do not get what you want it is not constructive and unfortunately just looks bad.Ultramarine 05:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

the liberal definition was not very good i trimmed the one on the liberal democracy article and put it up.. it correctly and succinctly define what liberal dem is.Esmehwk 05:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You deleted a sourced definition that had been agreed on after a discussion and instead inserted your personal opinion. Not acceptable.Ultramarine 05:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

your source was just some guy and freedom house this definition is what's on wikipedia you can be sure its been accepted by many people. besides calm down, the only person who can say "Not acceptable" is Jimmy Wales and even then maybe... you should understand this article is not yours... the more you try to control what happens here the more people will try to stop you.. basically: let your work go. this is not the place for egos.. take the page off your watch list and have a cup of tea call up your friends whatever... i hope you take my advise.Esmehwk 05:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

My sources showed how liberal democracy is used by professionals. You have given your personal opinion. Read Wikipedia:Verifiability.Ultramarine 05:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

ok lets have a proper discussion here are my postions:

  • the definition i've put up either stay there(source: Ian robertsons sociology... bla bla) or someone come up with another definition from some other respectable source and put that up the old definitino was very poor and this is an important page.
  • there be a clear division of democracy onto its two forms dir&rep.
  • the communist states example should go into history part
  • next to the liberal democracy entry there should be ONE of the freedom house maps and if someone finds a similar map which is on democracy not "freedom" that is even better.
  • liberal democracy is a subdivision of representative democracy and should be put in some other way so as not to give the impression it is part of types of democracy.
  • its types not kinds of democracy
  • the rest of the maps should be in the history section
  • LET OTHER PEOPLE EDIT!

Esmehwk 05:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If you use proper citation for your defintion in the article, then that is of course better than none. Restore you unexplained deletions and edit to show what your prefered version looks like.Ultramarine 05:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

let it go man, your taking it all too seriously, let other people fix it up if they think its worth it, work on something else for a while...

my preferred versions (worst to best)

  • version controlled by you
  • the one up now
  • the one that if the two of us worked really hard we could put up
  • the version drono would put up if you let him do his thing
  • the version some passing political science expert might write up in 30 minutes if you didn't bite him to protect your masterpeice...

let the page go! you're obviously not an expert so back off! Esmehwk 06:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Discuss using factual arguments instead of ad hominem. Again, restore you unexplained deletions and edit to show what your prefered version looks like. Mass deletions of sourced maps and graphs, apparently as some sort of revenge for not getting what you want, is not acceptable.Ultramarine 06:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

i am not attacking you. i just wanted the page to be influenced by other people. I think it is very unhealthy for any one person to have too much interest in any article on wikipedia, i honestly wish someone would come along and redo the article and even change my entries.. i'm sorry if i've offended you but i felt i needed to be very direct in opposing your control.. many people have had objections to the material that you've put up but those objections haven't been addressed.. my point is i don't want one person to have a disproportional influence just because they are being agressive, it's not about the content i don't care about "getting what i want" i don't care about my edits being up there i just want greater openness... now if you want to be fair you should accept this and stop being aggressive. again i'm sorry if you were offended. Esmehwk 11:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have created only one of these charts. More ad hominem. Try to discuss the facts, not the persons. Ultramarine 13:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

the reason i'm not arguing on the issues is because they have been braught up before again and again by different people and their objections just lead to pages and pages of arguments on simple logical edits like "communist states don't belong in types of democracy" which eventually end up as an endurance match on who can waste the most time... at some point i just have to stop arguing and make the edits or get other people to come and contribute. Esmehwk 00:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

fine here is a focus on an issue: the maps and charts are all sourced from one website who's neutrality is not universally accepted and because of their focus on recent geopolitical phenomena they skew the articles balance this is not an article on who is "free" according to freedom house this is about the academic definition and historical context of democracy...

Freedom House is widely used by political scientists. They are a significant view. You can add your own, if you have a good source. But do not delete views you do not like.Ultramarine 00:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:NPOV. You cannot exclude significant views because you do not like them personally. Add your sourced views instead.Ultramarine 01:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

i've put them up do you have objections to the format and content of what is up there now? Esmehwk 01:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

i DO agree with the freedom house's views, completely, i was just saying they shouldn't dominate the article.Esmehwk 01:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I have made some adjustments.Ultramarine 05:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

ultramarine, I do not agree with your reverting the article according to your taste (again) i have asked for mediation. I ask you again to stop trying to own this article and allow other people to edit.Esmehwk 10:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

as stated above by others freedom house does not say free = liberal democracy. also as it seems that mediation will be a long time coming i am going to put up the other version so that i can get some feedback on it from reasonable people, as your version has been up for a long time and due to its high quality does not require any editing. Esmehwk 11:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not reverted to the prior version. As noted above, Freedom House is widely used by political scientists for measuring dmeocracy.Ultramarine 15:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Modern Day Context

Could someone please go to the history page... look at the article that was up before ultramarine reverted it and give me some feed back specially if you can think of a better name for the "Modern Day Context" header. thank youEsmehwk 10:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Liberal democracy is gets more google hits than Representative democracy and Direct democracy and is used by political scientists as ntoed in the references in the text. It is the term to use, no need for original research.Ultramarine 15:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation.

Hi, can I ask if both main parties (and any lesser) are happy to have a mediator? Dev920 21:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me.Ultramarine 21:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to wait for a response from Esmehwk before doing anything else, so I have to leave this til tomorrow. (it's very late in my timezone).
If both of you could summarise what you both consider to have happened on this page, I would be grateful.Dev920 22:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion: ultramarine has taken ownership of this article and refuses to allow others to edit.. on top of this his understanding of the topic is lacking.. many users have attempted to improve the article but he has blocked their attempts, the discussion page is all the evidence you need. if users don't stand up to people like ultramarine WP is doomed. please read the discussion pages and get more people to focus on this article. thank you.Esmehwk 22:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately it seems that Esmehwk just want me banned from the article which I of course oppose. Now this is a controversial area where many people have their own thoughs about what "democracy" really is. Exactly because of this it is important that we follow the usual policies: NPOV, Verifiability, and No original research. I have certainly not opposed anyone using those principles. For example, I had a discussion with Drono and we agreed to change to a sourced definition for liberal democracy. Note also that the article is the work of numerous editors, certainly not me only. I think that Esmehwk has made several good changes. Unfortunately, Esmehwk sometimes gives no sources for his text which is thus his original reserach. This has lead to the current conflict.Ultramarine 00:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"democracy is literally..." thats original research ha? when you write about a concept you first say what it is, a dog is an animal the conflict is about style and layout and the uninformed way you put things forward if your influence matched your ability or understanding i wouldn't even notice your work its the undeserved control i'm against.Esmehwk 00:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


refering to "sources" over and over again doesn't make your version of the article anymore understandable to usersEsmehwk 00:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built on using sources, not on personal opinions. It is an encyclopedia, not the place to write a personal essay. Democray literaly means rule by the people. That is not disputed by anyone. Why are you deleting the sourced definition of liberal democracy and the sourced statements regarding Freedom House? Also note the Liberal democracy gets about double as many Google hits as Direct democracy and Representative democracy. It is also the accepted term among scholars for the current democratic system in most developed nations. Thus, it should be clearly stated, not hidden under "Modern day context".Ultramarine 00:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


You know What? I give up. ultramarine wins. do whatever you want. I don't care anymore. I withdraw my request for mediation. unless there is some way to stop aggresive control freaks ruining WP helping is just a waste of time. great work ultramarine you've pushed another contributor out.Esmehwk 00:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

As noted, I thought that you have made many good contributions. If you just started to use sources more and accept them, we cold together continue to improve the article. Looking at edits, the differences between our versions are not many.Ultramarine 00:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Start over

I have read the discussion above, and what you have written. There is mudslinging on BOTH sides. You are both riling each other, and this isn't doing the article any good. I've noticed in the edit history that Esme does not regularly use edit summaries, and Ultramarine does not fully explain his edits on the talkpage, saying his work is sourced when it isn't (as far as I can establish through reviewing the first few edits). As a mediator, I am here to work between you two to help you to settle your differences and work towards a better article. Can I suggest you start over, by explaining with an example, what it is that you find the other editor does that you have to revert? Don't deal in acrimony, deal in hard evidence. Dev920 12:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Here are sources for definition of liberal democracy: [24] [25]. Regarding that Freedom House is widely used by researchers: [26]Ultramarine 20:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Closing

I am closing this mediation as Esmehwk seems to have left Wikipedia. Dev920 22:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Republicanism

Republicanism is a central concept in political theory that is related to democracy--but is not the same, as the new section explains. Rjensen 05:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC) "Democracy and Republicanism

"Republicanism was a separate political theory that originated in classical history and became important in early modern Europe, It became especially important as a cause of the American Revolution and the French Revolution in the 1770s and 1790s. Although conceptually separate from democracy, it included the key principles of rule by the consent of the governed and sovereignty of the people. In effect republicanism meant that the kings and aristocracies were not the real rulers, but rather the people as a whole were. Exactly how the people were to rule was an issue of democracy. In the United States the solution was the creation of political parties that were popularly based on the votes of the people, and which controlled the government. See [[Republicanism in the United States"
This is not very clear. Republic and Republicanism have numerous different meanings Which one are you thinking about and how it is different from democracy? If you are thinking that it means that the people rule, then that is the same as democracy. It you mean general opposition to monarchy, then this should be stated. If you mean support for rule of law, even under a constitutional monarch, then that should be clarified. If you mean the presence of a constitution and the protection of liberties, then this meaning is already stated in the article.Ultramarine 06:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Republicanism is very well defined in its own article, as well as the many redferences cited there (and see Appleby and Wood especially-- for Europe look at[27] ). I added some material to contrast the versions by Jefferson versus Hamilton, with Jefferson the democrat and Hamilton the elitist. Careful that democracy not be stretched too far. Republicanism stresses the values of the system, esp civic virtue and opposition to corruption, while democracy stresses the process of decision making.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/m/Talk%7EDemocracy_Archive_9_8543.html"